Coached teachers report more frequent impactful technology use practices developing student skills¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-13 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because 3 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Coached teachers reported more frequent ITU practices to develop student skills (printed effect sizes = .4, p < .001), e.g., monthly student use of technology for creativity (51% vs. 38% in core subjects). → Mahsa Bakhshaei 2020
Evidence¶
Mahsa Bakhshaei 2020¶
Mahsa Bakhshaei, Angela Hardy, Jason Ravitz, John Seylar. (2020). Instructional Coaching Holds Promise as a Method to Improve Instruction with Technology. SITE 2020 - Online, April 7-10, 2020. https://digitalpromise.dspacedirect.org/items/5465e54a-b290-4210-97fb-514a3aa13e21
q2 · i? · associational · r1
Year 2 teacher post-survey from the DLP, comparing coached and non-coached teachers on the six-indicator ITU index; the creativity example is limited to core academic subjects, with the article printing "effect sizes = . 4, p < .001" without a standardized metric, and 51% vs. 38% monthly creative use.
"Coached teachers also reported more frequent ITU practices to develop their student skills (effect sizes = . 4, p < .001). As an illustrative example of using technology for creativity (one of the six ITU indicators), when limiting analysis to teachers of “core academic” subjects (math, science, social studies, English, general subject), 51% of coached teachers said their students use technology at least monthly to “come up with different ideas to see how they work and then improve them” compared to 38% of non-coached teachers."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Teacher coaching programs improve teachers' instructional practice by a pooled 0.49 SD across 43 causal studies — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- DLP teachers reported higher rates of impactful student technology use and greater perceived positive impact on student engagement and learning than non-DLP teachers — related
- Coached teachers report greater impact of their technology use on student engagement and learning — related
- Coached teachers report increases in how often students and teachers use technology, compared to non-coached peers — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
coaching-increases-impactful-technology-use-practices |
title |
Coached teachers report more frequent impactful technology use practices developing student skills |
description |
Coached teachers report more frequent impactful technology use practices developing student skills |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
source_checked |
2026-10-13 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mahsa-bakhshaei-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.