DLP participants reported more frequent meaningful coaching activities than other coaching programs, but fewer opportunities to observe other teachers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1–r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? 61 percent of DLP teachers said a coach modeled an activity in their classroom at least a few times a year, compared with 42 percent of participants in other coaching programs. → Bakhshaei 2019 q2 i? DLP participants had fewer opportunities to observe other teachers and provide feedback than participants in other coaching programs. → Bakhshaei 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Bakhshaei 2019¶

Bakhshaei, M., Hardy, A., Ravitz, J., & Seylar, J. (2019). Scaling Up Classroom Coaching for Impactful Technology Use: Results from Year 2 of the Dynamic Learning Project. Digital Promise. https://digitalpromise.dspacedirect.org/items/79337f05-0795-4bac-b1d7-f4758c23285c doi:10.51388/20.500.12265/82

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Survey comparing DLP participants with teachers in other coaching programs on observation, co-teaching, modeling, and in-depth conversations. DLP teachers reported "more frequent classroom observation sessions by the coach, more co-teaching, and more in-depth conversations about teaching scenarios."

"The differences between the DLP and other programs is notably large when asked how often a classroom coach modeled an activity in their classroom—61 percent of DLP teachers said this occurred at least a few times a year, compared with 42 percent of participants in other coaching programs"

Bakhshaei 2019 (2)¶

Bakhshaei, M., Hardy, A., Ravitz, J., & Seylar, J. (2019). Scaling Up Classroom Coaching for Impactful Technology Use: Results from Year 2 of the Dynamic Learning Project. Digital Promise. https://digitalpromise.dspacedirect.org/items/79337f05-0795-4bac-b1d7-f4758c23285c. doi:10.51388/20.500.12265/82

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Same comparison survey; the report suggests the DLP "may want to provide more opportunities to do this in the future and clarify the role of classroom visits" for teacher observation as well as coach observation.

"DLP participants did not have as many opportunities to observe other teachers and provide feedback as did participants in other coaching programs"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Meta-analytic evidence finds large positive effects of coaching on teachers' instructional practice and a meaningful positive impact on student achievement, with mixed results on model features — related
• Teachers who find coaching valuable spend more time and meet more frequently with their coaches — related
• 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
• After one year of DLP coaching, coached teachers reported more frequent and more powerful technology use than non-participating colleagues — related
• Dynamic Learning Project research found teachers who worked with edtech coaches used technology more frequently and felt more confident than peers who did not — related
• More DLP teachers reported strong ability to select and use technology for pedagogy and for their content area than non-DLP teachers — related
• DLP-coached teachers reported greater increases in frequency of technology use than non-DLP teachers — related