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.

中文翻译：

---

通过技术进行的专业阅读指导：调查K-8年级的学生在阅读方面存在严重学习障碍的阅读，写作和拼写结果。

虽然定性研究对接受教练的老师显示出很大的好处，但是在他们的老师得到知识渊博且经验丰富的教练的持续支持后，缺乏实验研究来研究学生的学习成绩。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识字结果，这些学生的特殊教育和/或资料室老师（n = 44）通过现场指导，按需指导（如果需要，教师可以请求支持）或基于技术的指导获得针对学生数据的指导支持。具体来说，研究人员想研究基于技术的教练在提高老师的知识和基于研究的阅读教学例程的实施以及最终通过阅读学习改善学生的阅读，写作和拼写结果方面是否与课堂支持一样有效残疾。结果表明，在所有三种辅导方法中，学生的学术学习都取得了积极的增长。然而，通过技术指导，给予教师持续的专业发展，更有效，更耗时的方法产生更大的统计学显著科恩的d在语音意识，解码，理解，流利程度，写作和拼写方面，其他两种形式的教练的效果大小在0.22至1.01之间。还包括其他发现以及通过技术实施教练的教育意义。