View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Teacher-Coaching Intervention: A Pilot Study Aimed at Supporting Classroom Climate and Student Development

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Teacher-Coaching Intervention: A Pilot Study Aimed at Supporting Classroom Climate and Student Development
Language: English
Authors: Carina Wikman (ORCID 0000-0003-2758-1784), Mara Westling Allodi (ORCID 0000-0003-2396-4710), Laura Ferrer-Wreder (ORCID 0000-0003-0703-2614)
Source: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2025 69(5):1063-1079.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Faculty Development, Coaching (Performance), Intervention, Elementary School Teachers, Classroom Techniques, Classroom Environment, Self Concept, Prosocial Behavior, Well Being, Comparative Analysis, Elementary School Students, Pilot Projects, Self Evaluation (Individuals), Classroom Observation Techniques, Foreign Countries, Academic Achievement, Program Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: Sweden
DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2024.2369893
ISSN: 0031-3831
1470-1170
Abstract: This pilot study examined the utility of a practice-based coaching (PBC) intervention in Swedish elementary schools designed to support the classroom climate and benefit students. The intervention involved activities, self-assessment, observation, and coaching to the teachers, with the aim of improving the classroom climate and students' self-concept, prosocial behavior, well-being, and academic achievement. The design was a cluster randomized trial with the school as the assignment unit. Participants in the intervention were 66 students in four classes, and in the control, four classes with 77 students. The duration of the intervention was five months. An autoregressive structural equation model was estimated. The correlations between the latent variables at pre-test ranged from low to high. There were significant standardized path coefficients concerning all the latent variables pre- and post-test. The estimates of the intervention at the post-test were non-significant. The results suggested a longer duration of the intervention with more frequent coaching sessions, which may enhance its effect.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1475163
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGIJXiCAWNi3A4gL_UPnU8zAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEo0nX4EAX_5NDvT1gIBEICBm9cWIiNQGVbyRJKYoxxevrgxsMWY3uQVzYnUWala-6lxHC8iy53aSJ_AoEelSkB8-jrlN_o9QbHg0Uo3XiIuI_sYa1gq70DZXGo8Y9Cgde8eQVPccspV2SfYxBE7aQv73pMIujGAPnTDn3swuk9xxMS4KO0GLF2ei7K-y5mEFNsIzKkz7R1Sjl4CQNDvdaC1uaH44JhJENBfAf_q
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186106693;55b01aug.25;2025Jun25.03:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186106693-1">A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a teacher-coaching intervention: a pilot study aimed at supporting classroom climate and student development </title> <p>This pilot study examined the utility of a practice-based coaching (PBC) intervention in Swedish elementary schools designed to support the classroom climate and benefit students. The intervention involved activities, self-assessment, observation, and coaching to the teachers, with the aim of improving the classroom climate and students' self-concept, prosocial behavior, well-being, and academic achievement. The design was a cluster randomized trial with the school as the assignment unit. Participants in the intervention were 66 students in four classes, and in the control, four classes with 77 students. The duration of the intervention was five months. An autoregressive structural equation model was estimated. The correlations between the latent variables at pre-test ranged from low to high. There were significant standardized path coefficients concerning all the latent variables pre- and post-test. The estimates of the intervention at the post-test were non-significant. The results suggested a longer duration of the intervention with more frequent coaching sessions, which may enhance its effect.</p> <p>Keywords: classroom climate; social climate; social-emotional learning; whole child approach; self-concept; prosocial behaviors; well-being; academic achievement; intervention; practice-based coaching; elementary school</p> <p>There are links between school climate and positive behavioral and academic outcomes in students (Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref1">58</reflink>]). Therefore, the school climate has become a focal point for interventions (Shindler et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref2">50</reflink>]). The classroom climate is embedded in the school climate and is the psychosocial aspect of the classroom. For the students, the classroom is one of the main contexts in which they develop and learn (Ginner Hau et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]; SOU, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref4">53</reflink>]). A positive classroom climate benefits all students but is especially important for children with special educational needs (Kiuru et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref5">30</reflink>]; Pakarinen et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref6">41</reflink>]). Depending on the relationships and dynamics within the classroom, students' learning and development may be facilitated or inhibited (Kiuru et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]; Pakarinen et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref8">41</reflink>]). According to Milkie and Warner ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>]), an adverse classroom learning environment was associated with more emotional and behavioral issues in children. Psychosocial support in the learning environment can contribute to the prevention of mental distress, according to a systematic review of mental health in learning (Gustafsson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]). As stated in a report by the Swedish government (SOU, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref11">53</reflink>]: [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref12">53</reflink>]), functioning environments with positive relationships are protective factors for mental health and well-being.</p> <p>As revealed in SOU ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref13">53</reflink>]), there is uncertainty in many schools about how to evaluate and improve the classroom climate. This concern can result in a misattribution of problems as student-centered rather than a function of the learning environment (SOU, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref14">53</reflink>]). Based on national (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref15">56</reflink>]) and international evaluations (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref16">40</reflink>]; PISA, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref17">45</reflink>]), indicators of the disciplinary climate in Swedish schools have been reported as non-optimal (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref18">40</reflink>]), suggesting that a concern exists regarding teacher leadership and social climate. However, the concern and efforts to improve the classroom climate may be weakened when they are regarded as conflicting with the academic achievement goal (Allodi, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]). The use of assessment instruments as tools for professional development and educational quality enhancement is established internationally. Various instruments have been developed and are used both in research and in practice: the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, ECERS (Harms et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]), the Inclusive Classroom Profile, ICP (Soukakou, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref21">54</reflink>]), the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, CLASS (Hamre et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>]), the Communication Skills Attitude Scale, CSAS (Fabiano et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>]), the Autism Program Environment Rating Scale, APERS (Fallon et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]; Odom et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]) with diverse purposes.</p> <p>In the Swedish context, the uses of these tools and related interventions are not yet well established and widespread, even though some limited use (e.g., Bejnö et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]; Lundqvist & Larsdotter Bodin, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref27">35</reflink>]) has shown that teachers seem willing to adopt these practices. Consistent with this line of research, this pilot study investigated whether systematic actions promoting the social climate in elementary school classrooms could improve young children's social, behavioral, and academic development.</p> <p>The present intervention aimed to explore ways to improve the classroom climate. As a starting point, the intervention adopted a contextual approach, and teachers were the intervention facilitators. Students' success was hypothesized to be improved through a change in teaching that, in turn, would support other changes conducive to improving the classroom climate.</p> <p>The tested intervention was based on an evidence-based framework PBC. The PBC framework comprises three key components: shared goals and action planning informed by a needs assessment; focused observation and reflection; and feedback (Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref28">51</reflink>]). These components are associated with changes in teacher practices and student outcomes (Shannon et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref29">49</reflink>]). Moreover, studies have demonstrated that PBC can support early childhood practitioners in implementing and maintaining effective teaching practices in inclusive and special educational settings (Hemmeter et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]; McLeod et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]; Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref32">51</reflink>]; Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref33">52</reflink>]). PBC has also been an effective tool for teachers when implementing social-emotional practices (Artman-Meeker et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]; Fox et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]; Hemmeter et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref36">26</reflink>]). The intervention in the present study builds on the following components: <emph>a needs assessment</emph>, which is conducted with the teacher self-assessment instrument Goals, Attitudes, and Values in School, GAVIS (Allodi, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>]); <emph>observations</emph>, which is assessed by the CLASS (Hamre et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]); and coaching, in the form of strength-based <emph>professional conversations</emph> between a coach and a teacher to identify challenges and successes in teaching practices gathered from the observations.</p> <p>This intervention is novel in Sweden, and the present study was a pilot, with the intention of assessing whether the intervention showed initial intended benefits and promise in terms of implementation (including acceptability with implementers) prior to launching a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT).</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-2">Prior research on improving the classroom climate</hd> <p>Previous classroom climate research has primarily focused on measurement and theory, while few studies have examined interventions intended to improve the classroom climate (Ginner Hau et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref39">20</reflink>]). An example of an intervention study is Borgen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]), where the effects of an intervention, the School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Model, were evaluated. Longitudinal register data for all Norwegian primary schools were used. By improving the learning environment, the intervention was expected to impact behavior, school well-being, and academic achievement (Borgen et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]). The results positively affected the learning environment (Borgen et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another illustrative example of the classroom climate intervention research literature is the Happy Classroom Program, which aims to enhance personal and social development and happiness (Lombas et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref43">34</reflink>]). The intervention was conducted in Spain on adolescent students (N = 524), with a mean age of 13.6. The results demonstrated that the intervention was associated with an improved classroom climate and psychological well-being (Lombas et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref44">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-3">Coaching interventions in the Swedish context</hd> <p>The development of the quality of the learning environment and, more precisely, of the classroom climate can be viewed as a task that pertains to school development and is related to establishing and maintaining high-quality, inclusive education. In the Swedish context, special educators might carry out this task by providing support through observations, feedback, and coaching to teachers who wish to adopt new methods and strategies. The coaching role in professional development and inclusive education is well documented internationally (Shannon et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref45">49</reflink>]; Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref46">52</reflink>]) and has been applied in Sweden (Bejnö et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]; Gladh et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]) and also in studies where special educators were coaches to teachers, as a way to encourage the implementation of evidence-based methods (Riad et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]). The coaching can be offered to teachers individually or in teams/groups (Artman-Meeker et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref50">10</reflink>]). In designing this coaching intervention, we considered that the teachers should not perceive the activity as a burden. Therefore, we designed a coaching intervention with limited time requirements for meetings, which we supposed could be acceptable for the teachers and should not consistently reduce their time for regular teaching planning. Thus, the intervention tested was designed to be feasible with the possibility that special educators in a Swedish context or other professionals could serve as coaches if the intervention showed promise in this trial.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-4">Study aim</hd> <p>The present study aimed to examine the short-term effects of a PBC intervention. This intervention focused on introducing activities, self-assessment, observation, and coaching. Furthermore, the intervention aimed to beneficially change the social climate in classrooms, which in turn was hypothesized to lead to benefits in terms of improved students' self-concept, prosocial behavior, well-being, and academic achievement (see Figure 1). Intervention implementation was also reflected on, as described in this article. The research questions were focused on a preliminary investigation of intervention-related change on theoretically essential outcomes.</p> <p>DIAGRAM: Figure 1. CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram student participants.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-5">Research questions</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is the intervention associated with pre- to post-test improvements in students' self-concept, prosocial behavior, well-being, and academic achievement in core subjects compared to students in the control schools?</item> <p></p> <item> Is the intervention associated with pre- to post-test improvements in the classroom climate in the intervention schools compared to the classroom climate in the control schools?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186106693-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186106693-7">Design</hd> <p>A cluster randomized control trial was designed with individual schools as units of assignment (see flow chart diagram, Figure 1). Schools were randomly assigned to either an intervention- or waiting list control condition. Prior to enrollment, the allocation was concealed in order to prevent selection bias. According to the school-level allocation, 66 s-graders in two schools participated in the intervention group, while 77 s-graders in two schools participated in the control group. There was a total of four schools participating in this trial, each with two classrooms per school. The teacher allocation ratio was 1:1, with four teachers per study condition.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-8">Participants</hd> <p>Eligibility criteria for participants and clusters (i.e., classrooms embedded in allocated schools) were that the schools were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) municipal primary schools, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) had second-grade classrooms. Further criteria were that participating teachers were certified teachers. Schools that met the eligibility criteria were invited to participate in the study. Four schools were recruited based on convenience sampling. Within each school, two second-grade classes participated, for a total of eight classes (see flow chart diagram, Figure 1).</p> <p>At the child level, the participants were 143 children: 74 girls (<emph>M</emph> age = 8.33 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.34 years) and 69 boys (<emph>M</emph> age = 8.31 years, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.35 years). We planned to model student outcomes as potentially responsive to the social climate in the learning environment and the intervention; teachers were considered intervention facilitators and study participants. There was one teacher participant per class, and a total of eight teachers participated in this study. Recruited schools were located in two commuting (suburban) municipalities and one large city in Sweden (see descriptive statistics of demographics in Table A1, Appendix).</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-9">Study settings</hd> <p>The pre-and post-assessments (T1 and T4) of self-concept, well-being at school, math test, and literacy test took place during regular school hours in children's classrooms. Children rated their self-concept and well-being. Academic skills were measured with child performance tasks in reading comprehension and math. The questions were read aloud to participating students (as a group), and they completed the questionnaires and tests individually, with guided support as needed from a researcher.</p> <p>The school teachers provided ratings of the participating children's prosocial school behaviors and the social climate of their classrooms (i.e., GAVIS; Allodi, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]). In the intervention schools, classroom observations were conducted by the same researcher during regular school hours using the CLASS instrument (Hamre et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-10">Intervention</hd> <p>The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines extension for clustered RCT were followed for reporting the intervention results (Schulz et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref55">48</reflink>]). The unit of allocation and analysis was at the cluster level. The intervention was five months (see timeframe in Table 1). It consisted of three key components: action planning, observation, and professional conversation (see Table 2) according to the PBC model (Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref56">51</reflink>]). The total intervention time the main researcher spent with teachers engaging in intervention activities was 360 min. The observation time was 120 minutes in total.</p> <p>Table 1. Timeframe for intervention and pre- and post-data collection.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Oct-Nov 2019</td><td>Oct-Dec 2019</td><td>Mar-May 2020</td><td>May 2020</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T1</td><td>T2</td><td>T3</td><td>T4</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-data collection</td><td>Intervention</td><td>Intervention</td><td>Post-data collection</td></tr><tr><td>UMESOL ESBA HIFAMS DLS-base LUKIMAT</td><td>GAVIS, 90 min CLASS, 60 min COACHING, 90 min Control GAVIS</td><td>GAVIS, 90 min CLASS, 60 min COACHING, 90 min Control GAVIS</td><td>UMESOL ESBA HIFAMS DLS-base LUKIMAT Intervention GAVIS</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Overview of the PBC-components.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Component 1: Action planning</td><td>Component 2: Observation</td><td>Component 3: Professional conversation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Reflecting on the social climate in the learning environment and assessment by GAVIS.</td><td>Observing with the CLASS instrument.</td><td>Discussing and reflecting on teacher practices gathered from GAVIS and CLASS instruments.</td></tr><tr><td>Choose a domain and create an action plan.</td><td>Video-recording information general and on the chosen domain.</td><td>"See and support" implementation concerning general practice and chosen domain.</td></tr><tr><td>Coaching partnership between teacher-researcher</td><td /><td>Sharing strength-based feedback and providing supportive information.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Action planning: Teachers in the intervention group assessed the social climate in their classroom with the GAVIS self-assessment instrument at a total of two time points (T2-T3) distributed between October and May. The time frame between (T2) and (T3) was five months (see Table 1). The dosage time for action planning was 180 minutes in total. Based on needs assessment information at the two time points (T2 and T3), teachers in the intervention group worked in pairs to choose a domain in one of the dimensions of the GAVIS model. For example, one pair of teachers changed the dimension of participation. There were a number of children in these classes who did not participate very actively in group activities. The teachers were concerned that these students did not feel accepted or valued in the group. In order to engage all students in daily activities with their classmates, teachers aimed to engage them in daily activities.</p> <p>Furthermore, the teachers planned an action to change the chosen domain. Cooperative learning was selected in this example. Students were divided into groups of three students each. A variety of roles were assigned to the children, including secretary, chairperson, and thinker. The students were expected to collaborate within their roles whenever the teacher presented a question or assignment.</p> <p>During the action planning component, the teachers could ask the researcher if they were uncertain about how to proceed. At T4, intervention teachers evaluated their social climate with GAVIS independently. Teachers in the control group assessed their social climate at T2 and T3 with the GAVIS self-assessment instrument independently, without the researcher's presence.</p> <p>Observations were conducted at two time points and assessed with the CLASS instrument: (T2-T3) in four intervention classrooms. The observation dosage was two sessions between October and May, with a total recording time of 120 minutes. The researcher collected information on classroom practices by observing and recording during regular school hours. The four control classrooms were not observed.</p> <p>Professional conversations occurred at two time points (T2) in Oct-Dec and (T3) in March-May, with intervention teachers, one-to-one with the researcher. The time frame between these sessions was five months. The dosage was 180 minutes. This key component focused on the information about teaching practices in general at T2 gathered from the GAVIS and the CLASS instruments to identify challenges and successes and to share feedback about teaching practices (Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref57">51</reflink>]). CLASS focused teachers' attention on emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support as they interact with students. Based on strengths, the feedback provided was constructive and informative (Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>]). Since time had passed since the T2 session, at T3, attention was also placed on the GAVIS domain that teachers sought to change.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-11">Outcomes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186106693-12">Teacher -Assessment instrument GAVIS: classroom climate</hd> <p>GAVIS (Allodi, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref59">4</reflink>]) consists of ten dimensions that describe the social climate in the learning environment, perceived as created through relationships between teachers and students and among students. These dimensions are linked to positive student outcomes: <emph>Creativity:</emph> The learning environment allows creative production and free expression with various media. <emph>Stimulation:</emph> Achieved through participation in activities that provide satisfaction, like play, laughter, and breaks. It can also be about positive emotions and enthusiastic and engaging teaching. <emph>Achievement:</emph> Relates to an environment where there is the opportunity to develop abilities and skills as far as possible. <emph>Efficacy:</emph> As a consequence of teachers' belief in the student's ability to learn and support learning processes, students develop self-efficacy. <emph>Safety:</emph> Teachers care about each student and want to protect them from insecure situations through appropriate structures and procedures. <emph>Control:</emph> The teacher's order and supervision of student interaction and work. Rules are introduced, respected, and followed to promote well-being and participation. <emph>Helpfulness:</emph> Denotes environments with cooperation, support, and friendly relationships between students and teachers and between students. <emph>Participation:</emph> Each student feels that he or she belongs and is a valued group member. <emph>Responsibility:</emph> Students are encouraged to take responsibility for important tasks. <emph>Influence:</emph> The student's opportunity to be listened to and to express opinions. Influence must be continuous, and all voices must be given space (Allodi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref60">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>The GAVIS questionnaire has five items per dimension (described above) and is a 50-item teacher-reported instrument. GAVIS is assessed on a Likert scale that ranges from (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>) great challenge, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>) development opportunities, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>) strength. The social climate score is derived by summing all items on each dimension, with a maximum score per dimension of 25 and a total score of 250.</p> <p>GAVIS (Allodi, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>]) was developed in Sweden from the conceptual model of the classroom climate and empirically by analysis of students' narratives about their experiences of the school climate. Further studies have operationalized GAVIS as a student questionnaire (Allodi, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>]). Several smaller studies have piloted the teacher self-assessment questionnaire (Allodi et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref66">8</reflink>];Allodi et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>]). The GAVIS classroom observation protocol is being developed (Ginner Hau et al., 2022; Westling Allodi & Ringer, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref68">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the current study, teachers assigned to the intervention and the control groups evaluated the social climate in the learning environment with GAVIS (<emph>n = </emph>8). Teachers assigned to the intervention group (<emph>n = </emph>4) received support from the researcher during the evaluation and the process of creating an action plan. Teachers working in pairs in the same school received the evaluation results and decided what dimension they wanted to change and an action to implement the change. An example is a pair of teachers who chose <emph>participation</emph> and the action of introducing cooperative learning. This action involves structuring classes in small groups to work together with the intention that every student should participate and be encouraged to contribute and take responsibility. Teachers, working in pairs, were free to choose the dimension.</p> <p>In the present study, descriptive statistics of the GAVIS instrument are reported in Table A2, Appendix A. The total average score's Cronbach's alpha on the pre-test was 0.78, and the mean score on the items ranged from 14.50 to 20.75 (<emph>SD = </emph>4.11– 4.06).</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-13">Observational instrument CLASS: classroom environment</hd> <p>CLASS (Hamre et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref69">24</reflink>]) measures the classroom environment by focusing on interactions between teachers and students as the primary mechanism of student learning and development (Hamre & Pianta, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref70">23</reflink>]). The instrument comprises three primary domains and ten dimensions, which are linked to positive student outcomes: Emotional Domain = Dimensions of Positive Climate, Negative Climate, Teacher Sensitivity, and Regard for Students' Perspectives; Classroom Management Domain = Dimensions of Behavior Management, Productivity, and Instructional Learning Formats; Instructional Domain = Concept Development, Quality of Feedback, and Language Modeling. Each dimension is assessed on a seven-point Likert scale, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>, 2) low, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>, 4, 5) mid, and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref73">6</reflink>, 7) high. The average score for every domain is calculated. The average score for Negative Climate is reversed; to reverse the score, the average NC score is subtracted from 8. The maximum score is 70 (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref74">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Emotional Domain emphasizes the levels of positive or negative interactions, the teacher's awareness of students' emotional and academic needs, and the focus on students' autonomy. The Classroom Management Domain assesses the teacher's ability to manage student behavior proactively, effectively use time, and maintain the student's interest. The Instructional Domain evaluates teachers' ability to use thinking skills, provide feedback effectively, and promote language development (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref75">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Raters can observe for one to six cycles. Every cycle comprises 20 minutes of observation time (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref76">43</reflink>]). In the present study, each classroom was observed for three cycles, pre- and post-observation, by a researcher trained to rate classrooms. This researcher attended a two-day workshop on the CLASS system and passed a reliability test within one point of the master-coded tapes on 80% of scores across five video films. The researcher passed this test regularly every year to renew the certification.</p> <p>The current study focuses on the K-3 version, i.e., preschool through third-grade classrooms (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref77">43</reflink>]). In past research with CLASS, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for the domains were: 0.77 emotional support, 0.82 classroom organization, and 0.73 instructional support. The ICC for the dimensions ranged from 0.64 to 0.78, except for negative climate 0.50 (Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the present study, CLASS items ranged from 2.75 to 5.83 (<emph>SD = </emph>0.96-1.11). Descriptive statistics of the instrument CLASS are reported in Table A2, Appendix A. Due to the limited number of classrooms (four classrooms in two schools), no group-based statistical analyses were conducted across the CLASS assessment instrument.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-14">Self-concept: child report</hd> <p>UMESOL, an index of a child's self-concept (Taube et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref79">57</reflink>]), comprises 20 child-rated items. Items concern confidence in one's capability to cope with peer relations and schoolwork. UMESOL is assessed on a two-point Likert scale: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>) for positive self-concept and (0) for negative self-concept. In past research with UMESOL, the mean sum score was 16.34 (<emph>SD = </emph>2.54), and the reported split-half reliability was 0.49 (Taube et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref81">57</reflink>]). The present study's mean sum score was 12.13 (<emph>SD </emph>= 2.79), and split-half reliability was 0.72. The instrument's factor structure was tested with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with self-concept as a latent variable. Following the parceling technique mapped by Little et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref82">33</reflink>]), the 11 items with the highest factor loading were randomly divided into parcels: a_selfp1, a_selfp2, and a_selfp3. The three self-concept parcels were positively and moderately correlated with each other (<emph>r</emph> > 0.33). For further information, see Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref83">62</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-15">Prosocial school behaviors: teacher-rated</hd> <p>The Elementary Social Behavior Assessment (ESBA, Pennefather & Smolkowski, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref84">42</reflink>]) is a teacher-rated index of prosocial behaviors at school. The ESBA is a 12-item instrument rated on a three-point Likert scale, with low scores indicating less than typical behavior and high scores indicating more prosocial behavior. Past research with ESBA reported high internal reliability, Cronbach's α = 0.94 (Pennefather & Smolkowski, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the present study, the total average score's Cronbach's alpha was 0.92, and the mean score on the items ranged from 2.2 to 2.9. A latent variable for prosocial behavior was created by parceling. The 12 items of the test were built with means and randomly divided into parcels: a_socp1, a_socp2, and a_socp3. The total average score showed excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.94). The latent factor <emph>prosocial behavior</emph> demonstrated that the items a_socp1 – a_socp2 were positively and highly correlated (<emph>r</emph> > 0.83). For further information, see Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref86">62</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-16">Well-being: child report</hd> <p>"How I Feel about My School" (HIFAMS, Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>]; Ford, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]) is a child-rated instrument of subjective well-being at school. The HIFAMS is a seven-item instrument rated on a three-point Likert scale. The students respond by choosing an emoticon with the appropriate emotions: sad (0), OK (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>), and happy (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref90">2</reflink>). Higher scores reflect greater well-being. The total score is the sum of the items on this scale (scores ranging from 0 to 14). In prior research, the mean sum score ranged between 10.7 (<emph>SD</emph> 2.6) and 11.1 (<emph>SD</emph> 2.4), and Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.62 to 0.67, see e. g. (Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>]). In the present study, the total average score demonstrated moderate internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.76). The average sum score was 11.4 (<emph>SD</emph> 2.0). A latent variable for well-being was created by parceling. The seven items of the test were composed of the means and randomly assigned into parcels: a_wellp1, a_wellp2, and a_wellp3. Furthermore, the latent factor <emph>well-being</emph> showed that the items a_wellp1 – a_wellp3 were positively and moderately correlated (<emph>r</emph> > 0.57). For further information, see Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref92">62</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-17">Reading skills: child performance task</hd> <p>The DLS-base standardized diagnostic test (Järpsten & Taube, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref93">28</reflink>]) measures students' reading comprehension and fluency. The measure includes 20 sentences interwoven into a small story. The reading time was five minutes for children in second grade. The total possible score was 20. The internal reliability of the reading skills construct (parcels) calculated with Guttman's split-half coefficient (Field, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref94">17</reflink>]) was 0.71. A latent variable for reading skills was created by parceling. Four parcels, Lt1-Lt4, were built with the means of five items for every parcel. The latent variable <emph>reading</emph> indicated that the items a_lt1-a_lt4 were positively and moderately correlated (<emph>r</emph> > 0.24). For further information, see Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref95">62</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-18">Math skills: child performance task</hd> <p>The LUKIMAT test (Koponen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref96">32</reflink>]) assesses students' skills in mathematics. The Swedish test version was used. The total score on the test is 52 points. The test is adjusted for students of this age. The test is divided into six items: assessment of which number is smallest/largest, understanding number sequences, master number symbols, counting addition, subtraction, and money (Koponen et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref97">32</reflink>]). The test was completed in 40 minutes. A latent variable for math skills was formed by parceling. The six items of the test were divided into parcels and built with means named a_ord, a_seq, a_num, a_ari, and a_mon. The fourth and fifth items conveyed one parcel, a_ari, because of their similarity (counting addition and subtraction). The total average score demonstrated good internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.83). The latent factor math showed that the items a_ord, a_seq, a_num, a_ari, and a_mon were significantly and moderately correlated (<emph>r</emph> > 0.52). For further information, see Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref98">62</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-19">Sample size</hd> <p>The number of clusters (i.e., schools) was four; the first cluster consisted of two classrooms of 24 students, the second cluster was two classrooms of 42 students, the third cluster was two classrooms of 30 students, and the fourth cluster was two classrooms of 47 students. In total, 143 students participated.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-20">Randomization</hd> <p>The allocation was concealed from the participants during enrollment. The researcher allocated the clusters to the intervention or control groups. An assignment of cluster treatment was made by flipping a coin, i.e., by chance. Written consent was obtained from teachers, students, and parents before randomization.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-21">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>The analyses were conducted with SPSS version 28.0 and Mplus version 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref99">38</reflink>]). SPSS was used to examine the univariate normality (item and scale level), item total correlations, split-half reliability, and scale reliability (Cronbach's alpha). An autoregressive measurement and structural SEM model with equivalent constraints (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref100">31</reflink>]) were examined in Mplus (Figure 2). A Maximum Likelihood with Robust Standard Errors (MLR) estimator (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref101">31</reflink>]) was used for the tested model. The missing data were estimated with Full Information Maximum Likelihood, FIML (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref102">31</reflink>]). Any changes to the tested models were guided by theory, prior research, and modification indices (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref103">14</reflink>]). In prior research, we have tested variations of the measurement models included the present analyses (Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref104">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref105">62</reflink>]), and these analyses have also informed the measurement models in the current analyses, along with theoretically informed consideration of modification indices for example for the UMESOL instrument. The determination of model fit was based on the cut-offs for several fit indices: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI, value at or greater than 0.95), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, value at or below 0.08), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR, value at or below 0.08) (see Kline, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref106">31</reflink>]). The model consisted of Parcels in the SEM model and corresponding items from the self-concept index (11 items), ESBA questionnaire (Soc 1–12), HIFAMS (Well 1–7), literacy test (Lt 1–20 items), and math test (1–52 items) (see Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref107">62</reflink>]). The parcels' measures consisted of the means of the corresponding items following the parceling technique outlined by Little et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref108">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Conceptual model of the intervention. The intervention consisting of classroom evaluations, observations, and professional conversations is hypothesized to improve the classroom climate, with indirect beneficial effects on students' outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-22">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186106693-23">Participant flow</hd> <p>For each group, there were losses for clusters and individual cluster participants (see flow chart diagram in Figure 1); 196 students were invited, and 53 students did not agree to participate.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-24">Recruitment</hd> <p>Recruitment was carried out in the spring of 2019; ten elementary schools were selected by convenience sampling, and four were enrolled (see flowchart in Figure 1). An ethics board evaluated this study. The protocol number was #2019-03058, and it was deemed not to need ethical approval.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-25">Harm</hd> <p>Participation in the study could harm teacher participants due to possible stress when being observed and a perceived increase in workload because of the planning meetings. The study took account of these circumstances, limiting the time required by the teachers for observations and additional meetings. These inconveniences to participants could be justified by the hoped-for benefits of knowledge to be gained.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-26">Baseline data</hd> <p>Baseline characteristics for the cluster and individual level (see Appendix A, Table A1).</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-27">Outcomes and estimation</hd> <p>The descriptive statistics of the instruments UMESOL, ESBA, HIFAMS, DLS-base, and LUKIMAT at pre-test with the sum scores, standard deviations, and variances, as well as the parcels and items, have been reported in Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref109">62</reflink>]. The descriptive statistics of the instruments GAVIS and CLASS are reported in Table A2. The item-total correlations and internal reliability were examined for all items at the parcel level for UMESOL, ESBA, HIFAMS, DLS-base, LUKIMAT, and GAVIS (reliabilities reported in the Measures section).</p> <p>To examine the research questions, a SEM model with five latent variables was examined pre- and post. The variables were self-concept, prosocial behaviors, well-being, reading, and math (see Figure 3). The intervention as a dummy variable and GAVIS scores were entered into this model to examine the effect. This model also provided measurement information CFAs for all latent constructs pre-test in the model.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Autoregressive structural and measurement SEM model tested with standardized estimate coefficients between observed variables (parcels) and latent variables (a_read, a_math, a_soc, a_well, and a_self), correlations between latent variables, significant standardized estimate coefficients on the latent variables pre- and post (s_read, s_math, s_soc, s_well, and s_self) and non-significant standardized estimates of the intervention. Note: read=reading, math=mathematics, soc=prosocial behavior, well= well-being, self= self-concept.</p> <p>The SEM model fit indices for the measurement and structural model tested in Figure 2 were <emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 983 and <emph>df</emph> = 652 <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. The CFI was 0.86, the RMSEA was 0.06, and the SRMR was 0.09. Due to the present study's sample size, the chi-squared value could be overestimated (Kenny & McCoach, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref110">29</reflink>]), and the RMSEA and SRMR fit measures met the cut-off values (Kline, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref111">31</reflink>]). Thus, we considered the overall model to show an acceptable fit. In terms of the measurement aspects of the model, all the factor loadings for the respective parcels of the latent constructs were significant (see Figure 2).</p> <p>The correlations between the latent variables at the pre-test ranged from low to high (between 0.04 and 0.75; Appendix A, Table A3 and A4). A high and significant correlation was found between self-concept and well-being (0.75). The indicators of social-emotional competence that included teacher-rated prosocial behaviors and students' self-concept correlated moderately and significantly (0.48). In relation to well-being, prosocial behaviors correlated moderately and significantly (0.47). Reading and math skills correlated moderately and significantly (0.52). Furthermore, there were low and significant correlations between math skills and prosocial behavior (0.29), math skills and well-being (0.23), and reading skills and prosocial behavior (0.23). The intervention was included in the model to test the intervention's effect. The results indicated significant standardized path coefficients concerning all the latent variables pre and post-test (ranging from 0.64 to 1.02; Appendix A, Table A5). The standardized estimates are reported in Table 3 and the unstandardized estimates in Table 4. The results also indicated non-significant standardized path coefficients concerning the intervention. Hence, we could not detect any observable effects of the coaching intervention on the student and classroom climate variables.</p> <p>Table 3. Standardized estimates of the estimated effect of the intervention for the intervention group on latent variables at posttest (reading, mathematics, prosocial behavior, well-being, and self-concept) with Standard Errors (SE), t-value, and <emph>p</emph>-value.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Intervention on Variables</td><td>Estimates</td><td>S.E.</td><td>Est/S.E.</td><td><italic>p</italic>-value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S_read</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">−0.89</td><td char=".">0.37</td></tr><tr><td>S_math</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">0.65</td><td char=".">0.52</td></tr><tr><td>S_soc</td><td char=".">−0.03</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">−0.48</td><td char=".">0.63</td></tr><tr><td>S_well</td><td char=".">−0.03</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">−0.37</td><td char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td>S_self</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">−0.91</td><td char=".">0.36</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Unstandardized estimates of the estimated effect of the intervention for the intervention group on latent variables at posttest (reading, mathematics, prosocial behavior, well-being, and self-concept) with Standard Errors (SE), t-value, and <emph>p</emph>-value.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Intervention on Variables</td><td>Estimates</td><td>S.E.</td><td>Est/S.E.</td><td><italic>p</italic>-value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S_read</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.89</td><td char=".">0.38</td></tr><tr><td>S_math</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.64</td><td char=".">0.52</td></tr><tr><td>S_soc</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−0.48</td><td char=".">0.63</td></tr><tr><td>S_well</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−0.37</td><td char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td>S_self</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">−0.91</td><td char=".">0.36</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186106693-28">Discussion</hd> <p>There are several possible reasons for the observed non-significant intervention-related effects shown in this trial. One reason may be that the intervention itself does not have the intended benefits and requires further refinement. The intervention as tested in this trial focused on those aspects of the intervention that were well accepted by teachers and feasible. These aspects of the intervention could be improved further to enhance the possible impact on the intended outcomes.</p> <p>Statistical power is another critical factor to consider, as there is a requirement to replicate this study with another trial encompassing additional clusters (i.e., more schools and more classrooms) to determine if the intervention can yield the intended benefits prior to a larger scale RCT. Thus, the lack of intervention main effects may indeed be a function of a lack of statistical power (at the cluster/school/classroom levels) for the analyses conducted. Further research with more schools located in areas with great diversity in community economic resources could also be important as the sampling of schools in this trial indicated that one of the three schools was likely different in terms of SES score. Thus, future research would benefit not only by including more schools for more statistical power but also by stratifying recruitment of schools so that the role of community economic resources and the moderation of intervention effects and implementation factors could be examined.</p> <p>Returning to the issue of this intervention's utility in this trial, the teachers found the intervention to be acceptable, and this can inform future implementation of this type of intervention. The strength-based feedback and supportive information about the social climate could be a reason for this. Furthermore, the teachers expressed interest in participating in a study with a longer intervention duration. An intervention with a longer duration with multiple dosages of teacher coaching could be further developed. According to Pianta et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref112">44</reflink>]), the number of coaching cycles can significantly impact the success of an intervention program.</p> <p>Establishing and maintaining a high-quality inclusive education requires the development of a positive classroom climate. In the Swedish context, special educators could offer the type of coaching support trialed in this intervention by observing, providing feedback, and coaching teachers on new methods and strategies. GAVIS is undergoing testing in elementary schools as it develops from a teacher questionnaire into an observation instrument (Westling Allodi & Ringer, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref113">59</reflink>]). Another step consists of analyses of interviews with the teachers who participated in the present study, which will facilitate the design of tailored interventions in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-29">Strengths and limitations</hd> <p>It can be regarded as strengths that the attrition was low and that the analysis allowed for an efficient imputation of missing data; moreover, the parceling approach supports reliable indicators even with small samples. The use of SEM reduces the chances of inflating Type I errors with multiple comparisons.</p> <p>However, there are a number of limitations. the outcomes examined and how they were measured in this study may be improved; with a closer alignment between changes in teaching practices and beliefs and how they connect to classroom and student-level outcomes, there is the need for increased measurement around intended changes in teachers' views and practices as a result of this intervention. Furthermore, the instruments used to collect outcome data were selected because they provided indicators of constructs of interest based on a consideration of feasibility, i.e., they were easy to answer for teachers and students. We opted for self-reports of well-being and self-concept at school in order to give weight to children's experiences of their educational setting. The measurement model of self-concept retained a smaller number of items to reach a better fit. The measurement of self-concept and well-being at young ages using self-report is considered desirable (Wikman et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref114">62</reflink>]) but is still not well established and could benefit from further psychometric development and attention.</p> <p>The teachers assessed prosocial behavior with ESBA and found the instrument acceptable, possibly due to the positive wording of the items. Still, perhaps a five-point scale could make it more sensitive to changes in students' behaviors, as Arnesen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref115">9</reflink>]) suggested. In future trials, the adoption of additional outcomes, particularly scales of students' behavior and engagement (Hojnoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref116">27</reflink>]; Ritoša et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref117">47</reflink>]), could be considered. Students' engagement in early childhood education predicts a range of positive outcomes (Gustafsson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref118">22</reflink>]). An RCT by Pianta et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref119">44</reflink>]) demonstrated indirect effects of coaching on students' engagement, while there was no effect on students' literacy (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref120">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>In future studies, student self-reports of well-being and self-concept may still be used; however, for self-concept, a shortened version with fewer items might be preferred. DLS-base and LUKIMAT were used to assess literacy and math achievement. These tests are standardized and validated and are commonly used in education. Additionally, other tests may be considered if they are more sensitive to children's growth in literacy and math skills. The present study indexed literacy through the assessment of reading comprehension, while other components of literacy could also be evaluated in future trials, such as students' self-reports of their interest in reading and writing.</p> <p>The trial could not reach the planned number of participants. The pre-test data were collected in the fall of 2019, and the intervention was carried out from the fall of 2019 until the spring of 2020, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The teachers and students on the control waiting list should have received the intervention in the fall of 2020 and spring of 2021, but this aim could not be fulfilled due to the restrictions in accessing schools introduced later during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the noted limitations, this trial's results are preliminary and await further research. Due to the sampling and scale of the trial, the results cannot be widely generalized. Based on the obtained results, we tentatively assume that an intervention with a longer duration and a higher number of coaching sessions might produce robust benefits.</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-30">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0186106693-31">Appendix A</hd> <p>Table A1. Descriptive statistics of demographics: schools, student participants, and teachers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variables</td><td>Intervention</td><td>Intervention</td><td>Control</td><td>Control</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>School</td><td>I</td><td>II</td><td>III</td><td>IV</td></tr><tr><td>Class</td><td>I and II</td><td>III and IV</td><td>V and VI</td><td>VII and VIII</td></tr><tr><td>Location</td><td>Rural</td><td>Large City</td><td>Rural</td><td>Suburban</td></tr><tr><td>No. inhabitants</td><td>21 564</td><td>962 154</td><td>21 564</td><td>112 848</td></tr><tr><td>SES-index*</td><td>75</td><td>40</td><td>54</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>F/M rate</td><td>16/8</td><td>19/23</td><td>11/19</td><td>27/20</td></tr><tr><td>Student age mean</td><td>8.2 and 8.4</td><td>8.4 and 8.4</td><td>8.2 and 8.4</td><td>8.3 and 8.3</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher's year of birth</td><td>1975 and 1974</td><td>1970 and 1983</td><td>1986 and 1976</td><td>1968 and 1982</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note. *SES index based on parents' occupation, income, and economic aid. Higher scores indicate higher poverty. The range between schools: is 20 and 596, mean is 106 (The Swedish National Agency for Education, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref121">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table A2. Descriptive statistics: N (number of teacher participants), mean sum score, standard deviation (SD), and variance for the instruments GAVIS and CLASS.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Instrument</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>Mean sum Score</td><td>SD</td><td>Variance</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GAVIS</td><td>8</td><td char=".">184.00</td><td char=".">3.16</td><td char=".">2.80</td></tr><tr><td>CLASS</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">4.59</td><td char=".">1.32</td><td char=".">3.21</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Note. GAVIS (Goals, Attitudes, and Values in School) and CLASS (Class Assessment Scoring System).</p> <p>Table A3. Standardized estimates of the structural model with the correlation between the latent variables at pre-test: reading, mathematics, prosocial behavior, well-being, and self-concept with standard errors, t-values, and <emph>p</emph>-values. Correlations range in magnitude from −1.00 to 1.00.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Latent Variables</td><td>Estimate</td><td>SE.</td><td>EST. /SE.</td><td><italic>p</italic>-Value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Read-Math</td><td char=".">0.52</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">6.35</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Read-Prosocial behavior</td><td char=".">0.23</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">2.53</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Read-Well-being</td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">1.72</td><td char=".">0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Read-Self-concept</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">0.46</td></tr><tr><td>Math-Prosocial behavior</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">2.91</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Math-Well-being</td><td char=".">0.23</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">2.29</td><td char=".">0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Math-Self-concept</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">0.76</td></tr><tr><td>Prosocial behavior-Well-being</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">6.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Prosocial behavior-Self-concept</td><td char=".">0.48</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">6.07</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being-Self-concept</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">12.11</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table A4. Unstandardized estimates of the structural model with the correlation between the latent variables at pre-test: reading, mathematics, prosocial behavior, well-being, and self-concept with standard errors, t-values, and <emph>p</emph>-values.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Latent Variables</td><td>Estimate</td><td>SE.</td><td>EST. /SE.</td><td><italic>p</italic>-Value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Read-Math</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">2.84</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Read-Prosocial behavior</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">1.97</td><td char=".">0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Read-Well-being</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">1.51</td><td char=".">0.13</td></tr><tr><td>Read-Self-concept</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.71</td><td char=".">0.48</td></tr><tr><td>Math-Prosocial behavior</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">2.58</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Math-Well-being</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">2.12</td><td char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Math-Self-concept</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">0.76</td></tr><tr><td>Prosocial behavior-Well-being</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">4.25</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Prosocial behavior-Self-concept</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">4.27</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being-Self-concept</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">5.40</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table A5. Standardized path coefficients between the latent variables pre-and post-test.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variables</td><td>Estimates</td><td>SE.</td><td>Est/SE.</td><td><italic>p</italic>-Value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A_read -S_read</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">8.96</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>A_math -S_math</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">5.74</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>A_well –S_well</td><td char=".">0.64</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">8.69</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>A_self –S-self</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">15.90</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>A_soc –S_soc</td><td char=".">0.81</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">23.14</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Note: read = reading, math = mathematics, well = well-being, self = self-concept, soc = prosocial behavior</p> <ref id="AN0186106693-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref51" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system–secondary. School Psychology Review, 42 (1), 76 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087492</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref52" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, K., Marlow, R., Edwards, V., Parker, C., Rodgers, L., Ukoumunne, O. C., Seem, E. C., Hayes, R., Price, A., & Ford, T. (2018). 'How I feel about my school': The construction and validation of a measure of well-being at school for primary school children. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104516687612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref62" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allodi, M. W. (2002). Children's experiences of school: Narratives of Swedish children with and without learning difficulties. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46 (2), 181 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830220142191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref37" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allodi, M. (2007). Assessing the quality of learning environments in Swedish schools: Development and analysis of a theory-based instrument. Learning Environment Research, 10, 157 – 175. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1007s10984-007-9029-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref60" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Allodi, M. (2010). Goals and values in school: A model developed for describing, evaluating, and changing the social climate of learning environments. Social Psychology of Education, 13 (2), 207 – 235. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1007s11218-009-9110-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Allodi, M. (2017). Specialpedagogiska insatser genom det sociala klimatet i lärmiljön i Modul: Inkludering och skolans praktik. (Specialpedagogiska insatser för trygghet och engagemang). [Special Education Efforts for Security and Engagement]. Skolverket.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref67" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Allodi, M. W., Bredwad, L., & Wikman, C. (2018). Teachers' joint evaluation of the quality of the social climate as a starting point for interventions: A small test in two teachers' teams. In educational research: Boundaries, breaches, and bridges: Abstract Book (pp.168). The Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) 46th Congress Oslo, Norway.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref66" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Allodi, M. W., Sundbom, L., & Yrwing, C. (2015). Understanding and changing learning environments with goals, attitudes, and values in school: A pilot study of a teacher self-assessment tool. [Poster presentation] The ECER Education and Transition Conference, Budapest, Hungary.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref115" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Arnesen, A., Smolkowski, K., Ogden, T., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2017). Validation of the elementary social behaviour assessment: teacher ratings of students' social skills adapted to Norwegian, grades 1–6. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2017.1316473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Artman-Meeker, K., Fettig, A., Cunningham, J. E., Chang, H. C., Choi, G., & Harbin, S. (2022). Iterative design and pilot implementation of a tiered coaching model to support socio-emotional teaching practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 42 (2), 124 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214211050122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Artman-Meeker, K. M., Hemmeter, M. L., & Snyder, P. (2014). Effects of distance coaching on teachers' use of Pyramid Model practices: A pilot study. Infants & Young Children, 27, 325 – 344. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bejnö, H., Roll-Pettersson, L., Klintwall, L., Långh, U., Odom, S. L., & Bölte, S. (2019). Cross-cultural content validity of the autism program environment rating scale in Sweden. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49 (5), 1853 – 1862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-03870-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borgen, N. T., Kirkebøen, L. J., Ogden, T., Raaum, O., & Sørlie, M. A. (2020). Impacts of school-wide positive behavior support: Results from national longitudinal register data. International Journal of Psychology, 55 (S1), 4 – 15. doi.10.1002ijop.12575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabiano, G. A., Reddy, L. A., & Dudek, C. M. (2018). Teacher coaching supported by formative assessment for improving classroom practices. School psychology quarterly: the official journal of the Division of School Psychology. American Psychological Association, 33, 293 – 304. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fallon, L. M., Cathcart, S. C., Johnson, A. H., Minami, T., O'Keeffe, B. V., DeFouw, E. R., & Sugai, G. (2022). A teacher self-assessment of culturally relevant practice to inform educator professional development decisions in MTSS contexts. Assessment for Effective Intervention, https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084221111338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5. ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford, T. (2013). How I feel about my school. University of Exeter.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, L., Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Binder, D., & Clarke, S. (2011). Coaching early childhood special educators to implement a comprehensive model for promoting young children's social competence. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 178 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121411404440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ginner Hau, H., Ferrer-Wreder, L., & Westling Allodi, M. (2021). Capitalizing on classroom climate to promote positive development. Handbook of Positive Youth Development Springer Series on Child and Family Studies, 375 – 386. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70262-5_25</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gladh, M., Siljehag, E., Westling Allodi, M., & Odom, S. L. (2022). Supporting children's social play with peer-based intervention and instruction in four inclusive Swedish preschools. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.943601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gustafsson, J. E., Allodi Westling, M., Alin Åkerman, B., Eriksson, C., Eriksson, L., Fischbein, S., Granlund, M., Gustafsson, P., Ljungdahl, S., Ogden, T., & Persson, R. S. (2010). School, learning and mental health: A systematic review. Health Committee, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76 (5), 949 – 967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., & Downer, J. T. (2007). Building a science of classrooms: Application of the CLASS framework in over 4,000 US early childhood and elementary classrooms. Foundation for Childhood Development, 30 (2008).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (2015[2015]). Early childhood environment rating scale (3rd ed). Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P. A., Fox, L., & Algina, J. (2016). Evaluating the implementation of the Pyramid Model for promoting social-emotional competence in early childhood classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36 (3), 133 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416653386</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hojnoski, R. L., Missall, K. N., & Wood, B. K. (2020). Measuring engagement in early education: Preliminary evidence for the behavioral observation of students in Schools–Early education. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45 (4), 243 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418820125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Järpsten, B., & Taube, K. (2013). DLS: för skolår 2 och 3. Handledning. [DLS: school year 2 and 3. Tutorial]. Hogrefe.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit. Structural Equation Modeling, 10 (3), 333 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M., Pakarinen, E., Poskiparta, E., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi, J. (2015). Positive teacher and peer relations combine to predict primary school students' academic skill development. Developmental Psychology, 51 (4), 434 – 446. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038911</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koponen, T., Salminen, J., Aunio, P., Polet, J., & Hellstrand, H. (2011). LukiMat – Bedömning av lärandet: Identifiering av stödbehov i matematik i årskurs 2. [LukiMat-Assessment of learning: Identification of support needs in mathematics in year 2]. Handbok. <ulink href="http://www.lukimat.fi/lukimat-bedomning-av-larandet/material/identifiering-av-stodbehov/ak-2/2-mat-handbok">http://www.lukimat.fi/lukimat-bedomning-av-larandet/material/identifiering-av-stodbehov/ak-2/2-mat-handbok</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychological Methods, 18 (3), 285 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lombas, A. S., Jiménez, T. I., Arguís-Rey, R., Hernández-Paniello, S., Valdivia-Salas, S., & Martín-Albo, J. (2019). Impact of the happy classrooms program on psychological well-being, school aggression, and classroom climate. Mindfulness, 10 (8), 1642 – 1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01132-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lundqvist, J., & Larsdotter Bodin, U. (2021). Inclusive classroom profile (ICP): A cultural validation and investigation of its perceived usefulness in the context of the Swedish preschool. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25 (3), 411 – 427. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1555867</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeod, R. H., Kim, S., & Resua, K. A. (2019). The effects of coaching with video and email feedback on preservice teachers' use of recommended practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 38 (4), 192 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121418763531</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milkie, M. A., & Warner, C. H. (2011). Classroom Learning Environments and the Mental Health of First Grade Children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52 (1), 4 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510394952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odom, S. L., Cox, A., Sideris, J., Hume, K. A., Hedges, S., Kucharczyk, S., Shaw, E., Boyd, B. A., Reszka, S., & Neitzel, J. (2018). Assessing quality of program environments for children and youth with autism: Autism program environment rating scale (APERS). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48 (3), 913 – 924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3379-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2014). OECD review of policies to improve the effectiveness of resource use in schools (School resources review) country background report: Sweden. <ulink href="http://www.oesd.org/education/schoolresocesreview">http://www.oesd.org/education/schoolresocesreview</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pakarinen, E., Aunola, K., Kiuru, N., Lerkkanen, M., Poikkeus, A., Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J. (2014). The cross-lagged associations between classroom interactions and children's achievement behaviors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39 (3), 248 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennefather, J., & Smolkowski, K. (2015). Validation of the elementary social behavior assessment: A measure of student prosocial school behaviors. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 143 – 154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508414557562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). The classroom assessment scoring system manual, K-3. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., Lipscomb, D., & Ruzek, E. (2022). Indirect effects of coaching on pre-K students' engagement and literacy skill as a function of improved teacher–student interaction. Journal of School Psychology, 91, 65 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> PISA. (2018). Results (Volume III): What school life means for students' lives. https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/f05bb3ee-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/f05bb3ee-en">www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/f05bb3ee-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/f05bb3ee-en</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riad, R., Westling Allodi, M., Siljehag, E., & Bölte, S. (2022). Dialogic book reading in Swedish preschool: A switching replications randomized controlled trial. Presentation at the ISEI conference, Chicago, September 2022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritoša, A., Danielsson, H., Sjöman, M., Almqvist, L., & Granlund, M. (2020). Assessing school engagement – adaptation and validation of "Engagement versus disaffection with learning: Teacher report" in the Swedish educational context. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.521972</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. British Medical Journal 2010, 340, c332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shannon, D. K., Snyder, P. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & McLean, M. (2021). exploring coach–teacher interactions within a practice-based coaching partnership. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 40 (4), 229 – 240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121420910799</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shindler, J., Jones, A., Williams, A. D., Taylor, C., & Cardenas, H. (2016). The school climate-student achievement connection: If we want achievement gains, we need to begin by improving the climate. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 1 (1), 9 – 16. https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v1i1.1905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, P. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2015). Supporting implementation of evidence-based practices through practice-based coaching. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35 (3), 133 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415594925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., McLean, M., Sandall, S., McLaughlin, T., & Algina, J. (2018). Effects of professional development on preschool teachers' use of embedded instruction practices. Exceptional Children, 84 (2), 213 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917735512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SOU. (2021: 11). Bättre möjligheter för elever att nå kunskapskraven – aktivt stöd- och elevhälsoarbete samt stärkt utbildning för elever med intellektuell funktionsnedsättning. Slutbetänkande av utredningen om elevers möjligheter att nå kunskapskraven. [Final report of the investigation into student opportunities to meet the knowledge requirements]. https://<ulink href="http://www.regeringen.se/492cd0/contentassets/77f91fad3fff4e9f85bc560b1e5c34d9/battre-mojligheter-for-elever-att-na-kunskapskraven-sou-202111">www.regeringen.se/492cd0/contentassets/77f91fad3fff4e9f85bc560b1e5c34d9/battre-mojligheter-for-elever-att-na-kunskapskraven-sou-202111</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soukakou, E. P. (2016). Inclusive classroom profile (ICP) manual, research edition. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Swedish School Agency. (2023). Socioeconomic index. https://<ulink href="http://www.skolverket.se/download/18.2cb9d0c18340c7dae35b1/1663940117161/index%20per%20skolenhet-statsbidrag%20Likv%C3%A4rdig%20skola%202023.pdf">www.skolverket.se/download/18.2cb9d0c18340c7dae35b1/1663940117161/index%20per%20skolenhet-statsbidrag%20Likv%C3%A4rdig%20skola%202023.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swedish Schools Inspectorate. (2018). Resultat från skolenkäten 2017–2018. [Results from the School questionnaire 2017–2018]. https://<ulink href="http://www.skolinspektionen.se/globalassets/02-beslut-rapporter-stat/statistikrapporter/skolenkaten/2017-2018/rapport-skolenkaten-2017-2018">www.skolinspektionen.se/globalassets/02-beslut-rapporter-stat/statistikrapporter/skolenkaten/2017-2018/rapport-skolenkaten-2017-2018</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taube, K., Tornéus, M., & Lundberg, I. (1984). UMESOL Självbild. [Self-image]. Psykologiförlaget.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D' Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83 (3), 357 – 385. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24434163">http://www.jstor.org/stable/24434163</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westling Allodi, M., & Ringer, N. (2022). GAVIS Classroom Observation Protocol. Unpublished manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westling Allodi, M., & Ringer, N. (2022). Students' well-being and perceptions of social climate measured with GAVIS- a theory -based instrument. Presented at the European Conference on Positive Psychology (ECPP 2022), 29 June- 2 July, 2022, Reykjavík, Iceland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wikman, C., Allodi, M., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2021). Psychometric properties of the elementary social behavior assessment in Swedish primary school: A teacher rated index of students' prosocial school behaviors. Frontiers in Education, 6, 681873. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.681873</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wikman, C., Westling Allodi, M., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. A. (2022). Self-concept, prosocial school behaviors, well-being, and academic skills in elementary school students: A whole-child perspective. Education Sciences, 12, 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050298</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Carina Wikman; Mara Westling Allodi and Laura Ferrer-Wreder</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref121"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1475163
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Teacher-Coaching Intervention: A Pilot Study Aimed at Supporting Classroom Climate and Student Development
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carina+Wikman%22">Carina Wikman</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2758-1784">0000-0003-2758-1784</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mara+Westling+Allodi%22">Mara Westling Allodi</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2396-4710">0000-0003-2396-4710</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Laura+Ferrer-Wreder%22">Laura Ferrer-Wreder</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0703-2614">0000-0003-0703-2614</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Scandinavian+Journal+of+Educational+Research%22"><i>Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 69(5):1063-1079.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coaching+%28Performance%29%22">Coaching (Performance)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Techniques%22">Classroom Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prosocial+Behavior%22">Prosocial Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pilot+Projects%22">Pilot Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Evaluation+%28Individuals%29%22">Self Evaluation (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Observation+Techniques%22">Classroom Observation Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sweden%22">Sweden</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00313831.2024.2369893
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0031-3831<br />1470-1170
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This pilot study examined the utility of a practice-based coaching (PBC) intervention in Swedish elementary schools designed to support the classroom climate and benefit students. The intervention involved activities, self-assessment, observation, and coaching to the teachers, with the aim of improving the classroom climate and students' self-concept, prosocial behavior, well-being, and academic achievement. The design was a cluster randomized trial with the school as the assignment unit. Participants in the intervention were 66 students in four classes, and in the control, four classes with 77 students. The duration of the intervention was five months. An autoregressive structural equation model was estimated. The correlations between the latent variables at pre-test ranged from low to high. There were significant standardized path coefficients concerning all the latent variables pre- and post-test. The estimates of the intervention at the post-test were non-significant. The results suggested a longer duration of the intervention with more frequent coaching sessions, which may enhance its effect.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1475163
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475163
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00313831.2024.2369893
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 1063
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coaching (Performance)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prosocial Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pilot Projects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Evaluation (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Observation Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sweden
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Teacher-Coaching Intervention: A Pilot Study Aimed at Supporting Classroom Climate and Student Development
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carina Wikman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mara Westling Allodi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Laura Ferrer-Wreder
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0031-3831
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1470-1170
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 69
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1