Introduction

Social-emotional development encompasses a wide range of essential skills that are crucial for healthy interpersonal relationships and overall well-being. These skills include social skills, self-management skills, friendship skills, problem-solving skills, as well as the ability to appropriately respond to the emotions of others (Fox et al., 2011). The acquisition of social-emotional skills during early childhood provides numerous advantages for children, while the absence or deficits in these skills, along with accompanying problem behaviors, can create disadvantages (Balikci, 2021; Hemmeter & Conroy, 2018; Luo et al., 2017). These advantages include, but are not limited to, the formation of positive peer relationships, effective communication skills, conflict resolution abilities, emotional regulation, encouragement of exploration and curiosity, and fostering independence and autonomy (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). A substantial body of evidence underscores the pivotal role played by social and emotional competencies in effectively navigating the various facets of one's life, beyond childhood. This comprehensive spectrum of skills can have a profound impact on a multitude of life domains, including, but not limited to, academic accomplishment, occupational proficiency, career advancement, overall health and lifespan, as well as individual and societal welfare (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]).

Research has consistently shown that children with limited social-emotional development are more likely to exhibit problem behaviors (Fox & Hemmeter, 2009). These problem behaviors can manifest in various ways, such as aggression, withdrawal, noncompliance, or difficulty in self-regulation. Furthermore, research suggests that children exhibiting severe problem behaviors in early childhood are at a heightened risk of facing substantial challenges in the future, including academic failure and difficulties adapting to adulthood (Steed & Roach, 2017), along with an increased likelihood of more severe problem behaviors in their adult lives (Wright & Schwartz, 2021).

Extant literature includes several approaches designed to support the social-emotional development of young children, with a particular emphasis on skills that contribute to success in both academic and social contexts (Durlak et al., 2011; Fox et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2017). These approaches aim to cultivate essential abilities such as responding appropriately to emotional cues, enhancing communication and interaction skills, and fostering interpersonal problem-solving abilities. One prominent approach is the Pyramid Model, which has garnered recognition for its evidence-based practices (EBPs) and comprehensive framework aimed at promoting the social-emotional development of young children while also preventing behavioral problems (Hemmeter et al., 2013, 2020). The Pyramid Model provides a structured and multi-tiered system of support for young children's social-emotional development.

The model consists of three tiers: universal promotion, secondary prevention, and tertiary intervention (Hemmeter et al., 2013). Universal promotion focuses on creating a positive and inclusive classroom environment that benefits all children. It emphasizes promoting social-emotional competence through nurturing relationships, engaging environments, and effective classroom management strategies. For instance, fostering nurturing relationships involves teachers actively engaging with each child, offering consistent emotional support, and encouraging positive interactions among peers. Additionally, creating an engaging environment may include setting up designated areas for calming activities or conflict resolution corners where children can learn to manage their emotions and resolve conflicts peacefully. Effective classroom management strategies, such as clear and consistent expectations, visual schedules, and regular routines, also play a crucial role in promoting social-emotional development. The secondary prevention tier provides targeted support for children who may need additional assistance. This involves identifying children at risk for social-emotional challenges and providing specific interventions and support to address their needs. For children facing difficulties with social interactions, targeted support may involve implementing social skills training programs, which include structured activities aimed at teaching skills like turn-taking and conflict resolution.

The tertiary intervention tier is designed for children who require intensive, individualized support. It involves specialized interventions and supports tailored to the unique needs of each child to address more significant social-emotional and behavioral challenges (Hemmeter et al., 2020). A child with severe social-emotional and behavioral challenges may receive intensive support through behavior plans.

The Pyramid Model encompasses a range of strategies and interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness when consistently implemented throughout the school day (Fettig & Artman-Meeker, 2016; Fox et al., 2011; Hemmeter et al., 2016). Despite the documented effectiveness of the Pyramid Model, research suggests that preschool teachers infrequently employ these strategies in their classrooms (Luo et al., 2017; Rakap et al., 2018; Steed & Roach, 2017). Consequently, recent studies have prioritized identifying effective strategies to support teachers in utilizing these EBPs (Hemmeter et al., 2016, 2021). These studies highlight the necessity of sustained professional development programs, offering teachers opportunities for practice, reflection, and feedback from experts to enhance EBP implementation. Individualized coaching support has emerged as a particularly effective method for supporting preschool teachers in their implementation of EBPs, involving close collaboration between coach and teacher to provide observation, targeted feedback, and action planning (Snyder et al., 2022).

Practice-based coaching (PBC), recognized for its efficacy in supporting preschool teachers and enhancing child outcomes (Rakap & Balikci, 2023; Rakap et al., 2023; Snyder et al., 2015; Sutherland et al., 2015), embodies collaborative and cyclical specially designed to promote the adoption of EBPs. This approach involves individualized support to teachers through modeling best practices, offering constructive feedback, and jointly developing action plans to optimize EBP utilization (Embse et al., 2019). Unlike behavioral skills training (Parsons et al., 2012), which involves modeling and rehearsal, with initial instruction and feedback given after implementation, PBC emphasizes ongoing collaboration, shared objectives, and reflective feedback mechanisms as key drivers for enhancing practice adoption. The coaching process begins with observation, followed by data-based feedback and the development of meaningful goals tailored to the unique needs of each teacher. Coaches not only provide guidance but also actively support teachers in implementing effective strategies to enhance their practice. They serve as motivators, offering encouragement, and accountability, and work alongside teachers as partners in their professional growth (Snyder et al., 2022).

Several studies conducted in the USA have explored the impact of professional development practices on preschool teachers' utilization of social-emotional teaching strategies and their effects on young children's development and learning (e.g., Artman-Meeker & Hemmeter, 2013; Fox et al., 2011; Hemmeter et al., 2015, 2016). These studies collectively highlight the positive impact of professional development programs integrating training, coaching, and performance feedback on teachers' utilization of Pyramid Model strategies and children's social-emotional development. However, it is noteworthy that these investigations were conducted in the USA, with limited research available from other contexts. Particularly, no study in Türkiye has explored the impact of professional development, including coaching, on preschool teachers' implementation of Pyramid Model strategies. There remains a need to enhance our understanding of the mechanisms through which professional development interventions influence teachers' practices and children's outcomes, especially within diverse settings. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine the effects of a professional development program including teacher training and coaching support on Turkish preschool teachers' use of social-emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model. This study is guided by the following research questions: (1) How does an intervention consisting of training and coaching impact the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model among preschool teachers? (2) To what extent does an intervention consisting of training and coaching contribute to the maintenance of social-emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model among preschool teachers? (3) What is the relation between preschool teachers' implementation of social-emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model and the challenging behavior demonstrated by the children? (4) How do preschool teachers perceive the acceptability and effectiveness of the Pyramid Model strategies, training, and coaching intervention?

Method

Participants

Recruitment

To participate in the study, teachers’ professional expertise had to meet several criteria: (a) have a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education, (b) have at least 2 years of experience in teaching young children, (c) work in an inclusive public preschool classroom with at least two children with disabilities, and (d) not have been previously trained in social-emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model. The first author had previously conducted in-service training sessions and research activities in partnership with this local education agency. We obtained a list of all schools with inclusive early childhood education classrooms and found teachers' email addresses on their respective schools' web pages. We individually emailed each teacher about the study and provided them with information regarding the inclusion criteria. We asked interested individuals to complete an online consent form and a brief survey to determine their eligibility for participation. From the list of teachers who completed the consent form and met the inclusion criteria, we randomly selected three teachers. We provided the remaining four teachers who did not take part in this study with professional development training at the end of the study.

Teachers

Three female Turkish preschool teachers with a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education participated in this study. Selin, 34 years old, had 12 years of teaching experience, including 3 years of experience working with children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Deniz, 38 years old, had 14 years of experience in teaching young children, including 3 years of experience working with children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Duru, 36 years old, had 15 years of experience working with young children with and without disabilities. All participants reported learning about social-emotional development during their college education, but none of them had received formal training on social-emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model. Two participants reported receiving coaching support focused on other practices in the past.

Children

Each teacher was asked to identify one child from their classroom. The children were selected from those who had an Individualized Education Plan and displayed mild to moderate persistent challenging behaviors (e.g., inappropriate use of objects, crying, wandering around the classrooms, and not following directions). Children with more severe challenging behaviors, such as those who exhibited aggression and self-injurious behaviors, were excluded as they needed more intense and individualized support than the study was designed to deliver. Parental consent forms were obtained for their children to participate in the current study. All three children were Turkish and received speech and language therapy and physical therapy services once per week for 1 h each.

Selin identified Emir, as a 4-year-old boy with autism. Although Emir responded to simple verbal directions, his expressive language skills were delayed. Emir communicated mostly using nonvocal means, such as gestures, and occasionally used single words to express basic needs. He struggled with initiating and maintaining reciprocal conversations. Emir's social interactions were characterized by a preference for solitary play with a limited interest in peers, and he struggled with understanding social cues. Emir displayed mild to moderate challenging behaviors including inappropriate use of objects (e.g., throwing toys, or mouthing them), occasional crying episodes, wandering around classrooms, and difficulty following directions.

Deniz identified Defne, a 4-year-old girl with Down's syndrome. While her receptive language skills were more developed and closer to age-appropriate levels, Defne's expressive language skills were delayed. She used nonvocal communication, gestures, and a growing expressive vocabulary to express herself. Defne enjoyed interacting with peers and adults. However, she also exhibited mild to moderate challenging behaviors including occasional tantrums when faced with transitions between activities, difficulty maintaining focus for extended periods, occasional refusal to follow verbal instructions, and expressing frustration through gestures and vocalization when her interactions were not reciprocated by others.

Duru identified Arda, as a 4-year-old boy with developmental delay. Arda's made gradual progress in expressive and receptive skills. He engaged with peers using a combination of gestures and single-word utterances. Arda displayed mild to moderate challenging behaviors such as struggling to maintain focus for extended periods, occasionally refusing to follow verbal instructions, and demonstrating insistence on maintaining preferred routines.

Coaches

Three coaches were involved in this study, each working individually with one teacher. Coaches were recruited from a pool of individuals who had previously collaborated with the first author in research projects. All three coaches had previous experience implementing Pyramid Model practices and providing coaching and supervision to special education or preschool teachers. They attended a 2-h training session focused on Pyramid Model practices and PBC prior to the first baseline session, conducted by the first researcher. Additionally, each coach individually attended the teacher training sessions specific to the teacher they were coaching during the study.

Coach 1, a 35-year-old female, possessed 14 years of experience and held a bachelor's degree in elementary education and a master's degree in special education. She provided coaching support to Selin. Coach 2, a 40-year-old male, had 16 years of experience and held bachelor's and master's degrees in special education. He provided coaching support to Deniz. Coach 3, a 28-year-old female, had 6 years of experience and held a bachelor's degree in special education. She provided coaching support to Duru.

Settings

All three teachers in this study were employed in full-day inclusive preschool classrooms situated on three public elementary school campuses. Each classroom consisted of a lead teacher (the study participant) and a student teacher from the early childhood education program. The classrooms served a total of 15–18 children, including two children with identified disabilities. The children in the participants' classrooms ranged in age from 4 to 5 years old.

The baseline, intervention, and maintenance sessions were all conducted during the morning learning centers, while the generalization sessions took place during the afternoon free play activities. The teachers in this study identified the learning centers and free play activities as the times of the day when challenging behaviors were more likely to occur. Each classroom followed a daily schedule that included arrival, free play, breakfast, clean up, circle time, learning centers, lunch, clean up, storytime, outdoor/indoor play, snack time, free play, and departure. In terms of learning centers, all three classrooms had a blocks center, dramatic play center, sensory table, art center, book center, and science center. During the learning centers, the children were free to move from one center to another, with no more than three children in a center at any given time. The teacher training sessions and coaching follow-up meetings were conducted in a room at the participating teachers' schools.

Materials

In general, the preschool teachers were instructed to use regular classroom materials throughout all study sessions. Prior to the training sessions, the researcher provided the teachers with a handout and an accompanying portable storage drive containing electronic copies of the training materials and handouts, reproducible classroom materials, and video examples of the practices demonstrated during the training. These materials were adapted from existing resources provided by the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (n.d.).

Experimental Design

We used a multiple baseline design across behaviors replicated across three participants (Gast et al., 2018). Following the baseline condition across all behaviors for at least five sessions, the intervention was introduced to the first behavior, while the baseline data collection continued with the other two behaviors. When the participating teacher reached the criterion performance (at least 80% correct implementation across three consecutive intervention sessions; Fienup & Carr, 2021; McDougale et al., 2019), the intervention was introduced to the second behavior. While the intervention was implemented with the second behavior, the maintenance condition with intermittent data collection occurred with the first behavior, and the baseline condition continued with the third behavior. The same procedures were repeated until the teacher reached the criterion level of performance on the third behavior and at least one maintenance session was conducted.

Dependent Variables and Data Collection

The dependent variable was the preschool teachers' implementation of social-emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model. Three teaching practices were targeted across all three participants: (a) engaging in supportive conversations with children, (b) providing directions, and (c) teaching behavior expectations (see Table 1 for practices and associated indicators). Three subscales of the Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT; Hemmeter et al., 2014) were used to collect data in relation to these three practices: engaging in supportive conversations with children (10 indicators), providing directions (seven indicators), and teaching behavior expectations (seven indicators). At the end of each data collection session, each indicator was rated using a binary score of Yes (1) and No (0). The data using TPOT subscales were collected once a week by a trained observer during learning centers on the days when the teachers did not receive coaching support. After each observation, the percentage of practices implemented during the observation was calculated. These data were graphed for visual analysis and used to make decisions about condition changes.

Table 1 Pyramid Model Practices and Associated Indicators (Hemmeter et al., 2014)
Full size table

Data on challenging behaviors exhibited by children were collected within one day of the data collected on teacher behaviors by a different observer. Mild to moderate challenging behavior was defined as any behavior that (a) hindered a child’s successful completion of activities; (b) disrupted instructional flow or classroom routines; or (c) restricted a child's engagement with peers, materials, or activities (Artman-Meeker & Hemmeter, 2013). Examples of mild to moderate challenging behaviors included taking a toy or a classroom material from another child without asking permission or requesting it, not following classroom rules or instructions from adults, accessing materials that were off-limits or not permitted to be used during the learning center, or entering closed learning centers. During each data collection session, the observer marked the occurrence of each challenging behavior on the coding sheet. At the end of each data collection session, the total number and rate (per min) of challenging behaviors exhibited by the child was graphed.

General Procedures

Prior to the first baseline session, the researcher conducted two observations in each teacher's classroom using the subscales of TPOT to determine the teachers' level of implementation across practices. Data collected across these observations were used to determine the order in which the intervention would be introduced to each practice. The same order was used across all three teachers. Data collection during baseline and intervention conditions was conducted once a week during the learning center activities, which typically lasted between 45 and 60 min. Maintenance data were collected every other week until the end of the study once the criterion level of performance was obtained on a tier (practice). Intermittent generalization data were collected during free play activities, which typically lasted 30–60 min.

Baseline

During the baseline sessions, we asked each teacher to continue doing what they would normally do with children during learning centers. We did not provide any further information. The baseline sessions allowed us to determine teacher and child performances on dependent variables before initiating the intervention. We collected baseline data during learning center activities twice a week until we obtained stable data for the first behavior. We conducted at least five baseline sessions.

Intervention

Training Following baseline, each teacher attended a 1-h-long training session individually. A separate training session was provided for each of the three behaviors as a teacher reached the criterion level of performance on the previous behavior. After the last baseline session and 2 days before the training sessions, teachers were provided with a handout describing the practice that would be covered during the training and asked to review it before the session. During the training session, the researcher used PowerPoint slides to describe the practice and used videos to show examples and nonexamples of the practice and how it may look in classroom settings. Next, the researcher and teacher brainstormed about how the practice could be integrated into the learning centers. Throughout the training, the researcher answered any questions teachers had about the practice and using it in their classrooms. At the end of the first training session, teachers were provided with information about the coaching sessions.

Coaching Following the training session focused on practice, teachers began receiving coaching support once a week until they reached the criterion performance on the practice. During a coaching session, the coach observed classroom practices throughout the entire duration of the learning centers. During each observation, the coach took notes about teachers' practices and interactions with children. The coach did not model any practice during the observation, as it was not preferred or requested by participating teachers. Once the learning center was over, the coach conducted a follow-up meeting with the teacher while the student teacher took the lead in the next classroom activity. During the follow-up meeting, the coach provided teachers with performance feedback about their practice use. Performance feedback involves utilizing information and data gathered through observation of the teacher's behaviors to offer feedback regarding their implementation of target practices. When providing performance feedback, the coach first emphasized practices the teacher implemented correctly during the observation (i.e., supportive, such as "I liked the way you reviewed the posted behavior expectations and rules before learning centers"). Then, the coach emphasized areas/practices in which the teacher had difficulty implementing (i.e., corrective, such as "When Adem and Nil were having difficulty sharing in the block center, rather than simply telling them what to do, you could facilitate discussion about the class rules regarding sharing"). Next, the coach discussed specific strategies with the teachers to help them improve their implementation of targeted teaching practices.

Generalization

During the generalization sessions, which occurred intermittently during free play activities across the study conditions, data were collected to assess the teachers' implementation of the targeted teaching practices and the occurrence of challenging behaviors. The purpose of the generalization sessions was to observe how well the teachers were able to transfer and apply the practices they learned during the training and coaching sessions to different contexts, specifically during free play activities. In the generalization setting, teachers were not provided with any instructions or support to implement Pyramid Model practices. One generalization session was conducted during the baseline and maintenance conditions while two sessions were conducted during the intervention condition.

Maintenance

The maintenance condition was initiated 1 week after each teacher achieved the performance criterion of at least 80% correct implementation across three consecutive intervention sessions during the coaching condition. In this condition, teachers were instructed to independently use the practices they had learned during the training and coaching sessions, without any additional support or guidance. Data collection for maintenance sessions followed the same procedure as in the baseline and intervention conditions. Observations and recordings were conducted every other week until the end of the study to assess the sustainability of teachers' practice implementation and the frequency of challenging behaviors exhibited by the child.

Reliability

A fourth-year undergraduate student in the special education program served as the primary observer for data collection on teachers' implementation of practices using the subscales of TPOT while a master's student in the special education program acted as the secondary observer. Two other observers, one primary and one secondary, both undergraduate students in the special education program, were responsible for collecting data on the challenging behaviors exhibited by children. Each observer pair underwent training by the researcher prior to data collection for the study and needed to attain at least 80% IOA with the researcher on three observations.

IOA data on teachers' practice implementation were collected for 55% of the sessions across study conditions, behaviors, and participants. After each reliability session using the subscales of TPOT, the ratings assigned to indicators by each coder were compared to determine agreements and disagreements. The percentage of agreement was calculated using the following formula: (total number of agreements/total number of agreements + disagreements) × 100 (Tawney & Gast, 1984). The mean IAO reliability score ranged between 91.54% and 98.37% across study conditions, behaviors, and participants. IOA data on the challenging behaviors exhibited by children were collected during 57% of the sessions across study conditions, behaviors, and participants and calculated using the point-by-point agreement (Tawney & Gast, 1984). The mean IOA reliability scores ranged between 85.18% and 92.74% across study conditions, behaviors, and participants.

Treatment Fidelity

Treatment fidelity was assessed at three levels: teacher training, coach training, and coaching implementation. To ensure fidelity in teacher and coach training, a graduate student observer completed a separate fidelity checklist for each training session, outlining the major components of the training procedure. The fidelity of teacher and coach training was assessed during all training sessions, which included nine teacher training sessions and one coach training session. During coaching sessions, fidelity was assessed by another graduate student observer who used a coaching fidelity checklist. This checklist outlined the planned coach behaviors during observation and follow-up meetings. At least 25% of coaching sessions for each behavior and participant were observed to assess coaching fidelity. A total of 17 (36%) coaching fidelity sessions were conducted. The observers were trained by the researcher on the fidelity checklists before data collection began. In a 1-h training session, the researcher explained each item on the checklists and provided examples and nonexamples of expected trainer or coach behaviors. Separate training sessions were conducted for each fidelity checklist. Treatment fidelity scores were calculated using the following formula: (total number of correctly performed components/the total number of components in the checklist) X 100. The treatment fidelity score for coach training was 100%, while the fidelity scores for teaching training ranged between 95 and 100%. Additionally, the treatment fidelity scores for coaching ranged between 90 and 100%.

Social Validity

Self-report rating scales and interviews are commonly employed methods for assessing social validity (Common & Lane, 2017). In this study, we used the interview method due to its capacity for in-depth exploration of the participants' experiences and perspectives, which may not be fully captured by standardized measures. These semi-structured interviews were conducted individually 1 week after the last maintenance data were collected with each teacher to gather their perspectives on the practices they learned and the professional development intervention (training and coaching) they participated in. Interviews were conducted by the first author and lasted 45 min, 36 min, and 51 min across teachers, respectively. The interview protocol included the following questions: (1) Can you describe your experiences with implementing Pyramid Model strategies in your classroom? (2) In what specific ways do you believe Pyramid Model strategies have impacted teaching practices, and how might they have influenced the overall classroom environment? (3) Could you share examples of Pyramid Model strategies that you have found effective in addressing challenging behaviors among students? Can you describe any outcomes you have observed from using these strategies? (4) What challenges have arisen during your implementation of these strategies? (5) How do you think your participation in this study may have influenced your approach to social-emotional teaching practices and addressing challenging behaviors in your classroom? (6) Could you describe how the training and coaching support have contributed to the implementation of Pyramid Model strategies in your classroom? (7) Can you describe a situation where the coaching process offered valuable feedback or assistance in addressing challenges related to the implementation of these strategies? and (8) Would you recommend Pyramid Model practices, along with the training and coaching, to other teachers? If so, what aspects or benefits would you highlight when making this recommendation?

Data Analysis

Visual analysis was employed as a primary method for analyzing the data in this study (Barton et al., 2018). In addition to visual analysis, the Tau-U effect size estimate was used at the end of the study to determine the overall effect of the intervention (Parker et al., 2011). Tau-U scores range from 0 to 1 and can be interpreted according to the following criteria (Rakap, 2015): a small or weak effect (0.65 or lower), a medium effect (0.66 to 0.92), and a large or strong effect (0.93 to 1.00). Social validity data underwent thematic analysis following the six steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (2022): data familiarization, initial code generation, theme identification, theme review, theme definition and naming, and the creation of the analysis report. The primary analysis was conducted by the second author and the first author conducted the reliability checks.

Results

Teacher Implementation

Selin

As depicted in Fig. 1, Selin initially used supportive conversation strategies at low levels during the baseline condition (M = 10%; range = 0—20%). However, following the training and coaching, a notable improvement was observed in the implementation of these strategies (M = 90%; range = 70%—100%). Selin met the performance criterion after the fifth intervention session. Throughout the maintenance condition, Selin consistently used supportive conversation strategies, with percentages ranging from 90 to 100% across sessions (M = 96%). Moreover, she demonstrated a notable increase in the use of supportive conversation strategies in the generalization setting (i.e., free play), escalating from 20% during the baseline condition to 80–90% during the intervention and maintenance conditions. Regarding Selin’s performance in providing directions, her baseline implementation was low, ranging from 14 to 29% (M = 21%). Once the intervention was introduced, there was an immediate improvement, with her implementation rising to 71%. Selin successfully met the performance criterion after the fourth intervention session, with a mean implementation of 89% (range = 71%—100%) during the intervention condition. During the maintenance condition, Selin consistently demonstrated a high level of implementation, ranging from 86 to 100% (M = 89) across sessions. Selin also exhibited significant increases in her implementation of providing direction strategies in the generalization setting. Her implementation of strategies during free play increased from 29% during the baseline condition to 86–100% during the intervention and maintenance conditions. Finally, in terms of behavior expectation strategies, Selin initially implemented them at low levels during the baseline condition (M = 13%; range = 0—29%). However, with the introduction of training and coaching support, there was an immediate increase in her implementation, reaching 86%. This high level of implementation was maintained throughout the intervention condition (M = 88%, range = 71%—100%). She met the performance criterion after the sixth intervention session. Notably, Selin achieved 100% implementation during the two maintenance sessions. Furthermore, Selin successfully transferred her high implementation of behavior expectation strategies into the generalization setting of free play. While her implementation was 14% during the baseline condition, it significantly improved during the intervention and maintenance conditions, ranging between 71 and 86%. Tau-U effect size estimate was 1.0 for baseline-intervention and baseline-maintenance comparisons across all three strategies, indicating a strong intervention effect.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Selin’s use of practices associated with Pyramid Model (%)

Full size image

Deniz

Deniz’s use of supportive conversation strategies started at low levels during the baseline condition with a mean of 14% and a range of 0—20% (see Fig. 2). Once the training and coaching intervention was introduced, an immediate improvement was observed in her implementation of these strategies (M = 88%; range = 70%—100%). Deniz met the performance criterion following the fifth coaching session. Throughout the maintenance condition, she consistently showed high use of supportive conversation strategies, with percentages ranging from 90 to 100% across sessions (M = 93%). Furthermore, Deniz demonstrated a noteworthy improvement in the use of supportive conversation strategies in the generalization setting (i.e., free play), with her performance increasing from 10% during the baseline condition to 80–100% during the intervention and maintenance conditions. Regarding Deniz’s performance in providing directions, her baseline implementation ranged from 0 to 29% (M = 10%). Following the introduction of the intervention, her performance immediately increased to 86% and remained high throughout the rest of the intervention condition. She met the performance criterion after the fifth coaching session (M = 89%; range = 71%—100%). During the maintenance condition, Deniz consistently demonstrated a high level of implementation, ranging from 71 to 100% (M = 86%) across sessions. Additionally, she demonstrated significant increases in her implementation of providing direction strategies during free play activities, with her implementation rising from 0% during the baseline condition to 71% to 86% during the intervention and maintenance conditions. Lastly, Deniz’s use of behavior expectation strategies was also low during the baseline condition (M = 11%; range = 0—29%). With the introduction of the intervention, there was an immediate increase in her implementation, which exhibited an increasing trend throughout the intervention condition, ranging from 57 to 100% (M = 86%). Deniz met the performance criterion after the sixth coaching session. During the maintenance condition, she achieved an implementation level of 86% to 100%. Moreover, Deniz effectively implemented behavior expectation strategies in the generalization setting. Her implementation was 14% during the baseline condition; however, it significantly improved during the intervention and maintenance conditions, ranging between 86 and 100%. Tau-U effect size estimate was 1.0 for baseline-intervention and baseline-maintenance comparisons across all three strategies, indicating a strong intervention effect.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Deniz’s use of practices associated with Pyramid Model (%)

Full size image

Duru

Duru initially implemented supportive conversations (M = 10%), providing directions (M = 10%; range = 0–29%), and behavior expectation (M = 13%; range = 0—29%) strategies at low levels during the baseline conditions (see Fig. 3). Following the staggered introduction of training and coaching interventions across behaviors, there was a significant increase in Duru's implementation of strategies across all three behaviors. Duru successfully met the performance criterion in five sessions for supportive conversations (M = 84%; range = 70%—100%), four sessions for providing directions (M = 93%; range = 71%—100%), and seven sessions for behavior expectations (M = 88%; range = 71%—100%) during the intervention condition. Throughout the maintenance condition, Duru consistently maintained a high level of implementation for all three behaviors. Her implementation of supportive conversations ranged from 80 to 100% (M = 93%), providing directions ranged from 86 to 100% (M = 94%), and during the sole maintenance session for behavior expectations, she demonstrated 100% implementation. Notably, Duru also showed evidence of generalization in the use of social-emotional strategies for free play activities. Her implementation increased from 0% during the baseline condition to 90%—100% during the intervention and maintenance conditions for supportive conversations, from 14% during the baseline condition to 86% during the intervention and maintenance conditions for providing directions, and from 29% during the baseline condition to 71%—100% during the intervention and maintenance conditions for behavior expectations. Tau-U effect size estimate was 1.0 for baseline-intervention and baseline-maintenance comparisons across all three strategies, indicating a strong intervention effect.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Duru’s use of practices associated with Pyramid Model (%)

Full size image

Challenging Behaviors

Data collected on challenging behaviors displayed by children throughout the study are presented in Fig. 4. All three children showed a consistent decrease in the rate of challenging behaviors across the study conditions. Emir, the child from Selin’s classroom, exhibited a mean rate of 0.52 challenging behaviors per min during the baseline condition. However, as Selin received training and coaching support and implemented targeted social-emotional teaching strategies more effectively, Emir's challenging behaviors gradually decreased. During the intervention conditions for supportive conversations, providing directions, and behavior expectations, Emir's mean challenging behaviors rate per min was 0.42, 0.38, and 0.33, respectively. In the maintenance condition, Emir displayed a rate of 0.33 challenging behaviors per min, indicating continued improvement in his behavior.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Rate per min of challenging behaviors demonstrated by participating children. SC = Supportive conversations, PD = Providing directions, BE = Behavior expectations, M = Maintenance

Full size image

Defne, the child from Deniz’s classroom, exhibited a mean rate of 0.43 challenging behaviors per min during the baseline condition. As Deniz received intervention support and implemented targeted social-emotional teaching strategies with more accuracy, Defne's challenging behaviors gradually decreased. During the intervention conditions for supportive conversations, providing directions, and behavior expectations, Defne's mean challenging behaviors rate per min was 0.33, 0.31, and 0.29, respectively. In the maintenance condition, Defne displayed a rate of 0.26 challenging behaviors per min, indicating a continued decrease in her challenging behaviors. Arda, the child from Duru’s classroom, initially exhibited a mean rate of 0.59 challenging behaviors per min during the baseline condition. As his teacher, Duru received intervention support and implemented targeted social-emotional teaching strategies with more accuracy, Arda's challenging behaviors gradually decreased. In the intervention conditions for supportive conversations and providing directions, Arda's mean challenging behaviors rate per min decreased to 0.35 and 0.31, respectively. Although there was a slight increase to 0.39 in the intervention condition for behavior expectations, it remained lower than the baseline rate of challenging behaviors. During the only maintenance session, Arda displayed a rate of 0.36 challenging behaviors per min. All three children also demonstrated a decreasing level of challenging behaviors in the free play generalization settings, as shown in Fig. 4.

Social Validity

The themes emerging from the thematic analysis include participants' positive experiences and perceptions, the effectiveness of the intervention in addressing challenging behaviors, encountered implementation challenges, influence on teaching practices, intentions to continue with the strategies, and the value of training and coaching support. During the interviews, teachers consistently expressed positive experiences and perceptions regarding the use of Pyramid Model strategies in their classrooms. For instance, one teacher mentioned, "Implementing Pyramid Model strategies really helped my classroom. I noticed improvements in my children's behavior and their social-emotional skills." Another teacher echoed this sentiment, stating, "These strategies helped create a more positive classroom environment."

Teachers emphasized the effectiveness of Pyramid Model strategies in addressing challenging behaviors among children in their classrooms. One teacher shared, "I was happy to see how well these strategies worked in managing challenging behaviors. Children in my classroom became more engaged." Another teacher added, "Using these strategies not only helped improve behavior but also fostered better relationships among children."

Participating in the study influenced teachers' teaching practices by providing a comprehensive understanding of social-emotional teaching practices and strategies to address challenging behaviors. As one teacher explained, "Being part of this study helped me better understand the importance of social-emotional development in early childhood education. I feel more equipped to support my children's emotional needs." Another teacher shared, "I learned so many practical strategies that I can use in my classroom every day.” Despite the positive outcomes observed, teachers also discussed challenges associated with implementing Pyramid Model strategies. These challenges included maintaining consistency and finding time to fully integrate the strategies into their daily routines. One teacher remarked, "It's sometimes challenging to be consistent with implementing these strategies, especially during busy days." Another teacher mentioned, "Finding time to implement all the strategies can be difficult, but the benefits outweigh the challenges."

The training and coaching support provided to teachers were described as invaluable, offering a solid foundation, practical examples, personalized guidance, and ongoing support. Teachers particularly valued the coaching process for its individualized feedback and problem-solving assistance. As one teacher expressed, "The coaching sessions were incredibly helpful. I received personalized feedback and guidance on how to effectively implement the strategies in my classroom." Another teacher added, "Having a coach to support me throughout the process made a difference in my ability to implement the strategies."

Furthermore, all teachers highly recommended Pyramid Model practices to their colleagues and expressed their intention to continue using them in their classrooms due to the positive outcomes observed. One teacher stated, "I would definitely recommend these practices to other teachers. They really make a difference in creating a positive classroom environment." Another teacher affirmed, "I plan to continue using these strategies because I've seen how effective they are in promoting positive behavior and social-emotional skills."

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the effects of a professional development intervention, which included training and coaching, on the utilization of social-emotional teaching practices by preschool teachers in inclusive classrooms. The study also explored the relationship between teachers' implementation of these strategies and the challenging behaviors exhibited by the children. Additionally, the study sought to gather teachers' perspectives and perceptions regarding the Pyramid Model practices and the professional development intervention. The combination of training and coaching intervention had a positive impact on the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices by all three preschool teachers. These teachers were able to generalize the use of these practices to another setting and maintain high levels of implementation after the coaching support ended.

The findings of this study in relation to teacher implementation are consistent with previous research that highlights the effectiveness of training and coaching interventions in promoting the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices (Artman-Meeker et al., 2014; Fox et al., 2011; Hemmeter et al., 2015). Similar to the current study, previous research has shown that teachers' implementation of these strategies tends to be low during baseline conditions but significantly improves after receiving training and coaching support (Artman-Meeker & Hemmeter, 2013; Fox et al., 2011). The ability of the teachers in this study to generalize the use of social-emotional teaching practices to another setting and maintain high levels of implementation after the coaching support ended aligns with previous findings (Hemmeter et al., 2015). It suggests that the training and coaching intervention had a lasting impact on the teachers' professional practice, enabling them to integrate these strategies into their daily routines.

The replication of the experimental effect across multiple teachers in this study strengthens the generalizability of the findings and underscores the robustness of the intervention's impact. By replicating the positive outcomes across different participants, the study provides further evidence of the effectiveness of the training and coaching intervention in promoting the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices. These findings contribute to the growing body of research that highlights the importance of professional development interventions, such as training and coaching, in enhancing teachers' abilities to effectively implement social-emotional teaching practices (Artman-Meeker & Hemmeter, 2013; Artman-Meeker et al., 2014; Fox et al., 2011; Hemmeter et al., 2015, 2016). Moreover, by extending research focused on social-emotional teaching practices associated with the Pyramid Model beyond the USA to a culture where resources may not be as readily available, the present study demonstrates the adaptability and transferability of these interventions. By equipping teachers with the necessary skills and support, interventions like these can positively impact classroom dynamics, reduce challenging behaviors, and create a nurturing environment that supports the social-emotional well-being of children.

As teachers' implementation of social-emotional teaching practices increased, there was a corresponding gradual decrease in the rate of challenging behaviors exhibited by the children. This outcome aligns with previous research emphasizing the connection between the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices and a reduction in challenging behaviors exhibited by children (Hemmeter et al., 2021). When teachers proactively address the social-emotional needs of children through intentional teaching strategies, it creates a supportive and nurturing environment that fosters positive behavior and well-being. By focusing on building children's social-emotional skills, teachers can empower them with the tools necessary to manage their emotions, resolve conflicts, and engage in positive interactions with peers and adults.

The connection between social-emotional teaching practices and a reduction in challenging behaviors is supported by the theoretical framework of the Pyramid Model, which emphasizes the importance of promoting social competence and addressing challenging behaviors through a comprehensive approach (Hemmeter et al., 2020). The Pyramid Model advocates for the integration of social-emotional teaching strategies within the context of ongoing activities, as demonstrated in this study. The positive outcomes observed in the reduction of challenging behaviors further validate the effectiveness of this approach. Furthermore, the findings highlight the broader implications for classroom management and the overall well-being of children. By focusing on social-emotional teaching practices, teachers can create an inclusive and supportive classroom climate that nurtures positive relationships, enhances children's self-regulation skills, and promotes their social and emotional development. This, in turn, contributes to a more positive learning environment where children can thrive academically, socially, and emotionally.

Preschool teachers who participated in the study found both professional development intervention and Pyramid Model practices acceptable. The high acceptability of the professional development intervention and Pyramid Model practices among the preschool teachers in this study aligns with previous research highlighting the importance of teacher acceptance and buy-in for successful implementation of EBPs in educational settings (Lukins et al., 2023; Suhrheinrich et al., 2021). Studies have consistently shown that when teachers perceive an intervention as relevant, feasible, and beneficial to their teaching practices, they are more likely to embrace and effectively implement the strategies (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Domitrovich et al., 2010). The positive perception of the intervention and Pyramid Model practices by the teachers in this study also supports previous findings that comprehensive professional development, such as training and coaching, can have a significant impact on teachers' knowledge, skills, and confidence in implementing EBPs (Rakap & Balikci, 2023). The ongoing coaching support provided to the teachers in this study allowed for individualized feedback and problem-solving, which are known to enhance teacher implementation fidelity and sustainability of practices over time.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

The first limitation of this study involves the selection of participants, specifically focusing on children with persistent, mild challenging behavior. By excluding children with more intense or severe challenging behavior, the study may not fully capture the impact of the professional development intervention on a broader range of challenging behaviors. The exclusion of these children limits the generalizability of the findings to classrooms with children exhibiting more severe challenging behaviors, who may require more intensive and specialized interventions. Future research should consider including a wider range of challenging behaviors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of the intervention across different levels of severity.

Another limitation of this study is the limited representation of teacher characteristics. The study involved three female preschool teachers, all of whom had a bachelor's degree in early childhood education. While the teachers had varying years of experience and some experience working with children with disabilities in inclusive settings, their backgrounds may not fully capture the diversity of teachers in early childhood education. Therefore, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to a broader population of preschool teachers with different characteristics and backgrounds. Future research should aim to include a more diverse sample of teachers, considering factors such as gender, educational levels, years of experience, and specialized training, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how teacher characteristics may influence the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices and the effectiveness of professional development interventions.

Future research could explore the effectiveness of in-person live coaching versus virtual coaching support in promoting the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices. This comparison would allow for an assessment of whether virtual coaching support, if proven equally effective, could provide a less labor-intensive avenue for promoting the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices Additionally, investigating the effects of different coaching intensities (e.g., once a week, twice a week, once every other week) on teacher implementation of social-emotional teaching practices would provide valuable insights. This examination would shed light on optimal support frequencies, thereby informing effective coaching strategies. Another avenue for research could be exploring the impact of different feedback schedules (immediate versus delayed) on teacher implementation of social-emotional teaching practices. Such investigation would contribute to optimizing coaching strategies by determining the most effective timing for providing feedback.

Conclusions

This study investigated the effects of a professional development intervention, which included training and coaching, on the implementation of social-emotional teaching practices by preschool teachers in inclusive classrooms. The findings demonstrate the positive impact of the intervention, as teachers significantly increased their implementation of these strategies following the training and coaching support. The ability of the teachers to generalize the use of social-emotional teaching practices to different settings and maintain high levels of implementation even after the coaching support ended highlights the lasting impact of the intervention on their professional practice. The replication of the experimental effect across multiple teachers strengthens the generalizability of the findings and underscores the robustness of the intervention's impact. Moreover, the study establishes a connection between teachers' implementation of social-emotional teaching practices and a corresponding reduction in challenging behaviors exhibited by the children. These findings contribute to the growing body of research supporting the effectiveness of professional development interventions in promoting the implementation of EBPs. By equipping teachers with the necessary skills and support, interventions like these can create a nurturing classroom environment that supports the social-emotional well-being of children and enhances their overall development. The study also highlights the acceptability and relevance of the professional development intervention and Pyramid Model practices among the participating teachers, emphasizing the importance of teacher acceptance and buy-in for successful implementation. Moving forward, it is recommended that schools and educational institutions focus on providing comprehensive professional development, fostering generalization and sustainability, individualizing coaching and feedback, promoting teacher buy-in, and encouraging collaboration and sharing among teachers. By implementing these suggestions, educators can effectively integrate social-emotional teaching practices into their classrooms, ultimately benefiting the social-emotional development and overall outcomes of young children.