A pilot study evaluating strengths-based coaching for primary school students: Enhancing engagement...

OSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY can be under-stood as being a strengths-basedpsychology, founded on the humanistic

assumption that people want to lead mean-ingful and fulfilling lives (Seligman, 2002).Positive psychology has also been defined asthe study of optimal functioning (Gable &Haidt, 2005). There are an increasingnumber of positive psychology interventions(PPIs) that are being developed for thepurposes of mental health prevention andpromotion, with generally promising out-comes (for a recent meta-analysis, see Sin &Lyubormirsky, 2009).

Positive psychology’s complementarypartner, Coaching psychology, can be under-stood as being an ‘applied positivepsychology’ – a collaborative, solution-focused, systematic methodology designedto enhance wellbeing, facilitate goal attain-ment and foster purposeful, positive change.There are several research studies that

provide support for coaching as a means ofincreasing aspects of wellbeing includinghope and hardiness (see, for example,Grant, Green & Rynsaardt, 2010; Green,Grant & Rynsaardt, 2007; Green, Oades &Grant, 2006; Spence & Grant, 2005) andthere is a growing evidence-base for solution-focused, cognitive behavioural approachesto coaching in a wide range of differentsettings (Grant et al., 2010).

Coaching methodologies can provide theopportunity for the application of positivepsychology research in areas such as theidentification and use of personal characterstrengths (see, for example, Linley et al.,2010). Whilst the role of positive psychologyin coaching has been discussed previously inthe literature, further research in regard toits specific applications is much needed(Linley & Harrington, 2006; Kaufmann,2006; Biswas-Diener & Dean, 2007).

International Coaching Psychology Review ! Vol. 6 No. 1 March 2011 71© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

A pilot study evaluating strengths-basedcoaching for primary school students:Enhancing engagement and hopeWendy Madden, Suzy Green & Anthony M. Grant

Objective: This pilot study examines the impact of an evidence-based strengths coaching programme onmale primary school students’ levels of engagement and hope.Design: In a within-subject design study, 38 Year Five male students (mean age 10.7 years) participatedin a strengths-based coaching programme as part of their Personal Development/Health programme at anindependent, private primary school in Sydney, Australia.Method: Participants were randomly allocated to groups of four or five with each group receiving eightcoaching sessions over two school terms. The Youth Values in Action survey was used to highlightparticipant’s character strengths, and the participants were coached in identifying personally meaningfulgoals, and in being persistent in their goal-striving, as well as finding novel ways to use their signaturestrengths. They also completed a ‘Letter from the future’ that involved writing about themselves at their best.Results: The strengths-based coaching pilot programme was associated with significant increases in thestudents’ self-reported levels of engagement and hope.Conclusions: Strengths-based coaching programmes may be considered as potential mental healthprevention and promotion intervention in a primary school setting to increase students’ wellbeing and mayalso form an important part of an overall Positive Education Programme.Keywords: Evidence-based coaching; strengths-coaching; hope; positive psychology.

P

Positive psychology in educationIt might well be said there have been appli-cations of positive psychology in educationfor years. This includes programmes such asthose aimed at enhancing Social andEmotional Learning (SEL), which them-selves largely evolved from research onprevention and resilience (see Consortiumon the School-Based Promotion of SocialCompetence, 1994). However, there hasbeen a significant increase in research andinterest over the last five years occurringspecifically within the field of positivepsychology.

In 2009, Professor Martin Seligman,formalised the field of ‘Positive Education’in part emerging from his own work ondepression prevention in schools and thepioneering work at Geelong Grammar inVictoria, Australia. In 2008, Seligman and ateam of scholars from the University ofPennsylvania worked with one of Australia’smost elite private schools, GeelongGrammar, to implement a programme of‘teaching positive education’, ‘embeddingpositive education’ and ‘living positiveeducation’. This programme sought toinfuse positive psychology throughout theentire school, and with encouragingoutcomes (Seligman et al., 2009). Whilst theprogrammes and approach were based onscientifically informed programmes andpractices, unfortunately it appears that thislarge-scale programme was not itself evalu-ated using scientifically validated measures;to the best of the present authors’ knowl-edge no outcome studies of the GeelongGrammar programme have been reported inthe peer-reviewed press.

There has, however, been significantresearch conducted on the Penn ResiliencyProgramme (PRP), which formed part of theGeelong Positive Education Programme.The PRP is a school-based interventiondesigned to teach students how to thinkmore realistically and flexibly about theproblems they encounter (Horowitz &Garber, 2006). Results from studies of over2000 individuals in the US have shown

improvements in student wellbeing fromparticipation in the programme (Seligmanet al., 2009). The US Department of Educa-tion also recently spent $2.8 million toimplement a randomised controlled evalua-tion of the Strath Haven Positive Psychologyfor Youth (PPY) project. The programme,targeting adolescents in high school, wasshown to increase students’ reports of enjoy-ment and engagement in school (Seligmanet al., 2009).

In the UK, Jenny Fox-Eades, is consid-ered to be a pioneer in strengths-basedapproaches in education, and is currentlyconducting multiple longitudinal researchstudies, examining the impact of the‘Strengths Gym’ programme on adolescentwellbeing, including life satisfaction, positiveaffect, and self-esteem. The ‘Strengths Gym’programme is designed to help individualsidentify and use their strengths through acycle of festivals and storytelling. Positivepsychology is woven into the curriculum byusing traditional teaching methods of oralstorytelling and community celebrations(Eades, 2005).

In Australia, the Coaching PsychologyUnit at the University of Sydney hosted the‘First Positive Psychology in EducationSymposium’ in 2009. This provided a forumfor a range of applied positive psychologyinterventions being conducted in bothprivate and public schools in Australia. Oneof the programmes presented included‘BOUNCE BACK’, a resilience programmecurrently taught in several schools acrossAustralia which integrates positivepsychology principles within the literacycurriculum (Noble & McGrath, 2008).

Evidence is building for suchapproaches. For example, a study of solu-tion-focused cognitive behavioural lifecoaching for Senior High School studentsconducted by Green, Grant and Rynsaardt(2007) showed significant increases infemale senior high school students’ levels ofcognitive hardiness (a measure of resilience)and hope. This line of research has sincebeen extended to developmental coaching

72 International Coaching Psychology Review ! Vol. 6 No. 1 March 2011

Wendy Madden, Suzy Green & Anthony M Grant

for teachers, again providing evidence forthe use of coaching in educational settings toenhance hope, hardiness and workplace-wellbeing (Grant, Green & Rynsaardt, 2010).The use of solution-focused cognitive-behavioural coaching in educational settingsappears to be an area worthy of furtherstudy, given preliminary evidence that indi-cates it may have the potential to buildresilience and wellbeing in young peoplewithin educational settings.

Applied positive psychology ineducation as mental health promotionMental health problems are reportedly onthe increase among young people, possiblyreflecting greater awareness of disorders andalso resulting from the frequency and inten-sity of stressors on young people in the 21stcentury (Broderick & Metz, 2009). Today’syouth are exposed to a multitude of threatsto their personal wellbeing (McLoughlin &Kubick, 2004). In a national survey investi-gating a range of mental health issues in astratified, random sample of 4500 Australianyouths (aged 4 to 17), 14.0 per cent of thosesurveyed were found to have mental healthproblems (Sawyer et al., 2000). Amongadolescents, there are also high rates ofboredom, alienation, and disconnectionfrom meaningful challenges (Larson, 2000).Efforts to reduce mental health issues andproblem behaviours may need to begin inchildhood, with special attention to awindow of escalating risk in the transition toadolescence (Masten et al., 2008).

Knowledge and skills that increaseresilience, positive emotion, and engage-ment can be taught. According to Piaget(1977) pre-adolescent children are enteringthe formal operations phase of cognitivedevelopment and have the cognitive matu-rity necessary to understand and apply theskills taught. The present study sought toexpand on current findings by focusing onprimary school students and examining theefficacy of a strengths-based coachingprogramme within this particular age group.

The mission of schools remains one ofpreparing students academically for theworld of higher education, work, and goodcitizenship. However, increasingly, schoolsare also responsible for managing students’social and emotional wellbeing (Broderick &Metz, 2009).

This current study examined aprogramme designed to be easily integratedwithin the traditional school curriculum,whilst at the same time addressing a numberof the personal development and healthoutcomes identified on the New South WalesBoard of Studies syllabus document (NSWBoard of Studies, 2007). Embedding theteaching of strengths identification, goalsetting, and metacognitive skills within thecurriculum provides naturalistic opportuni-ties for students to develop important social-emotional competencies (Noble & McGrath,2008). Meaningful participation in thesekinds of activities also encourages students totake control and responsibility of their ownlives (Oliver et al., 2006).

Aims of the studyThe study sought to investigate the impact ofan evidence-based strengths coaching pilotprogramme in a primary educational setting.It was anticipated that participation in thestrengths-based coaching programme wouldbe associated with increases in male primaryschool student’s levels of engagement andhope.

EngagementThe discipline of positive psychology definesengagement as one of three importantrealms of happiness; the engaged life, themeaningful life and the pleasant life(Seligman et al., 2009). The state of ‘flow’, aterm coined by Csikszentmihalyi (1993), is amajor part of living the ‘engaged life’. Itconsists of a loss of self-consciousness anddeep engagement in the task at hand, andcan occur when people deploy their higheststrengths to meet the challenges that cometheir way. There is a growing evidence tosupport the concept of engagement as a

International Coaching Psychology Review ! Vol. 6 No. 1 March 2011 73

Strengths-based coaching for primary school students

state which is valuable in its own right as wellas bringing about higher levels of life satis-faction (Seligman et al., 2009).

StrengthsA ‘strength’ can be defined as a naturalcapacity for behaving, thinking and feelingin a way that promotes successful goalachievement (Linley & Harrington, 2006).‘Signature strengths’ refer to the top fivecharacter strengths and virtues of a partic-ular individual (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Signature strengths can convey a sense ofownership and authenticity, and individualsoften experience a powerful intrinsic moti-vation to put them into practice (Linley &Harrington, 2006). Strength-based coachinghelps people to identify their strengths andthen better direct their talents and abilitiesinto meaningful and engaging behaviours(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Playing to anindividual’s strengths has the potential toenhance wellbeing because people are thenable to do what they naturally do best, thusincreasing the chances of meeting their basicpsychological needs for autonomy, compe-tence, and confidence (Linley & Harrington,2006). Finding original ways to use strengthsalso reflects the importance of ongoingpersonal effort in producing a flourishinglife (Park & Peterson, 2006).

Hope Hope is defined as ‘a positive motivational statethat is based on an interactively derived sense ofsuccessful agency and pathways’ (Snyder, 2000;p.287). The construct of hope is central tosuccessful goal attainment. In order to pursuegoals people need (a) a number of pathwaysor alternative routes to achieve their goalsbecause otherwise it is likely that they will giveup if the first pathway fails. They also need (b)agency or confidence, in their capacity andability to reach their goals, so once again ifthey face setbacks they will persevere in thebelief that they can be successful (Snyder,Michael & Cheavens, 1999).

Hope as a cross-situational construct hasbeen shown to correlate positively with self-

efficacy, perceived problem-solving capabili-ties, perceptions of control, optimism, positiveaffectivity, and positive outcome expectations(Snyder et al., 1999). In educational settings,higher levels of hope have also correlated posi-tively with perceived scholastic competence(Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 1999) and greateracademic satisfaction (Chang, 1998). Higherlevels of hope also predict better academicperformance whilst controlling for studentintelligence (Snyder et al., 2003).

Consistent with hope theory, anevidence-based approach to coaching canprovide the support necessary for individualsto pursue goals, to see oneself as able togenerate alternative routes to goals and ashaving the perceived capacity to utilise theseroutes to reach the desired goal/s (Green etal., 2006). Hope can be engendered inyoung people by engaging them in solution-focused conversations and activities. Forexample, children can be asked to set smallgoals, guided over the hurdles theyencounter, and encouraged to persevereuntil they have succeeded (Snyder, 2000).These are key features of the present study.

MethodParticipantsThirty-eight males aged between 10 and 11years (mean age 10.7 years) from an inde-pendent, private primary school in Sydney,NSW, Australia.

ProcedureThe strengths-coaching programme formedpart of the school’s Personal Developmentand Health curriculum. Prior tocommencing the programme participantswere screened by the school psychologistusing the Beck Youth Inventory (Beck et al.,2005). As a result of completing the BeckYouth Inventory (Beck et al., 2005) sevenindividuals were identified as having higherthan expected scores on the Beck YouthInventory (Beck et al., 2005) and werereferred to the school psychologist.

Before commencing the programme, anote was also sent home to parents outlining



full details of the programme. In line withthe International Coach Federation (ICF)Code of Ethics (ICF, 2005), the informationclarified that the programme did not involveany counselling or therapy for mental illness.

Participants completed self-reportmeasures at Time 1 (pre-intervention) andTime 2 (post-intervention) to assess levels ofengagement and hope. Participants alsocompleted the Values in Action StrengthsInventory for Youth (Peterson & Seligman,2004) and were provided with a copy of theirresults to share with their family. The partic-ipants were then randomly assigned to smallgroups of four or five individuals, with whomthey would complete eight group coachingsessions.

The teacher-coach was a qualifiedprimary teacher who, in addition to herteacher training and teaching qualificationshad also completed coach-specific training,holding a Masters degree in CoachingPsychology from Sydney University and hadpast experience in coaching both child andadult populations.

The coaching programmeThe coaching programme consisted of eightgroup face-to-face coaching sessions with theteacher-coach. Each coaching session was 45minutes in length and was conducted on afortnightly basis over a period of two schoolterms (equating to approximately sixmonths). Because this programme was runin a school setting in which directive orinstructional modalities are commonplace,great care was taken to differentiate thiscoaching programme from general directiveor teaching processes by basing thisprogramme on a solution-focused cognitive-behavioural framework that had beendemonstrated as being effective in twoprevious randomised, controlled studies onevidence-based life coaching (for details seeGreen, Oades & Grant, 2006; Spence &Grant, 2005).

There were three key parts to theprogramme. Part One of the programmefocused on raising the participant’s self-

awareness, including the identification ofpersonal character strengths. Using theYouth Values in Action survey results, theparticipants were provided with a usefulvocabulary to both identify and talk abouttheir own character strengths. The partici-pants created ‘strength shields’ representinghow they were already using their top five‘signature strengths’. These shields wereopenly displayed in the classroom andreferred to on a regular basis.

In Part Two of the programme, theparticipants were coached to identifypersonal resources and utilise these inworking toward individual goals. Utilisingthe SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attrac-tive, Realistic and Timeframed) goal-settingcriteria (for rationale for SMART, see Locke& Latham, 2002) the participants werecoached in identifying personally mean-ingful goals and to be persistent in theirgoal-striving. The participants applied thisknowledge and skills within an ongoingassignment focused on finding novel ways touse one of their signature strengths.

Part Three of the programme wasfocused on coaching the participants inworking through the self-regulation cycle(see Figure 1) of setting goals, developingaction plans, monitoring and evaluatingprogress. Participants were individuallycoached to identify personal resources thatcould be utilised in moving towards theirgoals, and to develop self-generated solu-tions and specific action steps, and in thisway systematically working through the self-regulation cycle.

In addition to the individual coachingprocess detailed above, group processes wereutilised in that participants were also giventhe opportunity to share their results withthe group and jointly reflect on what theylearnt. Finally, the students completed a‘Letter from the future’ that involved writingabout themselves at their very best, focusingon how their needs and values were beingmet, and finding solutions to allow for all thethings they would like to have happen.



MeasuresThe Beck Youth Inventory (Beck et al., 2005)was used as a measure of psychopathology. Itassesses current levels of Anxiety, Depressionand Anger. It also gives an overall indicationof a young person’s self-concept. The inven-tory is designed to assess according to thediagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV-TR(American Psychiatric Association), however,it only assesses current status and does notoffer a diagnosis (Beck et al., 2005). It views

the differences between normal and clinicalpopulations as differences of degree, henceis a useful tool for the present study to screenparticipants for mental health issues thatrequire referral.

To identify character strengths, theparticipants completed the Values in ActionStrengths Inventory for Youth Survey (Park& Peterson, 2006). The VIA measure is a self-report survey allowing the comparison ofcharacter strengths across individuals and



Figure 1: A generic cycle of self-regulation.

also identifies an individual’s ‘signaturestrengths’ relative to his or her otherstrengths (Park & Peterson, 2008). The VIAYouth is designed for people aged 10 to 17(Park & Peterson, 2006). It reflects each ofthe character strengths in the VIA Classifica-tion (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and it isadapted specifically for use with youth as theitems are phrased in simple language andrefer to settings and situations familiar toyoung people (Park & Peterson, 2006). Thesurvey is available online at no cost fromwww.viacharacter.org (Peterson & Seligman,2007). It contains 198 multiple choice itemsand takes about 45 minutes on average tocomplete. The survey has good reliability (allitem alphas are greater than .70) and goodreported construct validity (Park & Peterson,2008).

To measure the results of theprogramme, participants completed a self-report questionnaire at Time 1 and Time 2.The questionnaire was modified fromSnyder’s Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder,2000), and the California Healthy KidsSurvey (Bernard, 2008). The questionnaireutilised a seven-point Likert scale rangingfrom Strongly Agree (7) to Strongly Disagree(1). The Children’s Hope Scale is a self-report measure that is based on the premisethat children are goal-directed and that theirgoal directed thoughts can be understoodaccording to agency and pathways. The scaleis validated for use with children aged 7 to 16years and demonstrates both internal andtemporal reliability, convergent and discrim-inant validity (for details, see Snyder, 2000).The California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS)is sponsored by the California Departmentof Education as a comprehensive data collec-tion service on youth mental health andresilience (Bernard, 2008). Assisting in itsdevelopment was an advisory committeeconsisting of researchers, education practi-tioners from schools across the state, andrepresentatives from federal and state agen-cies involved in assessing youth health-related behaviours (Bernard, 2008).

At the completion of the strengthcoaching programme, an informal question-naire was also used to elicit the student’sfeedback and opinions about their involve-ment.

ResultsQuantitative findingsIt was hypothesised that participation in thecoaching programme would be associatedwith increased engagement and hope. Theresults for all measures are shown in Table 1.

Paired t-tests found significant increasesin students’ self-reported measures of hope,t(37)=3.39, p=< 0.01 and significant increasesin students’ self-reported measures ofengagement, t(37)=3.30, p=< 0.001. Effectsizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. Forhope an effect size of d=2.70 was observed.This is considered to be a large effect size(Cohen, 1992). For engagement a mediumeffect size of d=.98 was observed (Cohen,1992)

Values in Action Strengths Inventory for Youthresults: Class tallyWe recorded the top strengths of the classand the number of students who rated eachstrength as being their highest strength:These strengths, in order of frequency were;Vitality (nine students); Creativity (eightstudents); Love (five students); Teamwork(three students); Love of learning (threestudents); Perseverance (three students);Humour (two students); Curiosity (onestudent); Leadership (one student); Bravery(one student); Gratitude (one student); andKindness (one student).

Qualitative findingsTo augment the quantitative data reportedabove, and to further assess the impact ofthis pilot study qualitative teacher observa-tions are now reported. These personalobservations are made by the teacher-coachwho conducted the strengths-basedcoaching programme.



Teacher-coach personal observations‘Overall, I felt that the programme was a successfulway for a teacher to further develop positive rela-tionships with students. I found that under-standing the students’ top strengths was veryhelpful in getting to know the students better, andalso in understanding what engages and moti-vates them. Learning about character strengthsalso provided students with a useful dialogue torecognise strengths not only in themselves, but inothers too. For example, when a new boy joined theschool, the students welcomed him into the schoolcommunity and were quick to point out hisstrengths, such as bravery and social intelligence,during his first weeks. The students were also verykeen to share and discuss their results with theirfamilies. The positive feedback from the parentswas overwhelming and many of them also did thesurvey to find out their own character strengths.

Recording the top strengths of the class groupprovided an interesting insight in to the classroomdynamics. Vitality was the top strength of the class.Viewing this as a strength for a class of Year 6boys, rather than a problem, was both humorousand refreshing.

I found that the students were highly engagedduring the goal-setting sessions. They were enthu-siastic and excited about their projects and wouldoften stop me in the playground to give updates ontheir progress. Sharing their successes with theirpeers was invaluable as they were provided withboth positive feedback and recognition. For somestudents in particular, this was a very special expe-rience, made very clear by their big, beaming grins.The students were also able to transfer their goal-setting skills to their learning in the classroom.Overall, the impact of the programme has beenprofound, with a far more positive, encouragingand supportive classroom climate.’

Examples of student goalsParticipants set personal goals as part of thecoaching programme. These goals werelinked with their specific signature strengths.Examples are given below:

Love of learning Signature Strength: Goalwas to: ‘read 15 pages of a non-fiction book oncars every night over the next two weeks. HaveMum sign off when I do it. Show (my teacher)Mum’s note in our next session and tell her onefact that I learnt about cars.’

Leadership Signature Strength: Goal was to:‘Organise a jelly bean competition with two friendsto raise money for the school. Get approval from theprincipal and my parents. Set up the store outsidethe canteen every lunch time. Aim to raise at least$100. Bring the money raised to our next session.’

Kindness Signature Strength: Goal was to:‘Help Mum out at home by making both mine andmy little brother’s beds every morning before school.Ask Dad to sign off that I do it, but don’t tell MumI am doing it for an assignment. Show (myteacher) the note in our next session.’

DiscussionThe present study was a small-scale pilotstudy designed to be a preliminary investiga-tion of the effect of a strengths-basedcoaching programme within a schoolsetting. The strengths-based coaching pilotprogramme was associated with significantincreases in the students’ self-reported levelsof engagement and hope. Although theresorts are promising, it is important not toover-generalise from these findings. Never-theless, as we argue below such strengths-



Table 1: Results for Measures of Engagement and Hope.

N=38 Time 1 Time 2

M SD M SD t p dHope 23.79 3.16 24.87 2.76 3.38 <.001 2.70Engagement 23.26 4.26 24.98 2.51 3.29 <.01 .98

Note: p values are two-tailed; Cohen’s d is given as a measure of effect size.

based coaching programmes may well havepotential as a mental health prevention andpromotion intervention in a primary schoolsetting to increase students’ wellbeing andadditionally be utilised as an important partof an overall Positive Education Programme.

Schools already are a major provider ofmental health services (Seligman et al.,2009). However, the predominant approachis reactive rather than proactive in thateducational psychology services are availableonly after students demonstrate difficulties(Noble & McGrath, 2008). A significantproportion of available educationalresources is directed toward attempts toremediate young people’s problems. This isnot surprising, given extra support isprovided on the basis of documentation ofan individual’s assessed problem (Noble &McGrath, 2008). The challenge is to shift thedirection and mindset of both educationalsystems and school personnel from a deficitmodel to a preventative wellbeing model(Noble & McGrath, 2008). Problem-focusedapproaches can be useful in reducing andtreating specific targeted problems, but theydo not necessarily prepare young people tohave healthy, fulfilling, productive lives(Park & Peterson, 2008).

There is growing recognition that effec-tive interventions need to focus onpromoting competence and strengths inaddition to the prevention and treatment ofproblems (Masten et al., 2008). We arguethat positive psychology offers new direc-tions for working with individual studentsand for working collaboratively with schoolsand teachers in designing and implementingschool-wide preventative programmes(Noble & McGrath, 2008). For example,schools could be adopting more holisticapproaches with missions that address theneeds of the whole child (McLoughlin &Kubick, 2004). A narrow focus only on cogni-tive development ignores other critical areasof youth development (Bernard, 2008).

The present pilot study is a very smallstep in that direction by showing that astrengths-based coaching programme can

quite easily be integrated within the tradi-tional school curriculum, and can be associ-ated with increased engagement and hope.It should be noted that even though thepresent pilot programme was part of theschool curriculum, and in that sense wascompulsory, the student feedback was over-whelmingly positive. Such positively-framedprogrammes, without the stigma often asso-ciated with remedial counselling, mayprovide an effective means of promotingstudent wellbeing (Park & Peterson, 2008).

It would appear there are many otherpotential benefits of strengths-basedcoaching programmes for students, teachersand schools. For example, when studentswork with their strengths, they tend to bemore motivated and perform at a higherlevel (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Similarly,increases in wellbeing are likely to produceincreases in learning, with positive moodproducing broader attention, more creativethinking, and more holistic thinking(Seligman et al., 2009). In addition, studentswho have positive attitudes toward theirteachers and school are more likely todisplay more appropriate behaviour(Huebner et al., 2004). Indeed, we contendthat an evidence-based strengths coachingprogramme, such as the one utilised in thisstudy, could form an important part of anoverall Positive Education Programme.

Whilst the importance of happiness andwellbeing cannot be contested, there isdebate about how best to enhance theseimportant aspects of human experiencewithin the traditional educational context(Park & Peterson, 2008). Researchers areconcerned by the lack of empirical evidencefor most programmes (Arthur, 2005, cited inSeligman et al., 2009). Educators and politi-cians are also concerned such PositiveEducational Programmes will waste moneyor even lower achievement by diverting timeand money away from academic subjects(Benninga et al., 2006).



Limitations Future research is needed to explore thepotential of a range of approaches to PositiveEducation. The present study was a small-scale pilot study designed to be a preliminaryinvestigation of the effect of a strengths-based coaching programme within a schoolsetting. As such there are a number of limi-tations that must be taken into account whenconsidering these findings. Firstly, thepresent study utilised a straightforwardwithin subject, pre-/post-design. The lack ofa control group means that the effects couldhave occurred naturalistically, rather thanbeing caused by the intervention. Secondly,no longitudinal measures were taken so it isnot known if the reported effects would bemaintained over time. However, it should benoted a longitudinal study (Green et al.,2006) found that gains in a similar coachingprogramme were maintained at a 30-weekfollow-up. Thirdly, the present study is alsolimited by the exclusive use of self-reportmeasures. It would be extremely valuable tomove beyond self-report measures and docu-ment the effects on observable behavioursfrom a broader range of outcomes,including students’ behaviour and academicperformance. The findings would also needto be replicated to determine if theprogramme is effective with students from avariety of social-economic and cultural back-grounds. Finally, it should be noted that theteacher-coach was acting in a role as a desig-nated teacher. This could have influencedoutcomes by inducing a demand effect; thatis, the participants may have felt that theyhad to report making progress andenhanced wellbeing in order to please theexperimenter.

Future directionsDespite some clear limitations, the results ofthe present pilot study provide promisinginitial support for this kind of interventionin a school setting, and future researchshould be conducted in this area. Furtherstudies that compared interventions witheducational tutoring or positive parent

involvement would provide additional infor-mation about the effectiveness of lifecoaching for students, and the use ofrandomised controlled designs wouldfurther extend the current research..

Recent research has found that peercoaching was not as effective as a profession-ally-trained coach (Spence & Grant, 2007)and this finding emphasises the importanceof expertise in facilitating purposeful, posi-tive change in others. Teaching children toemploy hopeful thinking requires an inter-ested person who guides the process of goalsetting and problem solving with encourage-ment (Snyder, 2000). For teachers or parentsinterested in nurturing hope in children, thefirst step must be to attend to their ownhopeful thinking (Snyder, 2000). The‘Teacher as Coach’ training programme asutilised in the research of Green, Grant andRynsaardt (2007) could be used to developteachers in the evidence-based coachingtheories and techniques, which do notcurrently form part of teacher-training.Through such evidence-based coachingprogrammes, teachers may learn to betteridentity what motivates and inspires each oftheir students. They could then use thisinformation to design more the supportive,positively-orientated teacher-student rela-tionships which are a defining feature ofpositive school cultures (Noble & McGrath,2008).

Of course, there is much more to positiveeducation than a simple stand-alone course(Seligman et al., 2009). There is a need forcomprehensive and integrative positiveeducation programmes, such as the onerecently trialled at Geelong Grammar(Seligman et al., 2009). Rather than runninga number of independent initiatives that arenot integrated, it may be better to strategi-cally implement an overall Positive Educa-tion policy that is aligned with the overallschool climate (Noble & McGrath, 2008).

Clearly there is a need for furtherresearch and for external coaching consult-ants and educators to work collaborativelywith schools in order to create programmes



with a consistent approach and similarlanguage embedded throughout.

Similarly, there is a need for furtherresearch in developing measurement tools toassess the culture and climate of individualschools. With any programme or interventionthat can be used in schools, a key element isthe overall culture and climate that existswithin the school environment (Snyder,2000). Administrators have an important rolein educating the school personnel, teachersand parents about their role in creating apositive school climate. Ultimately, the focusshould be on creating a curriculum forstudents that has genuine relevance, meaningand connectedness to their lives (Noble &McGrath, 2008). We argue that coaching inschool settings has potential to both shift theculture of the broader educational system andto better enrich the overall individual studentexperience.

ConclusionThis pilot study has examined the impact ofan evidence-based strengths coachingprogramme on male primary schoolstudents’ levels of engagement and hope. Itprovides preliminary evidence that evidence-based strengths coaching programmes maybe useful in the primary school setting. Thestudy also illustrates how evidence-basedcoaching methodologies can be integratedin an educational setting, adding to our

collective understanding about what mightbe included in learning programmesdesigned to enhance wellbeing. We believethat evidence-based strengths coachingprogrammes can be designed to fit intoseveral existing aspects of the curriculumwith relative ease and can address outcomesspecified in school syllabus documentation(Noble & McGrath, 2008). This pilot study,whilst targeting Year Five students, could alsobe adapted to form part of a school-wideinitiative, with a strong practical focus oninfusing positive psychology in to the wholeschool curriculum.

With future research in this area,evidence-based coaching may in timebecome a crucial methodology for the appli-cation of positive psychology in educationalsettings. We look forward to future develop-ments with interest.

Wendy Madden, Suzy Green & Anthony M. GrantCoaching Psychology Unit,University of Sydney,Sydney, NSW, 2006,Australia.

CorrespondenceDr Suzy GreenEmail:[email protected]





American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnosticand statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.,text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

Beck, J.S., Beck, A.T., Jolly, J. & Steer, R. (2005). BeckYouth Inventories of Emotional and Social Impairment(2nd ed.; BYI–II). Sydney: Persons.

Benninga, J.S., Berkowitz, M.W., Kuehn, P. & Smith,K. (2006). Character and academics: What goodschools hate. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 448–452.

Bernard, B. (2008). West Ed Website. California HealthyKids Survey. Questionnaires retrieved 11 December2008, from:www.wested.org/cs/chks/view/chks_s/17?x–layout=surveys].

Biswas-Diener, R. & Dean, B. (2007). Positivepsychology coaching: Putting the science of happiness towork for your clients. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Broderick, P.C & Metz, S. (2009) Learning toBREATHE: A pilot trial of a mindfulnesscurriculum for adolescents. Advances in SchoolMental Health Promotion, 2(1), 35–46.

Chang, E.C. (1998). Hope problem-solving abilityand copping in a college student population:Some implications for theory and practice.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 953–962.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. PsychologicalBulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

Consortium on the School-Based Promotion ofSocial Competence (1994). The promotion ofsocial competence: Theory, research, practice,and policy. In R.J. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N.Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, resiliencein children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms,and interaction (pp.268–316). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. & Whalen, S.(1993). Talented teenagers. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Eades, J.M.F. (2005). Classroom tales: Using storytellingto build emotional, social and academic skills across theprimary curriculum. London, Jessica Kingsley.

Gable, S. & Haidt, J. (2005). Positive psychology.Review of General Psychology, 1089–2680.

Grant, A.M., Green, L.S. & Rynsaardt, J. (2010).Developmental coaching for high schoolteachers: Executive coaching goes to school.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research,62(3), 151–168.

Grant, A.M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M.J. & Parker,H. (2010). The state of play in coaching today: A comprehensive review of the field. InternationalReview of Industrial and Organisational Psychology,25, 125–168.

Green, L.S., Grant, A.M. & Rynsaardt, J. (2007).Evidence-based coaching for senior high schoolstudents: Building hardiness and hope. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 24–31.

Green, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Grant, A.M. (2006).Cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused lifecoaching: Enhancing goal-striving, wellbeing andhope. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 142–149.

Horowitz, J.L. & Garber, J. (2006). The prevention ofdepressive symptoms in children and adoles-cents: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 74, 401–415.

Huebner, E.S., Suldo, S.M., Smith, L.C. & McKnight,C.G. (2004). Life satisfaction in children andyouth: Empirical foundations and implicationsfor school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools,41(1), 81–93.

International Coaching Federation (2005). Profes-sional coaching core competencies and code of ethics.Place and publisher unknown. Retrieved on 19 April2009, from: www.coachfederation.org/Downloads/DOCS/Ethics/ICF_Code_of_ethics_01_22_05.pdf.

Kauffman, C. (2006). Positive psychology: Thescience at the heart of coaching. In D. Stober &A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching hand-book (pp.219–254). New Jersey: John Wiley &Sons Inc.

Larson, R.W. (2000). Towards a psychology of posi-tive youth development. American Psychologist,55(1), 170–183.

Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a newscience. London, UK: Penguin

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengthscoaching: A potential-guided approach tocoaching psychology. International CoachingPsychology Review, 1(1), 37–46.

Linley, P.A., Nielsen, A.M., Gillett, R. & Biswas-Diener,R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit ofgoals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction,and wellbeing, and implications for coachingpsychologists. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 5(1), 8–17.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a prac-tically useful theory of goal setting and task moti-vation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

Masten, A., Herbers, J., Cutuli, J. & Lafavor, T.(2008). Promoting competence and resilience inthe school context. Professional School Counselling,12(2), 21–34.

Mcloughlin, C.S. & Kubick, R.J. (2004). Wellnesspromotion as a lifelong endeavour: Promotingand developing life competencies from child-hood. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 131 – 141.

Noble, T. & McGrath, H. (2008). The positive educa-tional practices framework: A tool for facilitatingthe work of educational psychologists inpromoting pupil wellbeing. Educational & ChildPsychology, 25(2), 119–134.

References

NSW Board of Studies (2007). Personal Development,Health and Physical Education K-6 Syllabus.Australia: NSW Board of Studies.

Oliver, K., Collins, P., Burns, J. & Nicholas, J. (2006).Resilience in young people through meaningfulparticipation. Australian e-journal for the Advance-ment of Mental Health, 5(1).

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Daley, C.E. (1999). Perfec-tionism and statistics anxiety. Personal and Indi-vidual Differences, 26, 1089–1102.

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2008). Positive psychologyand character strengths: Application tostrengths-based school counselling. ProfessionalSchool Counselling, 12(2), 11–20.

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competenceand character strengths among adolescents: Thedevelopment and validation of the Values inAction Inventory of Strengths for Youth. Journalof Adolescence, 29(6), 891–909.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Characterstrengths andvirtues: A handbook and classification.New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2007). Values inAction Institute Website. Manuel, D. & RhodaMayerson Foundation. OH, Cincinatti. Informa-tion retrieved on 22 April 2009, from:www.viastrengths.org

Piaget, J. (1977). The grasp of consciousness. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sawyer, M.G., Arney, F.M., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J.J.,Graetz, B.W. & Kosky, R.J. (2000). Mental health ofyoung people in Australia: Child and adolescentcomponent of the National Survey of Mental Healthand Wellbeing. Canberra: Commonwealth Depart-ment of Health and Aged Care.

Seligman, M.E.P., Ernst, R. Gillham, K. & Linkins, M.(2009). Positive education: Positive psychologyand classroom interventions. Oxford Review ofEducation, 35(3), 293–311.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using thenew positive psychology to realise your potential forlasting fulfilment. New York: Free Press.

Sin, N.L. & Lyubormirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms withpositive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of ClinicalPsychology: In Session, 65,4 67–487.

Snyder, C.R. (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measuresand applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Snyder, C.R., Michael, S.T. & Cheavens, J. (1999).Hope as a psychotherapeutic foundation ofcommon factors, placebos and expectancies. InM.A. Hubble, B. Duncan & S. Miller (Eds.), Heartand soul of change (pp.179–200). Washington, DC:APA.

Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J., Shorey, H.S., Rand, K.L. &Feldman, D.B. (2003). Hope theory, measure-ments, and applications to school psychology.School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 122–139.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (2007). Professional andpeer life coaching and the enhancement of goalstriving and wellbeing: An exploratory study.Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 185–194.

Spence, G.B. & Grant A.M. (2005). Individual andgroup life-coaching: Initial findings from arandomised controlled trial. In M. Cavanagh,A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching Vol. 1: Theory, research and practice from thebehavioural sciences (pp.143–158). Bowen Hills,QLD: Australian Academic Press.



A pilot study evaluating strengths-based coaching for primary school students: Enhancing engagement...

Documents

Transcript of A pilot study evaluating strengths-based coaching for primary school students: Enhancing engagement...