Institute for Evidence-Based Education, Department of Teaching and Learning, Annette Caldwell Simmons School of Education and Human Development, Southern Methodist University, 6330 Lavendale Avenue, Dallas, TX, 75230, USA.
, Tyler, USA.
Ann Dyslexia. 2019 Apr;69(1):54-79. doi: 10.1007/s11881-018-00175-1.
While qualitative research has shown great benefits for teachers who receive coaching, there is a paucity of experimental research examining students' academic outcomes after their teachers received ongoing support from a knowledgeable and experienced coach. Thus, a quasi-experimental design investigated the literacy outcomes of 452 students experiencing reading learning disabilities in grades K-8th whose special education and/or resource room teachers (n = 44) received student data-focused coaching support through on-site coaching, on-demand coaching (teachers could request support if needed), or through technology-based coaching. Specifically, researchers wanted to investigate if technology-based coaching was as effective as in-classroom support for increasing teachers' knowledge and implementation of research-based reading instructional routines and ultimately, improving the reading, writing, and spelling outcomes of students with reading learning disabilities. Results yielded positive student academic growth for all three methods of coaching; however, coaching via technology, a more efficient, less time-consuming method of giving teachers ongoing professional development, produced larger statistically significant Cohen's d effect sizes than the other two forms of coaching ranging from 0.22 to 1.01 in areas of phonemic awareness, decoding, comprehension, fluency, writing, and spelling. Other findings as well as the educational implications of implementing coaching via technology are also included.
虽然定性研究表明接受指导的教师从中受益匪浅,但对于教师接受知识渊博且经验丰富的教练持续支持后学生的学业成绩,实验研究却很少。因此,一项准实验设计调查了 452 名 K-8 年级阅读学习障碍学生的读写能力结果,这些学生的特殊教育和/或资源教室教师(n=44)通过现场指导、按需指导(教师如有需要可以请求支持)或基于技术的指导获得了以学生数据为重点的指导支持。具体来说,研究人员想调查基于技术的指导是否与课堂支持一样有效,可以提高教师实施基于研究的阅读教学常规的知识和能力,最终提高阅读学习障碍学生的阅读、写作和拼写能力。结果表明,所有三种指导方法都对学生的学业成绩产生了积极影响;然而,通过技术进行指导是一种更高效、耗时更少的教师持续专业发展方法,与其他两种指导形式相比,在语音意识、解码、理解、流畅度、写作和拼写等方面产生了更大的、具有统计学意义的科恩氏 d 效应量,范围从 0.22 到 1.01。还包括其他发现以及通过技术实施指导的教育意义。