Whilst there has long been a call for evidence of a more quantifiable nature to show the impact of coaching interventions, in particular within the education sector, there may be good reasons for why this has been absent thus far. This paper highlights the issues of conducting quantitative research to establish outcomes of coaching interventions. It explores peer coaching within an educational context and the use of a control group. The paper highlights the methodology used to conduct a quantitative study of a peer coaching intervention, comparing the academic attainment of a coached group of students with a group of students who received no coaching. Some findings are also discussed.
AgudoA. & GonzalezC. A. (1999). Secondary matching: a method for selecting controls in case-control studies on environmental risk factors. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28, 1130–3.
2.
AnastasiaT., TremblayK.JR, MakelaC. & DrennenN. (1999). Student gender differences in perceived importance of college services. College Student Journal33, 206.
AshwinP. (2003). Peer support: Relations between the context, process and outcomes for the students who are supported.
5.
AstinA. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.
6.
BergerJ.B. and MilemJ.F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education. 40 (6), 641–664.
7.
BidgoodP., JonesL., HammondJ. & BithellC. (2010). A first year experience of student-directed peer-assisted learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 201–212.
8.
BongM. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students’ course performance and future enrolment intentionsContemporary Educational Psychology26, 553–570.
9.
BowdenM. P., SubhashA. & BahtsevanoglouJ. (2014). Overconfidence of vocational education students when entering higher education. Education & Training, 57, 429–447.
10.
BrymanA. (1998). Research Methods and Organization Studies, London, Routledge.
11.
CapstickS., FlemingH. & HurneJ. (2004). Implementing peer assisted learning in higher education: The experience of a new university and a model for the achievement of a mainstream programme, in Peer Assisted Learning Conference Proceedings. Bournemouth University.
12.
ChickeringA.W. & GamsonZ.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin. 39 (7), 3–7.
13.
ClutterbuckD. (2010).The next 10 years in coaching and mentoring, Clutterbuck Associates.
14.
CoeE., McDougallA. & McKeownN. (1999). Is peer assisted learning of benefit to undergraduate chemists?University Chemistry Education3, 72–75.
15.
CohenJ. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciencesHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
ColeP. (1979). The evolving case control study. Journal of Chronic Disease, 32, 15–27.
17.
ConnorH., TyersModoodT. & HillageT. (2004). Why the difference? A closer look at higher education minority ethnic students and graduates, Nottingham: Department for Education & Skills.
18.
CrawfordC. (2014). Socio-economic differences in university outcomes in the UK: drop-out, degree completion and degree class. University of Warwick: Institute for Fiscal Studies.
19.
CrozierR. (1997). Individual learners: Personality differences in education, London, Routledge.
20.
D'AbateC. P., EddyE. R. & TannenbaumS. I. (2003). What's in a name? A literature-based approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that describe developmental interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2, 360–384.
21.
D'AgostinoR. & KwanH. (1995). Measuring Effectiveness: What to Expect without a Randomized Control Group. Medical Care, 33, AS95–AS105.
22.
DenscombeM. (2010). The good research guide: For small scale social research projects, Open University Press.
GailM. H. (2005). Frequency matching. Encyclopaedia of Biostatistics. 3.
25.
GoodsellA., MaherM. and TintoV. (eds.) (1992). Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for Higher Education. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.
26.
GrebennikovL. & SkainesI. (2009). Gender and higher education experience: a case study. Higher Education Research and Development28, 71–84.
27.
HusbandP., JacobsP. (2009). Peer Mentoring in Higher Education: A review of the current literature and recommendations for implementation of mentoring schemes. The Plymouth Student Scientist.
28.
JacobiM. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, winter 1991, 505–532.
29.
KuhG.D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education. 66 (2), 123–155.
30.
KuhG. D., KinzieJ., SchuhJ. H. & WhittE. J. (2005). Never let it rest: Lessons about student success from high-performing colleges and universities. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37, 44–51.
31.
KulikC.C., KulikJ.A. & ShwalbB.J. (1983). College programmes for high risk and disadvantaged students: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 53, 397–414.
32.
KyllonenP. (2012). The importance of higher education and the role of noncognitive attributes in college success. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 49, 84–100.
33.
MarshH. W. & CravenR. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 133–163.
34.
MarshH. W. (2007). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The role of self-concept in educational psychology, Leicester.
35.
MartirosyanN., SaxonD. P., & WanjohiR. (2014). Student satisfaction and academic performance in Armenian Higher Education. American International Journal of Contemporary Research4.
36.
McCarthyS. & McMahonS. (1995). From convention to invention: Three approaches to peer interaction during writing. In Hertz-LazarowitzR. & MillerN. (eds.) Interaction in cooperative groups, Cambridge University Press.
37.
McKenzieK., SchweitzerR. (2001). Who succeeds at university? Factors predicting academic performance in first year Australian university students. Higher Education Research & Development, 20.
38.
MerriamS. (1983). Mentors and protégés: A critical review of literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33, p161–173.
39.
MiettinenO. S. (1985). The case control study: Valid selection of subjects. Journal of Chronic Disease, 38, 543–548.
40.
MosleyP. (1997). The use of control groups in impact assessment for microfinance. Discussion Papers in Development Economics, V.
41.
NicolD. (2009). Quality enhancement themes: The first year experience. Transforming assessment and feedback: enhancing integration and empowerment in the first year. Scotland: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
42.
O'DonovanB., PriceM. & RustC. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 325–335.
43.
PaceC.R. (1995). From good practices to good products: relating good practices in undergraduate education to student achievement. Paper presented at the 35th Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum. Boston, 28–31 May.
44.
PajaresF. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In: MaehrM. & PintrichP. R. (eds.) Advances in motivation and achievement. Greenwich: Jai Press.
45.
PajaresF. & SchunkD. (2006). The development of academic self-efficacy. San Diego, Purdue University.
46.
ParsloeE. & WrayM. (2000). Coaching and mentoring, London: Kogan Page.
47.
PascarellaE. & TerenziniP. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48.
PavotW., DienerE., ColvinC. R., & SandvikE. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149–61.
49.
PoropatA. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338.
50.
RichardsonM., AbrahamC., & BondR. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387.
51.
RobbinsS. B., LauverH. L., DavisD., LangleyR. & CarlstromA. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.
52.
RodgerS., TremblayP. F. (2003). The Effects of a Peer Mentoring Programme on Academic Success Among First Year University Students: The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, XXXIII(3), 1–18.
53.
SanchezR., BauerT. & ParontoM. (2006). Peer-Mentoring Freshmen: Implications for Satisfaction, Commitment and Retention to Graduation. Academy of Management Learning & Education5, 25–37.
54.
SanderP. & SandersL. (2009). Measuring academic behavioural confidence: The ABC Scale RevisitedStudies in Higher Education, 7, 19–35.
55.
ShortE. & BakerS. (2010). Using peer coaching to enhance resilience. Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning, University of Bedfordshire.
56.
ThomasL. (2012). What works? Student retention and success, Higher Education Funding Council for England.
57.
WacholderS., SilvermanD. T., McLauglinJ. K. & MandelJ. S. (1992). Selection of controls in case control studies ii Types of Control. American Journal of Epidemiology, 135, 1029–41.
58.
WhitmoreJ. (2002). Coaching for performance, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
59.
WooddM. (1997). Mentoring in further and higher education: Learning from the literature. Education & Training39, 333–343.
