A Randomized Trial of Embedded Instruction Training and Coaching for Preschool Teachers: Impacts on Teacher Implementation and Child Outcomes

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Randomization was conducted at the teacher (whole classroom) level, satisfying the class-level RCT requirement.
    • The unit of random assignment was the teacher.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "We conducted a three-group randomized controlled trial over one school year with 36 preschool teachers recruited from preschool programs affiliated with the Turkish Ministry of National Education in Samsun and surrounding districts in Türkiye." (p. 3) 2) "The unit of random assignment was the teacher. After informed consent was obtained, teachers were assigned to one of three conditions through a simple random assignment procedure." (p. 3) 3) "teachers were assigned identification numbers, and a computer-generated randomization procedure (using a random number generator) was used to allocate teachers to one of the three experimental conditions. Each experimental condition included 12 teachers." (p. 4) 4) "Subsequent to teachers' enrollment but prior to their random assignment to conditions, one child with disabilities from each teacher's classroom was recruited for participation." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: The unit of random assignment was the teacher, and each participating teacher represents one inclusive preschool classroom containing a single target child. Assigning whole teachers (i.e., whole classrooms) to conditions means that entire classes were the randomized unit and that each classroom was wholly allocated to one condition. This design randomizes at the class level rather than assigning different children within a single classroom to different conditions, so it avoids within-class contamination between treatment and control children. Under the ERCT standard, class-level randomization satisfies criterion C. Criterion C is met because randomization was conducted at the teacher/classroom level, allocating whole classes to conditions rather than randomizing students within a single classroom.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were measured with a custom project-developed observational coding form, not a standardized exam.
    • "Teachers' implementation of EI trials was measured using the Embedded Teaching Coding Form (ETCF; Rakap & Balikci, 2017)."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Teachers' implementation of EI trials was measured using the Embedded Teaching Coding Form (ETCF; Rakap & Balikci, 2017). This observational coding system was used to analyze video recordings of teacher-child instructional interactions during regular classroom activities." (p. 8) 2) "Children's responses during instructional interactions were also coded using the ETCF. Four types of child responses were recorded: unprompted correct response, prompted correct response, incorrect response, and no response." (p. 8-9) 3) "Fidelity was assessed using two project-developed instruments: the Workshop Implementation Fidelity Form and the Practice-Based Coaching Implementation Fidelity Form." (p. 7-8) Detailed Analysis: The ERCT criterion E requires that outcomes be measured with widely recognized, standardized exam-based assessments that were not created specifically for the study. In this paper, both the teacher implementation measure and the child outcome measure were obtained using the Embedded Teaching Coding Form (ETCF), a project/research-team-developed observational coding system applied to video recordings, and the fidelity instruments were also project-developed. No standardized national, state-wide, or otherwise externally validated exam was used to assess children's learning. The outcomes are custom observational counts (frequency, rate, and percentage of correct EI trials and correct child responses), not standardized test scores. Criterion E is not met because the study relied on custom, project-developed observational coding rather than any standardized exam-based assessment.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The interval from intervention start to posttest spans about four months, satisfying the one-term duration requirement.
    • "Coaching began the week following the first workshop session and continued for 16 weeks."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "We conducted a three-group randomized controlled trial over one school year with 36 preschool teachers..." (p. 3) 2) "Coaching began the week following the first workshop session and continued for 16 weeks. Sessions occurred once per week and lasted approximately 2.5 h..." (p. 7) 3) "Data were gathered at three time points: prior to the intervention (pretest), after completion of the professional development workshops, and following completion of the PBC (posttest)." (p. 8) 4) "Workshops were delivered at three-week intervals and were organized into four modules reflecting the core components of EI." (p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that outcomes be measured at least one full academic term (about 3-4 months) after the intervention begins. The intervention began with the first workshop, workshops were delivered at three-week intervals across four sessions (roughly nine weeks), and the coaching condition then continued for sixteen weeks, with the posttest collected after completion of the coaching phase. The interval from intervention start to the posttest measurement therefore spans on the order of four months, which meets or exceeds one full academic term. The study is also explicitly described as running "over one school year." Criterion T is met because the interval from intervention start to the posttest measurement covers at least one full academic term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The BAU control group's size, demographics, baseline data, and business-as-usual condition are clearly documented.
    • "Teachers assigned to the control condition continued to provide instruction in their classrooms as they typically would during the school year and did not receive training related to EI during the study period."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Teachers assigned to the control condition continued to provide instruction in their classrooms as they typically would during the school year and did not receive training related to EI during the study period. Teachers in the control group, as well as those who were waitlisted, were offered abbreviated versions of the SEED-EI workshops after the completion of the study." (p. 6) 2) "As shown in Table 1, the demographic characteristics of teachers and classrooms were comparable across experimental conditions. Statistical analyses indicated no significant differences across the three groups on any teacher or classroom variables, suggesting that the groups were comparable at baseline." (p. 4) 3) "Table 1. Comparisons of Teacher and Classroom Variables by Experimental Condition." and "Table 2. Comparisons of Child Characteristics by Experimental Condition." report BAU Control (n = 12) values for gender, education, age, teaching experience, class size, and disability categories. (p. 5) 4) "To examine baseline equivalence across experimental conditions, chi-square analyses were conducted for categorical variables... and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for continuous variables." (p. 9) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires that the control group be well-documented, including its size, demographic characteristics, baseline data, and the conditions it experienced. The paper devotes dedicated columns in Tables 1 and 2 to the BAU control group (n = 12), reporting teacher gender, education level, age, teaching experience, experience with children with disabilities, classroom sizes, and child disability categories and ages, alongside baseline (pretest) outcome values in Table 3. It also states that the control group continued business-as-usual instruction and received no EI training during the study, and it documents baseline equivalence testing. Criterion D is met because the control group's size, demographics, baseline scores, and business-as-usual condition are clearly documented.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • Randomization occurred at the individual teacher level, not at the school level.
    • The unit of random assignment was the teacher.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The unit of random assignment was the teacher. After informed consent was obtained, teachers were assigned to one of three conditions through a simple random assignment procedure." (p. 3) 2) "a computer-generated randomization procedure (using a random number generator) was used to allocate teachers to one of the three experimental conditions. Each experimental condition included 12 teachers." (p. 4) 3) "36 preschool teachers recruited from preschool programs affiliated with the Turkish Ministry of National Education in Samsun and surrounding districts in Türkiye." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires that randomization occur at the school level, that is, among the educational institutions or units implementing the intervention, rather than among individual teachers or classes within schools. In this study the explicit unit of random assignment was the individual teacher, and teachers were drawn from various preschool programs across Samsun and surrounding districts. There is no indication that whole schools were randomized to conditions; teachers within (and across) schools could fall into different conditions. The randomization is therefore at the teacher/class level, not the school level. Criterion S is not met because randomization was conducted at the teacher (class) level rather than at the school level.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The intervention was designed and delivered by the same research team that conducted and analyzed the study, with no independent external evaluator.
    • "Four members of the research team served as coaches."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The present study extends this research by examining the effects of the Supporting Early Education through Embedded Instruction (SEED-EI) professional development model, previously piloted using a single-case design (Rakap et al., 2024)..." (p. 3) 2) "Four members of the research team served as coaches... These individuals attended the workshop sessions with participating teachers and received training from the principal investigator on coaching procedures." (p. 7) 3) "Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.B., S.R. and B.A.; Methodology, S.B., S.R. and B.A.; ... Formal analysis, S.R. and B.A.; Data curation, S.B., S.R. and B.A." (p. 17) 4) "All observational data were collected by trained project personnel who were not involved in delivering the intervention." (p. 8) and "Observations were conducted... by an independent observer not involved in intervention delivery." (p. 8) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires that the evaluation be conducted independently from the authors who designed the intervention, to reduce bias in implementation, analysis, and reporting. Here the SEED-EI intervention was developed by the study's own authors (the model was previously piloted by Rakap et al., 2024, and the current authors conceptualized, designed, and analyzed the study), and the coaches who delivered the core intervention were members of the research team. Although data collection and observational coding were carried out by project personnel not involved in intervention delivery, and fidelity was checked by an independent observer, these are internal separations of role within the same research group; there is no third-party or external evaluator independent of the intervention designers leading the trial. The same team that designed the intervention designed, ran, and analyzed the evaluation. Criterion I is not met because the intervention was designed, delivered, and analyzed by the same research team, with no independent third-party evaluation.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • The interval from intervention start to posttest was about four months, well below 75% of an academic year.
    • "Coaching began the week following the first workshop session and continued for 16 weeks."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Teachers assigned to the workshop condition participated in four professional development workshops totaling approximately 14 h... Workshops were delivered at three-week intervals..." (p. 6) 2) "Coaching began the week following the first workshop session and continued for 16 weeks. Sessions occurred once per week and lasted approximately 2.5 h..." (p. 7) 3) "Data were gathered at three time points: prior to the intervention (pretest), after completion of the professional development workshops, and following completion of the PBC (posttest)." (p. 8) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires that outcomes be measured at least about 75% of a full academic year (roughly seven or more months, given a ~9-10 month year) after the intervention begins. In this study the intervention started with the first workshop; workshops spanned roughly nine weeks and coaching continued for sixteen weeks, with the posttest collected after completion of coaching. The interval from intervention start to the final measurement is therefore on the order of four months, well short of 75% of an academic year. Although the study is described as running "over one school year," the actual tracking interval from intervention start to outcome measurement does not reach the required proportion of a year. Criterion Y is not met because outcomes were measured only about four months after the intervention began, far short of 75% of an academic year.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • The additional professional development and coaching are the explicit treatment variable tested against a business-as-usual control, so the design is balanced.
    • "Teachers assigned to the control condition continued to provide instruction in their classrooms as they typically would during the school year and did not receive training related to EI during the study period."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Teachers assigned to the workshop condition participated in four professional development workshops totaling approximately 14 h." (p. 6) 2) "In addition, they received practice-based coaching (PBC) to support the implementation of EI strategies. Coaching began the week following the first workshop session and continued for 16 weeks. Sessions occurred once per week and lasted approximately 2.5 h." (p. 7) 3) "Teachers assigned to the control condition continued to provide instruction in their classrooms as they typically would during the school year and did not receive training related to EI during the study period." (p. 6) 4) "Teachers in all experimental conditions were employed under the same local education authority, and therefore, the professional development opportunities required and available during the school year were comparable across teachers. These professional development activities were provided through the Ministry of National Education and were unrelated to the study." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: The additional resources provided to the intervention groups are the SEED-EI professional development itself: approximately 14 hours of workshops for the workshop group, plus 16 weeks of weekly practice-based coaching for the coaching group. The BAU control group received the standard, business-as-usual professional development available to all teachers through the Ministry and did not receive EI-related training. Applying the criterion B decision logic, the extra resource (the SEED-EI PD and coaching) is precisely the treatment variable the study sets out to test: the research questions ask whether these PD approaches change teachers' implementation of EI and children's outcomes relative to business-as-usual. The additional workshops and coaching are integral to, and define, the intervention being evaluated rather than being a separable confounding add-on. Moreover, the intervention changes the quality and frequency of instruction delivered within teachers' normal classroom routines rather than adding extra instructional time or budget for the children; children in all conditions remain in ongoing classroom activities. Because the additional resources are the explicit treatment variable, the control group may remain at the business-as-usual level by design. Criterion B is met because the additional workshops and coaching are the explicit treatment variable being tested against a business-as-usual baseline.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • This specific trial has not been independently replicated; the prior pilot was by the same team and cited studies are not replications of it.
    • "The present study extends this research by examining the effects of the Supporting Early Education through Embedded Instruction (SEED-EI) professional development model, previously piloted using a single-case design (Rakap et al., 2024)..."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The present study extends this research by examining the effects of the Supporting Early Education through Embedded Instruction (SEED-EI) professional development model, previously piloted using a single-case design (Rakap et al., 2024), on preschool teachers' implementation of EI practices and children's learning outcomes in inclusive preschool classrooms in Türkiye using a randomized controlled design." (p. 3) 2) "P. Snyder et al. (2018) found that teachers who received workshops and on-site coaching implemented ELOs more frequently and with greater fidelity than those receiving business-as-usual professional development... More recently, P. A. Snyder et al. (2026) reported similar findings." (p. 3) 3) "Group experimental studies are fewer and have been conducted primarily in the United States (e.g., P. Snyder et al., 2018; P. A. Snyder et al., 2026). Additional experimental research is needed..." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires that this specific study be independently replicated by a different research team in a different context and published in a peer-reviewed journal. This SEED-EI randomized controlled trial in Türkiye is itself a new study (published May 2026) that extends a prior pilot conducted by the same research team (Rakap et al., 2024), so that pilot is not an independent replication. The paper cites independent group studies by another team (Snyder et al., 2018; Snyder et al., 2026) that examined similar EI-focused professional development with coaching; however, those studies were conducted earlier and in the United States and are not replications of this particular SEED-EI Turkish trial. A dedicated internet search of publisher databases, Google Scholar, and journal indexes identified no independent reproduction of this specific study; the most closely related recent work, the Snyder et al. (2026) "conceptual replication," is a separate US study of a different intervention by a different team, not a reproduction of this trial. As with the ERCT reproduction examples, related trials of a similar intervention do not constitute replication of this specific study. Criterion R is not met because no independent research team has replicated this specific SEED-EI randomized trial.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Criterion E is not met and outcomes were individualized observational measures, not standardized all-subject exams.
    • "Children's responses during instructional interactions were also coded using the ETCF."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Teachers in each group identified three instructional targets for the participating child in their classroom: one in the social domain (including language and communication), one in the cognitive domain, and one in the self-care or motor domain." (p. 6) 2) "Children's responses during instructional interactions were also coded using the ETCF... the rate (per minute), frequency and percentage of unprompted correct child responses were calculated." (p. 8-9) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires that impact be measured across all main subjects using standardized exam-based assessments, and it explicitly depends on criterion E being met. In this study, criterion E is not met because outcomes were assessed with a custom project-developed observational coding system rather than standardized exams. In addition, the outcomes measured were individualized target behaviors in social/communication, cognitive, and self-care/motor domains for each child, coded observationally, rather than standardized assessments spanning all core school subjects. Because the prerequisite criterion E fails and no standardized all-subject assessment was used, this criterion cannot be satisfied. Criterion A is not met because criterion E is not met and the study used individualized observational measures rather than standardized exams across all main subjects.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • Criterion Y is not met and the study had no follow-up beyond posttest, so no graduation tracking occurred.
    • "longitudinal studies examining longer-term child outcomes would help determine whether improvements in EI implementation lead to sustained gains in children's developmental trajectories."
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Data were gathered at three time points: prior to the intervention (pretest), after completion of the professional development workshops, and following completion of the PBC (posttest)." (p. 8) 2) "additional outcome measures, such as standardized developmental assessments or longer-term follow-up measures, could provide further evidence regarding the broader impacts of the intervention on children's development." (p. 14, Limitations) 3) "longitudinal studies examining longer-term child outcomes would help determine whether improvements in EI implementation lead to sustained gains in children's developmental trajectories." (p. 16, Implications) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires that participants be tracked through to graduation from their educational stage, and it depends on criterion Y being met. Here criterion Y is not met because the tracking interval was only about four months. In addition, outcomes were collected only at pretest and posttest with no follow-up, and the authors themselves note in their limitations and future-research sections that longer-term and longitudinal follow-up were not conducted. There is no tracking of these preschool children through to graduation. A dedicated internet search for subsequent or follow-up publications by the same authors tracking this cohort to graduation returned no such study. Criterion G is not met because criterion Y is not met and the study collected no follow-up beyond posttest, with no graduation tracking.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper reports ethics approval but provides no pre-registration statement, registry link, or registration date.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Institutional ethical approval for the study was obtained prior to recruitment." (p. 3) 2) "Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ondokuz Mayis University (Approval No.: 817, Date: 30 September 2022)." (p. 17) 3) "Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author." (p. 17) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires a public pre-registration of the full study protocol (with hypotheses, methods, and planned analyses) on a registry before data collection began, with a verifiable registration date. The paper reports institutional ethics/IRB approval and funding information, but it provides no reference to any trial or study registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, OSF, AEA registry), no registration identifier, and no statement that the protocol and analysis plan were pre-registered before data collection. A dedicated internet search returned no pre-registration record for this trial. Ethics approval is not equivalent to pre-registration of a study protocol. Criterion P is not met because the paper contains no pre-registration statement, registry link, or registration date, and no registry record was found.