The feasibility of TOGETHER: a collaborative educator-parent programme for teaching social and emotional competence in young children

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of the TOGETHER: Growing Children’s Social and Emotional Competence programme. This programme was designed to build a more collaborative relationship between educators and parents so that they could, together, develop children’s social and emotional competence skills by using positive behaviour support strategies in an Australian early year setting. The findings are reported on two educators, two children and their mothers. Data were collected via a questionnaire, rating scale, direct classroom and home observations and educator/parent interviews. The results indicated an increase in educator and parent positive responses to the two young children’s appropriate behaviour and a decrease in their challenging behaviour. The findings also showed inconsistencies between educators in implementing the strategies. Educators and parents developed a more collaborative relationship. Identified barriers families have with accessing this type of programme are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• TOGETHER programme
• early years
• positive behaviour support
• educators
• parents
• children

Introduction

Children with persistently challenging behaviour are at risk of developing antisocial behaviour. These behaviours reduce the development of their social and emotional skills, decrease academic potential and heighten their vulnerability to exclusion from early years settings through isolation from peers and teachers (Bongers et al. 2004; Webster-Stratton and Bywater 2019; Whitted 2011). In contrast, children who develop strong social and emotional competencies in the early years are typically more successful in their schooling and in later life as they demonstrate more positive relationships with peers, educators, and family members (Denham et al. 2013). To overcome negative social and emotional outcomes for young children, educators and parents should be equipped with positive behaviour support (PBS) strategies to strengthen children’s social and emotional competencies as these strategies have been shown to be effective in altering the social developmental trajectory of at-risk children (Fox and Hemmeter 2009; Hemmeter et al. 2021).

Positive behaviour support strategies have a solid evidence-base (Hemmeter et al. 2016, 2021). The use of behaviour-specific praise has been shown to be an important component in increasing children’s social competence and emotional self-regulation, while decreasing the frequency of inappropriate behaviour (Green, Robbins, and Bucholz 2019; Webster-Stratton, Reid, and Hammond 2001). By placing positive adult attention on positive child behaviour, the potential of a child being motivated to engage in the same behaviour in the future is increased. During educator training Allday, Hinkson-Lee, Hudson, Neilson-Gatti, Kleinke and Russell (2012) investigated the effects of increasing behaviour-specific praise (BSP) and the impact this had on behaviour for six children aged 5–12 years of age. The results showed that with an increase in educator BSP there was an increase in on-task behaviour in the selected children. The Pyramid Model for Promoting Social-Emotional Competence (Hemmeter et al. 2016), the Incredible Years (IY) programme (Webster-Stratton and Bywater 2019; Webster-Stratton, Reid, and Hammond 2001) and the early years settings First Steps to Success (Feil et al. 2009) all produced similar results when they investigated the impact of positive behaviour support (PBS) strategies on educator and child behaviour.

Like educator training, parent training in positive behaviour support strategies has received attention over the past 30 years. The Incredible Years Parent Training (IYPT) teaches parents to guide their children's social, emotional and academic skills (Webster-Stratton 2000; Webster-Stratton and Bywater 2019) using PBS strategies. This programme requires parents to attend 12 to 14, 2.5-h group training sessions. Parents reported the IYPT programme improved their child’s behaviour, and they experienced better family relationships (Fergusson, Stanley, and Horwood 2009). Another successful parent programme is the Parent Management Training-Oregon Model (PMTO) (Forgatch and Patterson 2010; Forgatch, Patterson, and DeGarmo 2005) which trains parents to use PBS practices. In this programme, parents attend training for appropriately 17 h. This programme has been successfully implemented in countries such as Norway (Ogden and Hagan 2008) and Denmark (Scavenius et al. 2020).

Collaboration between educators and parents is a key component for supporting parent training (Green, Robbins, and Bucholz 2019; Hieneman and Fefer 2017). The IYPT and the PMTO programmes focus on the need for educator/parent consistency and collaboration, however, opportunities for this practical collaboration in application can be limited.

Several programmes embrace the collaborative partnership in the assessment and intervention process. One such collaborative programme is the Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) (Sheridan and Kratochwill 2007). In CBC, parents are viewed as essential partners in the formation of individualised PBS-based programmes (Garbacz et al. 2020). Bellinger, Lee, Jamison and Reese (2016) adopted this model, but like the First Steps to Success (preschool edition) programme (Feil et al. 2014, 2016), both models trained educators and parents separately, thus lacked the opportunity for explicit, practical educator–parent interaction and considerable time commitments were required from both educators and parents.

In Australia, the Exploring Together Early Years Settings Programme (ETPP) has produced some promising results for educator and parent partnerships (Reid, Littlefield, and Hammond 2008) but this community-based programme involves separate parent, child and educator training groups and involves a substantial time commitment from both parents with one to two-hour sessions per week over 10 weeks and educators attending two meetings. There were positive changes in parenting skills and satisfaction and a reduction in parental stress recorded, but Reid et al. (2008) acknowledged the educator component may not have been intense enough to allow adjustments in educator behaviour, and this may have impacted on child behaviour.

The present study

The above educator-parent collaborative programmes all offer valuable insights that informed the development of the programme used in this current study – TOGETHER: Growing Children’s Social and Emotional Skills (TOGETHER). The evidence-based principles of PBS (Benedict, Horner, and Squire 2007; Hemmeter et al. 2016, 2021; Stormont, Lewis, and Beckner 2005) were used to inform the development of TOGETHER. When developing the programme, two main gaps emerged in the literature. Firstly, there were limited opportunities for practical educator-parent collaboration, and secondly, the time commitment from both educators and parents was substantial for all the established programmes. The issue of time commitment is concerning, as parents report that ‘time’ is a major challenge as they juggle their everyday commitments (Phillipson and Phillipson 2016). Therefore, there was a need to develop a collaborative educator-parent training model which reduced the time commitment required to participate but allowed for collaborative relationships to develop. Another reason to train educators and parents together was to encourage a community of support and reduce the stigma of attending such a programme. As suggested by Plath, Crofts and Stuart (2016), stigma can be alleviated when PBS programmes are available to all members of the school community (universal) and accompanied by small group sizes. To address these gaps, the authors developed and then piloted the TOGETHER programme. The programme aimed to train educators and parents together in PBS strategies and increase their collaborative relationships so that they could support each other in the implementation of TOGETHER. In this manner, they could provide consistency in the application of the programme for children with challenging behaviour across the early years settings and home environments.

This study addresses the following research questions:

1. How feasible was the TOGETHER model in educator and parent training?

2. What were the effects of the TOGETHER programme on the practices of educators and parents in positive behaviour support?

3. How do children’s prosocial skills change after programme implementation?

Method

Development of the TOGETHER programme

The TOGETHER programme was drawn from several established programmes such as the Pyramid Model for Supporting Social Emotional Competence in Infants and Young Children (Fox et al. 2010; Hemmeter et al. 2016); Incredible Years Teacher and Parent Programme (Webster-Stratton, 2000; Webster-Stratton and Bywater 2019; Webster-Stratton, Reid, and Hammond 2001) and the Parent Management Training – Oregon Model (PMTO) (Forgatch and Patterson 2010). Where TOGETHER differs from these established early intervention programmes is that TOGETHER takes a more individualised, flexible, collaborative and strength-based approach to training both educators and parents together. TOGETHER also focused on the development of a collaborative and trusting relationship between educators and parents so that any different cultural understandings could be identified and explored before they worked together to implement the positive behaviour support strategies of TOGETHER in the early years settings and home.

TOGETHER was delivered in the early years setting over two, 2-h evening workshops with a one-week break between workshops. The first workshop included (a) exploring and understanding the early years setting’s culture and the cultures of the families, (b) building relationships between educators, parents and children, (c) the benefits and use of praise and (d) how to be proactive and use the skills taught. Between workshops, educators and parents were encouraged to implement and practice the learned TOGETHER strategies in the early years setting and home, respectively, with additional coaching provided via, phone, text or email. Reminder text messages were sent offering assistance if needed. The second workshop included (a) reflection on how effective the previously taught strategies were, (b) developing rules, boundaries, and managing misbehaviour, (c) bringing all the skills learnt together.

Setting, recruitment, and participants

The setting was a small community-based early years setting for children aged three to six years located in a city in Australia. This multi-cultural early years community encompassed families of Australian, New Zealand, Indian, South-east Asian, Middle Eastern, and European descent. The early years setting operated three sessional groups, with the four/five-year-old group participating in this study. Twenty-two children attended this group for 2 days per week for 7.5 h per day.

The early years setting expressed interest in being part of the study and consented to participate. Pseudonyms were given for all participants.

Educator group

Educator Sue held a bachelor’s degree in primary and early childhood education, had 3 years of early childhood teaching experience and had been employed at the early years setting for 1 year. Educator Ali held a diploma in early childhood education and had been teaching 16 years at the early years setting. Both educators were Australian born and belonged to the local community.

Selection of families and children

The first child’s family had three children all under 5 years of age and had migrated to Australia 5 years earlier. Tamati was 5 years old and was selected by his educators via a two-step multiple-gating procedure utilising an educator Nomination Form and the Social Development Rating Scale SDRS (Tyler-Merrick 2015). The use of the two-step multiple-gating procedure occurred before baseline observations. The employment of this procedure identified the learning needs of children with social and emotional needs. The educator Nomination Form involved each participating teacher/educator nominating up to six children who meet the definition of children with behavioural difficulties. For this study, only two children participated, with only Tamati meeting the definition. Once Tamati was nominated, the SDRS was completed. The SDRS scale consists of 30 items. This Likert scale has 15 questions to rate the level of competence of prosocial behaviour and 15 questions to rate the level of antisocial behaviour on a scale of 150. If a child received a score of less than 113, then a social emotional competence intervention programme was recommended. It was found that Tamati scored 113.5. His score was borderline as the cut-off score to identify children with social and emotional difficulties was 113. Because Tamati had difficulty sitting at mat-time and group times and he poked, interrupted, and shouted at other children or educators when they were talking, Tamati’s mother consented to participate in the TOGETHER programme. She also consented to home video observations of Tamati and herself because she also struggled with his behaviour at home, namely with compliance to her requests at busy times such as dinner time and getting ready for early years settings. Tamati’s mother provided consent and Tamati provided assent. Tamati’s father did not participate.

The second child’s family had two children under 5 years of age and were Australian. Henry was 4 years old, and he did not meet the cut-off point on the SDRS as having a behaviour concern, which qualified him as a comparison child. Henry was selected to ascertain if positive attention was given to a typical developing child from the educators during the early years setting observations. His family provided consent and Henry provided assent. As Henry was a comparison child, Henry’s mother was not observed at home. Henry’s father did not participate.

At the initial interview and demographic questionnaire, the participants were asked about their family’s cultural practices and if any of their practices could be incorporated into TOGETHER. Examples of cultural practices could include the provision of halal/kosher/vegetarian/vegan food (as food was provided at the workshops) and consideration of gender difference. No participants cited any cultural practices that needed to be observed. The participants’ preference for communication was for face-to-face communication except for Educator Sue, who requested email or phone only communication. Participant demographics, cultural considerations, group sizes and communication preferences are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Participant demographics, cultural considerations, group training and communication preferences for all participants.

Participant	Gender	Home language	Nationality	Age	Education Level	Years teaching in Early Childhood	Cultural conside- rations	Group prefe-rences	Commun-ication preferences
Educator Sue	Female	English	Australia	45–49	Bachelor of Education (Primary and Early Childhood)	3	No	Small	Email orphone calls phone calls
Educator Ali	Female	English	Australia	45–49	Diploma of Early Childhood Education	16	No	Small	Face toface, text message face, text message
Tamati’s Mother	Female	English	New Zealand	35–39	NA	NA	No	Small or large	Face toface, email, phone, text face, email, phone, text
Henry’s Mother	Female	English	Australia	35–39	NA	NA	No	Small	Face to face, email
Child Tamati	Male	English	Australia	5	NA	NA	No	NA	NA
Child Henry	Male	English	Australia	4	NA	NA	No	NA	NA

Note: NA = not applicable.

TOGETHER workshops

The TOGETHER programme workshop group was open to all educators and parents in the early years setting. The group included Educators Sue and Ali, Tamati’s mother Kiri, and Henry’s mother Sonja. Two additional educators and three parents also participated, but they were not included in the current study.

Study design

The study design was a mixed methods approach utilising single-case AB design (Michiels and Onghena 2019). The design included one baseline phase (A) and an intervention (treatment) phase (B). In single-case AB phase designs, repeated observations of participants occur before and after an intervention. The intervention phase was followed by a post-intervention and a follow-up phase, both undertaken to observe changes associated with the intervention. The design procedure was selected to show if a relationship existed between the educator, parent, and child responses as a result of the TOGETHER programme.

Measures

Five measures were employed in this study

Communication styles and demographics (CSD) questionnaire

This self-developed eight-question CSD questionnaire requested educator and parent demographics and asked if there were any time constraints/barriers in accessing the TOGETHER programme, family cultural needs, workshop time preference and preferred communication style. Based on this information, the facilitator could adapt TOGETHER to suit the needs of the participants.

Social Development Rating Scale (SDRS)

This 30 items, 5-point Likert rating scale (total score = 150 indicating a well-socialised child) was used to identify a child with behavioural difficulties and the comparison child. The cut-off score was 114 (Church, Tyler-Merrick, and Hayward 2006). This screening measure was based on the work of Walker et al. (1994) and had been adapted successfully to New Zealand conditions for this age group (Tyler-Merrick 2015).

Early years settings and in-home observations

Direct observations occurred in the early years setting for Tamati and Henry and in the home for Tamati at baseline, post-intervention and follow-up phases. Direct observations focused on two dependent variables. The first was the educator or parent behaviour in response to either Tamati’s or Henry’s behaviour. The response codes were (a) contingent praise (praise that described the positive behaviour, for example, ‘You have tried so hard to put on your shoes, great work’), (b) positive praise without description (for example, ‘well done’ or a smile or gesture in response to appropriate behaviour), (c) discouragements (negative responses to a child’s behaviour or using ‘stop’ requests), (d) planned ignoring (intentional ignoring of a behaviour such as a tantrum) and (e) non-contingent responses (recorded when none of the above behaviours were observed in response to child appropriate or inappropriate behaviour). The second dependent variable was the children’s appropriate and inappropriate behaviours. Appropriate behaviour was defined as cooperating with an adult or peer, listening and engaging in socially appropriate activities with peers and other adults; inappropriate behaviour was defined as engaging in disruptive behaviour, non-compliance with adult requests and antisocial behaviour such as hitting or tantrums. The observation codes and recording form was adapted from Phillips, Tyler-Merrick and Church (2014).

Direct observations occurred in the early years setting during transition, mat-time, eating, and free play periods. Each observation lasted 30 min and occurred three times in each phase for both children (a total of 1.5 h per child per phase). A postgraduate student was trained to assist with these observations. Inter-observer agreement was calculated for 33% of the pre-school observations across all phases and agreement occurred for 88% of the observations.

In-home observation sessions were recorded via a small video camera. Tamati’s mother operated the camera for three 30-min periods in each phase (a total of 1.5 h per phase) during selected family routines where non-compliance was more likely to occur such as bedtime, dinner, playtime or getting up in the morning. The camera was simple to operate and only required the parent to position the camera so that the whole routine could be viewed and heard.

Social validity survey

A social validity survey via survey monkey was conducted during the post-intervention phase requesting responses for the programme’s relevance, applicability, knowledge gained and areas for improvement. The survey consisted of seven Likert type questions and three open-ended questions.

Feedback interview

This phone interview occurred 2 weeks after the final observations and was approximately 20 min long and audio recorded. The interview included three open-ended questions on (1) how the educators’ and parents’ beliefs and practices about behaviour may have changed or had not changed due to the TOGETHER programme; (2) if there were changes in the parent–educator relationships; and/or (3) any suggested improvements for the TOGETHER programme.

Beliefs, Practices, and Relationships Questionnaire: A self-developed questionnaire named the Beliefs, Practices, and Relationships Questionnaire (BPRQ) was used in the larger TOGETHER project. The BPRQ was created to understand the change in parent’s and educator’s beliefs regarding children’s social and emotional development (in addition to practices and relationships). However, the focus of this project is on the feasibility of TOGETHER in changing parent and educator practices and relationships, as well as child behaviour. Therefore, the BPRQ has not been included in this report.

Procedure

Phase one, baseline. The baseline consisted of the CSD questionnaire, the SDRS, the early years settings and home direct observations for 3 days per week for 2 weeks. The completion of the CSD and SDRS occurred at the early years setting for the educators 1 week prior to baseline direct observations occurring. Three and a half-hour observations also occurred in the home setting over a two-week period.

Phase two, The TOGETHER programme intervention. TOGETHER was implemented over two, 2-hour workshops held one week apart, from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. at the early years setting.

Phase three, Post-intervention. This phase replicated the baseline for 3 days over a period of 2 weeks. The social validity survey was sent to the participating educators and parents.

Phase four, follow-up. The early years settings and in-home observations replicated baseline and post-intervention phases. Educators 1 and 2 completed a second SDRS (Church, Tyler-Merrick, and Hayward 2006). A feedback interview invitation was extended to all four participants. This was held by telephone.

Data analysis

Data analysis included descriptive statistics for the CSD questionnaire and SDRS (Church, Tyler-Merrick, and Hayward 2006). Frequency counts with regression analysis occurred with the direct observations and were transferred to SPSS where outliers and normality were conducted (Shapiro-Wilk’s test). Regression analysis included paired-samples t-tests that were used to determine whether there was a statistically significant mean difference between baseline and post-intervention response scores given by the three adult participants. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s (1988) d where .20 was considered small, .50 medium, and .70 large.

By observing individual behaviour change with Tamati and Henry, the frequency scores were converted to line graphs. The graphs were accompanied by effect sizes (SMDall). Effect sizes (SMDall) were calculated individually. SMDall has been shown to be an effective method to compliment visual analysis of single-subject case studies (Olive & Smith, 2005) and presented in Table format.

A Likert type scale was used for the social validity survey. The scores for each question were tabulated and compared across participants. The three open-ended questions were analysed via a constant comparative method to categorise and summarise the educators and parent responses. The final interview responses were also analysed using this method with the responses placed into two written categories and tabled.

Results

The findings of each measure are presented.

Social development rating scale

Tamati’s SDRS mean scores from educators Sue and Ali are presented in Table 2. At baseline, out of a possible total score of 150 (indicating a socially well-adjusted child), Tamati scored 113.5 (n = 2, SD = 11.5) indicating he was just under the cut-off score for his age group. At follow-up, this mean score increased to 122 (n = 2, SD = 6) nine points above his baseline score.

Table 2. Tamati’s scores on the social development rating scale.

Participant	Pre		Post
	M	SD	M	SD
Tamati	113.5	11.5	122	6

Individual educator and parent behaviour

To report the total number of behavioural responses of Educator Sue, Educator Ali, and Tamati’s Mother when interacting with Tamati were collated and are displayed in Table 3. The results indicate that for Educator Sue, the number of times she gave contingent praise and positive praise increased from baseline to post intervention but at follow-up, these responses decreased back to baseline levels. Over the observations, there was a small decrease in the number of discouragements and non-contingent responses.

Table 3. Frequency counts for adult response code to child behaviour from baseline to post-intervention.

Variable	Baseline	Post-Intervention	Follow-up
	Total Number of responses	Total Number of responses	Total Number of responses
Educator Sue
Contingent Praise	2	8	4
Positive Praise	4	7	2
Discouragements	6	4	4
Non-contingent response	35	19	11
Educator Ali
Contingent Praise	0	13	17
Positive Praise	6	7	2
Discouragements	13	0	0
Non-contingent response	38	3	4
Tamati’s Mother
Contingent Praise	2	32	11
Positive Praise	9	10	9
Discouragements	7	1	1
Non-contingent response	21	13	17

Conversely, Educator Ali recorded zero contingent praise at baseline, but this increased to 13 responses post-intervention and was maintained at follow-up. Her use of positive praise did not change from baseline to post-intervention but decreased at follow-up to only two occurrences. Her discouragements decreased from 13 at baseline to zero at post intervention and follow-up. Likewise, her use of non-contingent responses decreased from 38 at baseline to very low levels at post intervention and follow-up.

Tamati’s mother increased her contingent praise from a baseline to post intervention, but this decreased at follow-up, nevertheless this was still higher than baseline levels. Her discouragements reduced from 7 at baseline to 1 at post intervention and this was maintained at follow-up. Her non-contingent responses decreased at post-intervention with an increase at follow-up.

Individual child responses

Tamati’s direct observations at early years settings

Figure 1 illustrates Tamati’s appropriate and inappropriate behaviours in the early years settings across all three phases with Educators Sue and Ali.

Figure 1. The number of times Tamati engaged in appropriate or inappropriate behaviour when interacting with educator Sue and educator Ali.

The results indicate that the effects of TOGETHER were variable for Tamati, but he engaged in more appropriate behaviour than inappropriate behaviour with the exception of period 7 where there was an increase in inappropriate behaviour equal to his appropriate behaviour.

Henry’s direct observations.At early years settings

Henry was observed only in the early years setting. Figure 2 shows Henry’s appropriate and inappropriate behaviours across all three phases of the programme. The baseline indicates appropriate behaviour steadily increasing to a high of 20 responses at the first observation in the post-intervention phase but from observation 5 there was a decline in appropriate behaviour with lower levels recorded at follow-up than at baseline, with a mean of five occurrences recorded at follow-up. In contrast, Henry’s inappropriate behaviour across all phases was zero or one occurrence per observation.

Figure 2. The number of times Henry was engaged in appropriate or inappropriate behaviour when interacting with educator Sue and educator Ali.

Tamati’s direct observations in the home

In contrast to the early years settings setting, Tamati’s appropriate behaviour indicated a decreasing trend during baseline but this increased during the post-intervention phase and stabilised at follow-up with a mean of 16 appropriate responses. Tamati’s inappropriate behaviour was low over all phases and decreased from a mean of 2.67 at baseline to a mean of 0.33 at follow-up. Figure 3 shows the frequency of Tamati’s appropriate and inappropriate behaviours in the home setting.

Figure 3. The number of times Tamati engaged in appropriate or inappropriate behaviour when interacting with mother.

There was a range of effect size for both children

Table 4 indicates the effect size for appropriate and inappropriate behaviour in the early years setting for Tamati and Henry and for Tamati in the home setting. The early years settings observations of Tamati elicited a medium effect size for appropriate behaviour (d = 0.56) and large effect size for inappropriate behaviour (d = 0.97) but in the home setting, the effect size was large with (d = 1.72) and (d = 2.49), respectively. For Henry’s appropriate behaviour in the early years setting, the effect size was large (d = 1.00) and small for inappropriate behaviour (d = 0.34).

Table 4. Effect size (SMDall) of Tamati and Henry’s appropriate and inappropriate behaviours across the preschool and home settings.

	Baseline	Combined Post-Intervention	SMDall
	M(SD)	M(SD)
Tamati (preschool)
Appropriate behaviour	13(5.89)	9.67(2.62)	0.56
Inappropriate behaviour	11.67(8.22)	3.67(3.30)	0.97
Tamati (home)
Appropriate behaviour	10.67(3.68)	17(6.03)	1.72
Inappropriate behaviour	2.67(0.94)	.33(.47)	2.49
Henry (preschool)
Appropriate behaviour	10(2.16)	7.83(5.84)	1.00
Inappropriate behaviour	0.33(0.47)	.17(.37)	0.34

Overall educator and parent responses and child behaviour

No outliers were detected in any of the tests, and the assumption of normality was not violated as assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk’s test, apart from the overall appropriate child behaviour. Due to low participant numbers, a paired-sample t-test was conducted, potentially skewing the test of normality. Table 5 indicates the paired-sample t-test was non-significant for overall positive responses (combined contingent praise and positive praise), non-contingent responses, discouragements, and overall appropriate child behaviour. However, for overall inappropriate child behaviour, the post-intervention-follow-up observations elicited a decrease of 2.67 (95% CI, 0.87 to 4.46) for the combined behaviour of Tamati and Henry per observation when compared to baseline observations. The decrease in post-intervention-follow-up responses was statistically significant t(2) = 6.40, p < .02. The effect size suggested a high practical significance calculated at d = 1.42. The effect sizes were also large for the overall praise (calculated at d = 1.68), non-contingent responses (calculated at d = 1.42), and discouragements (calculated at d = 0.87). For an overall appropriate child behaviour, the effect size was small, calculated at d = 0.12.

Table 5. Paired-sample T-test of educator and parent responses to child behaviour and behaviour of Tamati and Henry.

	Shapiro-Wilk’s test of normality	Sig. (2-tailed)	d
Adult responses
Overall positive responses	.225	0.101	1.68
Non-contingent responses	.988	0.133	1.42
Discouragements	.993	0.272	0.87
Overall child behaviour
Appropriate behaviour	.031	0.851	0.12
Inappropriate behaviour	.225	0.024	1.42

Note: Child behaviour recorded when interacting with an educator or parent.

Social validity survey

Educators Ali and Sue, and Tamati and Henry’s mothers completed the social validity survey. The survey was anonymous, so responses are presented as Adults 1–4 in Tables 6 and 7 below. All the participants agreed or strongly agreed TOGETHER met their expectations, they were able to apply the knowledge learned and the strategies were effective in reducing child behaviour problems and they were comfortable using the strategies as they were educator/parent friendly.

Table 6. Educators and parents social validity survey.

Questions	Adult 1	Adult 2	Adult 3	Adult 4
The training met my expectations	5	5	5	4
I have been able to apply the knowledge learned	4	5	5	4
The content was organised and easy to follow	5	5	5	4
The quality of instruction was good	5	5	5	4
I will continue to use the strategies taught	5	5	5	4
The strategies have proven to be an effective and efficient method for reducing behaviour problems	4	4	5	4
Overall, I feel comfortable with the strategies and consider them to be parent/educator friendly	4	5	5	4

Note: Likert scoring 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Table 7. Educators and parents Social Validity Survey Short Answer responses.

Questions	Adult 1	Adult 2	Adult 3	Adult 4
What aspects of the TOGETHER program training could be improved?	Scheduled follow up for teachers.	More ‘real life’ examples	NR	NR
What aspects of the training the participants had found useful?	Emphasis on specific praise. Opportunity to collaborate with parents.	Planned ignoring. Praise others	The Strategies	NR
Had training had influenced educator/parenting practice? Please state why or why. not?	Consolidated my education and beliefs. Tools are easy and effective to implement. Increased positive interactions with children. Increased positive interaction with families.	Sometimes (influenced practice). Children are usually quite well behaved	Strategies have really helped	NR

Note: NR = no response from participant.

To supplement the above questions, the educators and parents also answered three open-ended questions which are summarised in Table 7. Several suggestions were made for change to TOGETHER such as the need for more ‘real life’ examples from the facilitator as it was suggested that asking participants to provide their own examples could be confronting for some parents. Another suggestion was the inclusion of scheduled one-to-one follow-up meetings to help with the TOGETHER strategies being implemented. When asked what aspects of the training they found useful, they reported that positive praise, particularly specific (contingent) praise, was effective, the additional opportunities for educator/parent collaboration were valuable and the strategies to ignore inappropriate behaviour while paying attention to the positive behaviours was most helpful. The educators reported TOGETHER was helpful in increasing positive interactions with children and their families.

Feedback interview

An interview was conducted post-intervention to allow educators and parents to provide additional feedback if they wished. Educator X and one parent participated. The educator and parent responses indicated they were now more aware of giving more positive responses to children’s appropriate behaviour, and they stated that a more collaborative relationship occurred between the educators and parents due to a feeling of ‘openness’. However, their responses highlighted two areas to consider for future implementation of the TOGETHER programme.

1. One-to-one parent/educator meetings: The parent indicated a need for one-to-one meetings with the educators so that they could discuss their child’s needs with confidentiality and follow up on child progress.

2. Impact of time: Making additional time was an issue for both the educator and parent. The educator reported she found it difficult to collaborate effectively with families as she did not see them (referring to grandparents bringing their grandchildren to early years settings) and a reduced connection with working parents limited the involvement of some families to participate in the TOGETHER programme. The parent said the busyness of family life, working, having a social life meant that she struggled to interact positively with her children and implement the TOGETHER strategies. However, she reported the TOGETHER strategies were simple to use and she found they helped her encourage positive interactions when at home.

Discussion

The overall aim of this study was to test the feasibility of the TOGETHER programme in one early years setting. While this study was small and not generalisable, the findings indicate the TOGETHER programme is feasible as an educator and parent training programme to develop young children’s social emotional competence skills and is worthy of further development. By training educators and parents together and only using two workshops to do this, the TOGETHER programme offers a simple and practical platform to encourage educator and parent collaboration in the teaching of children’s social and emotional competence skills. This also assisted in establishing a small community of support, reduced the stigma of attending such programmes and helped parents understand they were not alone in the journey of parenting. These findings support that of Plath et al. (2016) who suggests PBS programmes which are universal and begin with small group sizes potentially reduce any ‘stigma’ families may feel when attending. The educator and parent participants both reported that the TOGETHER strategies were easy and effective to use. Collaboration between educators and families occurred due to a feeling of ‘openness’ and this may have contributed to an increase in the consistency of strategies used across both the home and early years settings environments.

The TOGETHER programme led to an increase in positive interactions between educators and children in the early years setting and in Tamati’s home setting. The programme also opened additional conversations between educators and parents after the workshops, leading to more collaborative relationships between educators and parents developing. As suggested by Sheridan and Kratochwill (2007) and Green et al. (2019), a strong educator–parent relationship contributes to consistency in teaching social-emotional competence strategies across the home and school settings and impacts on children’s behaviour positively. The consistency in using the TOGETHER strategies may explain the decrease in Tamati’s inappropriate behaviour especially at mat time. This finding concurs with that of Webster-Stratton and Bywater (2019) and earlier, Webster-Stratton et al. (2001) where that including influential people in the child’s life (educators and parents) and intervening as early as possible was most effective in increasing appropriate behaviour and improving the educator-child and parent–child relationships.

The above outcomes indicate that the TOGETHER programme was feasible. However, there were some aspects which require further development. These include more scheduled follow-ups and one-to-one educator/parent meetings, increasing educator and parent recruitment and more research on the cultural adaptability of the programme.

The findings indicate that more scheduled follow-ups are required so that educators and teachers can have additional coaching outside of the two workshop sessions. Additional coaching may have alleviated Educator Sue’s struggle in adopting the TOGETHER strategies especially for increasing the number of positive interactions she had with children. Feedback from one parent also indicated a need for more one-to-one meetings so that they could discuss their family’s individual needs in a confidential manner. As part of TOGETHER, additional feedback was provided at the request of each participant and reminders were sent via text offering assistance, but these offers were not taken-up by either the educators or parents. The reasons for this were not clear; however, it may be that most of the participants were confident in the strategies taught or that they were busy and did not have the time to follow up this request. Future TOGETHER programmes will include one-to-one meetings, follow-up emails or phone calls to scaffold the skills taught and to provide feedback to help develop the skills taught. Further development will also consider Allday et al. (2012) suggestion of additional performance feedback every 3 days.

Another aspect which requires further development is how TOGETHER can reach a wider range of educators and parents. Like Plath et al. (2016), this study also found that the timing of the workshops, lack of transport and work commitment determine whether a family can participate or not. The TOGETHER programme needs to explore additional ways in which to include working parents and extended family members, especially those from different cultures.

This feasibility study was limited to one early years setting. While the early years setting was culturally diverse, the participants belonged to two similar cultural groups. As a result, the TOGETHER programme was not explored in terms of addressing cultural diversity and as such this aspect of the programme is yet to be investigated.

The effects on educator and parent practice and child behaviour

Encouragingly, the strategies taught by TOGETHER increased both educator and parent skills in positive behaviour support strategies. Educators and parents both reported during and after the training, the skills taught were effective and easy to use. The increase in the use of contingent praise replicates that of Allday et al. (2012) who also found that consistent use of contingent praise leads to an increase in positive behaviour for children with, or at-risk of, emotional and social delays. As a result of TOGETHER, Tamati and Henry both experienced an increase in positive interactions and a decrease in discouragements from Educator Ali. Tamati’s mother also made several changes to the way she interacted with Tamati at home. Firstly, she made a conscious effort to increase her number of positive interactions and decrease her discouragements. She anecdotally reported Tamati would contingently praise his brothers and when his father joined them, there was a focused effort from him to give contingent praise to Tamati (and other family members). These results are consistent with the findings of Ogden and Hagen (2008) who also found parents in the PMTO programme moved their focus to recognising and acknowledging appropriate behaviour.

These findings indicate the two, 2-h workshops were enough to effect change for Educator Ali and Tamati’s mother. The format of the workshops provided a platform for the educators and parents to collaborate on the TOGETHER strategies, possibly enhancing their educator–parent relationship.

The TOGETHER programme made little effect on the teaching practices of Educator Sue. Educator Sue’s contingent positive responses were substantially lower than Educator Ali’s, especially at follow-up and her discouragements and non-contingent responses remained higher than Educator Ali’s across post-intervention and follow-up. A possible explanation for this resistance may have been that her engagement and commitment to the programme may not have been as high at Educator Ali. Allowing more opportunities for facilitator performance feedback and educator-to-educator collaboration may have alleviated these differences. Alternative communitive methods could also be explored such as ongoing coaching via Zoom. Hemmeter et al. (2021) and Fox et al. (2010) suggest that for interventions to be successful, certain infrastructures need to be in place, including ongoing professional development and support for educators and parents.

Limitations

The current study presents several limitations. It must be noted that the first author was previously employed at the early years setting chosen for the study. Although utmost care was taken to ensure the participants did not feel obliged to participate, bias cannot be discounted. Additionally, the behaviour of the educators, parents and children may have changed due to the presence of the first author during the direct observations. It is therefore important that future studies recruit participants from a range of early years settings so as to reduce any implications that may arise from the participants knowing the researchers.

The participant sample size was small therefore generalisations cannot be made when interpreting the change in educator, parent, and child behaviour. The small sample size also had an impact on the effect size and statistical analysis. Future studies need to explore how sample sizes can be increased in a variety of diverse early years settings communities to avoid this issue.

The collection of observational data also requires further investigation for the change in educator responses to be more visible. In the current study, the direct early years setting observations were restricted because the observers followed Tamati and Henry and only included the two educators when they interacted with either child. Thus, the change in the two educators’ responses were only observed when they interacted with either Tamati or Henry. This inconsistency meant it was difficult to obtain a clear picture of the change in educator and child responses. Future early years settings observations should include individual observations of each participating educator and child (not just following the participating children). By adopting this approach, future researchers will have a clearer picture of the behaviour change for educators and children.

To gain a fuller understanding of Henry’s appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, an SDRS should have been undertaken at baseline and post intervention. Likewise, video observations should have also occurred in the home environment for Henry. In this manner, a full picture of Henry’s behaviour could have been reported. In the home setting, this would have provided a deeper understanding of mother and child interactions, thus helping to explain their appropriate and inappropriate responses at home and at the early years setting.

Finally, there was little variance in educator or parent demographics, therefore, future studies should explore the adaptability of the TOGETHER programme to other culturally diverse communities.

Conclusions

The TOGETHER programme adds to a small body of literature in which educators and parents work together to develop young children’s social and emotional competence skills. Of importance, this small feasibility study offers promising results in how to deliver a collaborative programme focused on TOGETHER strategies where educators and parents learn via two workshops and then consistently deliver TOGETHER strategies in the early years and home settings to reduce a child’s challenging behaviour. As a result, there was a positive change in one educator and one parent in consistently delivering the TOGETHER strategies.

There are gaps in TOGETHER which need to be further developed. The challenge now is to address these gaps and then further investigate how TOGETHER can attract more educators and parents from different cultural communities to a programme such as this. Further investigations are also required in how TOGETHER can provide additional individualised support to assist educators and parents to further develop and support young children’s social and emotional competence skills.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the parents and educators who participated in this study. Their contribution to helping us understand the role of families and educators in children’s social and emotional development is highly valued.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Joanna Grace Phillips

Joanna Grace Phillips has a PhD in Education from Swinburne University of Technology and teaching qualifications in early childhood education and psychology. She currently works as a Senior Advisor for the Ministry of Education in New Zealand. Joanna has extensive experience as an early childhood teacher, early intervention and behaviour specialist, and has taught for several years in the university setting. Joanna's interests in research focus on early intervention, family-centred practices, positive behaviour supports, and contextually responsive approaches in both education and intervention.

Gaye Tyler-Merrick

Gaye Tyler-Merrick is a Senior Lecturer in Education and Early Years at Nottingham Trent University. She has a PhD in Education along with teaching qualifications. Gaye's teaching and research interests are in special and inclusive education with an emphasis on child and youth social and emotional development, student learning and behaviour/classroom management, and developing culturally responsive practices in education. Her research expertise is in mixed- methods with an emphasis on single-case designs.

Sivanes Phillipson

Sivanes Phillipson is Professor and Chair of Department Education at Swinburne University of Technology. She is also Editor for Routledge's Evolving Families book series that focuses on issues, challenges and empirical best practices surrounding evolving families that impact their survival, development and outcomes. Sivanes's research expertise comprises of mixed-method approaches and analysis including Leximancer verbatim analysis. Rasch modelling, meta-analysis, and structural equation modelling. Her research interest and experience focus on comparative family studies in particular parent and community of culturally diverse and disadvantaged children and at-risk youth. Her research has shown how family and community influences underpin children/youth factors that impact short and long term social and economic outcomes. With her research, she has extended models of family and community support to enable children and young people to learn and self-regulate within a framework of accessibility and resources of an individual.