View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Coaching and Implementation -- Insights from a Field Experiment in Danish Schools

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Coaching and Implementation -- Insights from a Field Experiment in Danish Schools
Language: English
Authors: Simon Calmar Andersen, Bastien Michel, Helena Skyt Nielsen
Source: Education Economics. 2026 34(2):173-188.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Coaching (Performance), Inservice Teacher Education, Public School Teachers, Elementary School Teachers, Elementary School Students, Program Effectiveness, Outcomes of Education, Teacher Behavior
Geographic Terms: Denmark
DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2025.2491536
ISSN: 0964-5292
1469-5782
Abstract: We study the effect of peer coaching separately from the effect of training on teachers' implementation of new teaching techniques. We conducted a preregistered field experiment involving 68 teachers and 1490 students in Denmark. Teachers in an active control group took part in a teaching program that introduced new teaching techniques. On top of the teaching program, the treatment group received coaching from peers. External observers, blinded to the treatment status, assessed teachers' use of the program techniques in the classroom. While we observe greater implementation by teachers, the overall effects are mixed, calling for caution.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1500923
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHvwlBzua5ROsVAlO6uDoa-AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDChxF4celBLesMsEFAIBEICBmwU6VF793xkvcucTK8vOeaBBssjm76K9nVgJTfPDljYn--p7qp5THedLXITSTxEGCPO0UpmvQ6xkP23jRLgE3H0bwvfIzuG_z3vXmXDUqug7JS40AeyYOg38oC5YfKr05qFFMV3qfrIUNMIKBkkePhvbxM_bGTbtdL0TadbXHGbi9KA4vdZqXyfA9iK8ullrENxSBjqB-k-OHHUV
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0192371725;ede01apr.26;2026Mar23.03:20;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0192371725-1">Coaching and implementation - insights from a field experiment in Danish schools </title> <p>We study the effect of peer coaching separately from the effect of training on teachers' implementation of new teaching techniques. We conducted a preregistered field experiment involving 68 teachers and 1490 students in Denmark. Teachers in an active control group took part in a teaching program that introduced new teaching techniques. On top of the teaching program, the treatment group received coaching from peers. External observers, blinded to the treatment status, assessed teachers' use of the program techniques in the classroom. While we observe greater implementation by teachers, the overall effects are mixed, calling for caution.</p> <p>Keywords: Coaching; knowledge transfer; school teachers; field experiment</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>Teachers have a substantial impact on students' short- and long-term outcomes (Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]) leading school systems to spend tens of billions of dollars annually on professional development and in-service training (Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]). Yet, teacher training seldom translates into observable improvements in student outcomes (Harris and Sass [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]) at least in part due to difficulties in knowing how to translate theory into practice (Cecchini and Harrits [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]; Frank, Xu, and Penuel [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref5">9</reflink>]; Møller [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; Raaphorst [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]) – alongside the broader enactment challenges (Kennedy [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]). This has led to the suggestion that teacher training should be combined with peer coaching in the classroom in order to facilitate the implementation of what is taught in teacher training programs.</p> <p>A large meta-analysis finds that coaching – defined as programs in which peers observe colleagues' professional behavior and provide constructive feedback – has positive effects (Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref10">17</reflink>]). However, this and other meta-analyses also indicate that coaching is rarely implemented in isolation. Instead, it is often combined with group training sessions or courses designed to teach new skills or content knowledge (Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]; see also Kennedy [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>]; Kretlow and Bartholomew [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref13">18</reflink>]; Schachter [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>This overlap between coaching and content-focused training complicates the task of isolating coaching's specific impact. Since acquiring new skills or knowledge independently contributes to professional development, it becomes difficult to disentangle the effect of coaching from the broader benefits of increased knowledge (Jakobsen, Jacobsen, and Serritzlew [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]; see also Allen et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this study, we measure the separate effect of coaching by randomly assigning teachers to either an active control group, which received only a teacher training program, or a treatment group, which received both training and coaching. The field experiment involved 68 language–arts teachers instructing a total of 1490 students. The teaching program consisted of five modules delivered over six months. Teachers in the treatment group participated in the same program, but were also offered coaching from one of their colleagues for 2.5 hours per week throughout the school year. We registered teachers' teaching practices as our primary outcome and students' reading skills and well-being as secondary outcomes.</p> <p>The results indicate that coaching had a significant impact on our preregistered primary outcome: the extent to which teachers implemented the teaching techniques introduced during the training sessions in their classrooms. External surveyors, blinded to the teachers' treatment status, evaluated technique usage through classroom observations. These techniques encompassed a range of strategies designed to foster an inclusive learning environment where students with diverse needs could thrive.</p> <p>However, a closer examination of the overall effect of the coaching intervention warrants caution for two reasons. First, when breaking down the effects by technological factors (i.e. elements designed to enhance the physical and visual organization of the classroom) and behavioral factors (i.e. teachers' actions in the classroom), we find that while coaching led to improvements in the former, it had no statistically significant effect on the latter (although the two point estimates are not statistically different from one another). This contrasts with our preregistered expectation that coaching would have its greatest effect in the latter dimension, behavioral factors being intrinsically harder to change.</p> <p>Second, we observe a reduction of students' emotional stability in classrooms with coaching, indicating that they experience more negative feelings such as loneliness or insecurity. This suggests that, rather than fostering a more supportive learning environment, the intervention may have inadvertently had a destabilizing effect on students. We find no positive impact on the other preregistered student outcomes: reading skills, conscientiousness, or agreeableness.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]</p> <p>A distinctive contribution of our study is the separation of the effect of coaching from the effect of teacher development programs. Our study is related to a recent study on peer observation (without training and coaching per se), which found that having teachers observing, scoring and providing feedback to peers had positive impacts on students' math and English exam results (Burgess, Rawal, and Taylor [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref18">5</reflink>]). Like our intervention, their treatment implied no explicit incentives and supposedly worked by improving teaching skills. Another study closely related to ours tested the effects of two versions of coaching (as opposed to self-reflection) introduced as an add-on to a course using mixed reality simulations, where prospective teacher candidates practiced their classroom management skills (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]). The authors find that coaching impacts teaching practice on several dimensions. Relatedly, we observe how coaching affects teachers' implementation of a teaching program in the classroom.</p> <p>Our results highlight the need for caution in designing coaching programs, as they can lead to unintended negative short-term effects and may not have a net positive impact on overall welfare if they are not sufficiently effective.</p> <p>We return to a discussion of how our results may be interpreted. First, we present the design of the study, then we lay out the results related to both teacher behavior in the classroom and student outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-3">2. Design of the coaching field experiment</hd> <p>To study the effect of coaching, we implemented a randomized controlled trial in Denmark during the 2017/2018 school year. The study was preregistered and a pre-analysis plan was uploaded to the AEA Registry in the first months of the project (Andersen, Michel, and Nielsen [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-4">2.1. The context</hd> <p>In Denmark, education is compulsory from grade 0 (when children are typically 6 years old) through grade 9 (when they are typically 16 years old). Compulsory school encompasses preschool class (grade 0), primary education (grades 1–6), and lower secondary education (grades 7–9). Education is free at public schools, which accounted for 79% of the students enrolled in grades 1–9 in 2017/2018 (18% were enrolled at a private school and 3% at a special school). The average class size is 22 students per class, which is similar to other OECD countries (for more details, see UVM [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>At different points of their primary and lower secondary education, students are requested to take different national tests designed to track their progress mainly in Danish/reading, and mathematics. Every year, students are also requested to take a well-being survey designed to assess their degree of well-being at school. The school year starts in August and ends in June.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-5">2.2. The teaching program</hd> <p>All teachers participating in the study were invited to take part in a training program designed to enhance various aspects of their teaching practices, with the goal of creating an inclusive and supportive environment for both students with and without disorders.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>] The course was based on the idea that teaching techniques that are particularly helpful for children with autism spectrum disorders (such as strict organization of assignments, help with regulating emotions, etc.) would generally also be helpful for all students. The course thus aimed to help teachers create an inclusive classroom environment in which both students with developmental disorders and students without special needs would learn and thrive.</p> <p>The teaching program consisted of five one-day modules where teachers would receive training in four types of educational inputs (teaching techniques) that facilitate teaching and learning in an inclusive classroom setting. A first group of teaching practices aimed to improve the <emph>physical environment</emph> of the classroom, which involved creating a structured and friendly classroom setting that supports all students. The design focuses on clear organization and minimizing sensory overload to facilitate learning. The second group of teaching practices aimed to improve the <emph>organization of assignments</emph> given to children, making them structured to be clear and manageable, often broken down into smaller steps. This approach aids in understanding and completion, ensuring that tasks are accessible to all students. The third group of teaching practices aimed to improve the <emph>regulation of senses, attention, and emotions</emph> by incorporating strategies to help students manage sensory input, maintain attention, and regulate emotions. This includes the use of calming areas and sensory tools within the classroom. The fourth group of teaching strategies aimed to improve <emph>pedagogy and teacher mentalization</emph> by training teachers to adopt a reflective and empathetic approach, understanding each student's perspective. This dimension emphasizes the importance of teacher collaboration and consistent application of supportive teaching methods. There is some natural overlap between the different groups of teaching practices. For instance, some elements used as visual support to constitute a suitable physical environment are, for example, used to help regulate emotions. As a consequence, reflecting and practicing each of the tools would often be repeated across modules.</p> <p>The teaching practices introduced in the training can be further divided into two distinct categories based on their nature: technological and behavioral input factors. <emph>Technological input factors</emph> are input factors designed to enhance the physical and visual organization of the classroom, fostering a structured, calm, and supportive learning environment. They involved organizing the classroom to minimize visual distractions, providing students with a designated area where they can regulate their emotions, recharge, and regain focus, and making visual supports introduced during the training visible in the classroom. <emph>Behavioral input factors</emph> pertain to teachers' actions in the classroom and focus specifically on implementing supportive teaching and learning strategies aimed at improving clarity, fostering engagement, and ensuring accessibility within the classroom. This involved the use of visual supports (5-point voice scales, daily class schedule, timers, etc.), supplementing written instructions with verbal instructions, providing the entire class opportunities for movement, giving students the opportunity to make choices, incorporating students' strengths, interests and learning styles into learning activities, highlighting and reinforcing positive behaviors over addressing negative ones, etc.</p> <p>Figure 1 shows examples of the techniques taught in the program. Panel 1(a) shows a technological tool that teachers may use. It is a voice scale that should make it clear and visible to the students how loud or quiet they are supposed to talk at the moment (indicated by the arrow). Panel 1(b) shows another technological tool designed to encourage students to make independent decisions on what type of exercise they plan to do during the school day, and commit to that decision. Panel 1(c) is a behavioral tool designed to foster self-regulation in students. The tool instructs the teachers in how they may handle conflicts with the students by asking what happened just before the situation (to learn to prevent), what did the student do himself and what did the other student actually do during the conflict (to learn how to react differently), and what happened afterwards (to learn how to react and resolve the situation). Panel 1(d) illustrates a behavioral tool that encourages teachers to reflect upon their own and others' thoughts, emotions, needs and intentions. Teachers may speak out loud about what they think or feel as they act, or they may mirror the thoughts or needs they imagine that a student has in a hard situation. The idea is that the student learns to describe thoughts and emotions and realizes that there may be different perspectives in a given situation.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Examples of techniques taught in the teaching program. (a) Voice scale, (b) Choose Exercise, (c) Conflict resolution and (d) Mentalizing. Translations: Panel 1(a): 'Voice scale.' 1 is 'No talk,' 2 'Whispering,' 3 'Indoor voice,' 4 'Outdoor voice,' 5 'Alarm voice.' Panel 1(b) 'Scheme to choose exercise of the day.' 'I choose' 'Running rounds,' 'Indoor exercise program.' Panel 1(c) 'Before. Preceding (trigger) What happened just before? Prevent/ precautionary measures.' 'During. Observable behavior What did I do? What did the student do? Substitute.' 'After. Consequence What happened afterwards? React.'</p> <p>Finally, during each training module, teachers were asked to reflect on their own students and to set an agenda for themselves that details how they would change their teaching practices so as to take what they will learn during the course modules into account. In addition, each course module started with rehearsal and reflection on what they have learned to consolidate knowledge. The course modules were held once a month from August through November, with a fifth one in February.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-6">2.3. The coaching tntervention</hd> <p>Alongside the teaching program, a coaching intervention was provided to a subset of teachers. The aim was to support them in effectively implementing the teaching practices introduced during the training. As part of this intervention, teachers were paired with a co-teacher, their 'coach', and instructed to spend 2.5 hours per week with them for the entire school year. The content of these coaching sessions was to be dedicated to the implementation of what had been covered during the teaching course.</p> <p>Each participating school appointed one or more individuals to be their school's coach(es), usually another teacher. The appointed person(s) was requested to have received specific training on how to handle students with special needs (learning difficulties; social, emotional, or behavioral problems).</p> <p>Following the first module of the course, the coaches stayed for an additional two hours to be instructed in their coaching role. They were first introduced to three different co-teaching models: one of the two teachers teaches while the other observes; one of the two teachers teaches while the other assists; both teachers teach on equal terms.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>] Furthermore, they were advised to allocate the 2.5 weekly hours as follows: 30 minutes for preparation, two 45-minute class lessons, and 30 minutes for consolidation. They were taught that their key tasks were listening and guiding rather than advising and instructing. The participant prospective coaches discussed how to establish trust and supportive collaboration, and they practiced appreciative inquiry.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-7">2.4. Sampling strategy and randomization</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192371725-8">2.4.1. Sampling strategy</hd> <p>We recruited teachers from all public schools located in a large municipality in Denmark. More specifically, we invited all Danish teachers teaching grade levels 3–6 to participate. In total, 17 schools and 68 Danish teachers signed up to participate in the experiment, representing a total of 1490 students.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>] In four cases, a teacher signed up for more than one of their classes to participate in the experiment. Here, one class was randomly selected to participate.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-9">2.4.2. Randomization</hd> <p>As there are strong reasons to expect significant selection with respect to the type of Danish teachers who would enroll in the coaching program, we implemented a randomized controlled trial to measure its impact.</p> <p>The coaching intervention was randomized among teachers participating in the teaching program. The draw was carried out at the teacher level and stratified by school so as to increase the level of buy-in from participating schools. As a consequence, in each school, we randomly selected half of the Danish teachers to benefit from the coaching intervention. In schools where an uneven number of teachers was enrolled in the experiment, the number of teachers assigned to the coaching intervention was rounded upward or downward based on schools' stated capacities or preferences. In total, out of the 68 teachers (classes) participating in the experiment, 35 were assigned the coaching intervention. Teachers and coaches were informed about the results of the draw between the first and second course (after the completion of the baseline data collection).[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]</p> <p>Since both control and treated teachers participated in the same teaching program, it can be assumed that they received the same level of information on effective teaching techniques and were equally encouraged to focus on relevant input factors during the training. Consequently, any differences observed between treatment and control classes can be attributed to the effect of coaching.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-10">2.4.3. Research questions</hd> <p>As part of our primary research question, we aimed to assess whether the coaching intervention would have an impact on teacher practices. Additionally, we set out to explore four secondary research questions. First, we planned to measure its impact on student outcomes, particularly reading skills – measured through national standardized reading tests – and socio-emotional skills, assessed via national standardized well-being surveys. Second, we planned to examine whether the intervention's impact on teaching practices was stronger for behavioral or technological practices, hypothesizing a greater effect on the former. Finally, the last two secondary research questions related to mechanisms and heterogeneous effects. However, the measures for examining the designated mechanisms showed to be unsuitable for the purpose, and the limited statistical power made heterogeneity analyses uninformative.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>] Primary and secondary research questions were documented in a pre-analysis plan uploaded to the AEA RCT Registry on September 2017 (between the first and second training session).</p> <p>We carried out statistical power calculations taking into account the fact that 17 schools and 68 Danish teachers enrolled in the study, representing an average of 4 teachers per school (two in each group). Under the assumptions that baseline covariates would allow us to explain 25% of the variation in our outcome variables, the power analysis suggested that with a power of 80% we would be able to detect a minimum effect size of 0.50 to 0.60 standard deviations in teacher behavior.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>] This aligns closely with the pooled effect size of 0.49 standard deviations for the impact of coaching on teacher instruction, as reported in the meta-analysis by Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref29">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>For student-level outcomes, and under the assumption that baseline covariates would allow us to explain 28% of the variation in our outcome variables, with a power of 80%, we would be able to detect a minimum effect size of 0.23–0.30 standard deviations in students' test scores. Parameter values on average class size, expected variance explained by each level's covariates, and inter-class correlations in test score data were estimated from Danish register data (past cohorts). Given that Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]) reported pooled effect sizes of 0.18 standard deviations on student achievement, there is uncertainty about whether our study had sufficient statistical power to detect effects on student outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-11">2.5. Data</hd> <p>In order to measure the impact of the intervention, information was collected at different points in time throughout the experiment. As shown in Table 1, we do not observe any differential attrition rate across groups at follow-up.</p> <p>Table 1. Balance checks and student attrition rates.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td><p>Control</p></td><td><p>Treatment</p></td><td><p>Difference</p></td><td><p><italic>N</italic></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p><italic>Student-level information</italic></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>Girls</p></td><td char="."><p>0.503</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.500)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.480</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.500)</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.027+</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.016)</p></td><td><p>1490</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age</p></td><td char="."><p>10.400</p></td><td char="."><p>(1.051)</p></td><td char="."><p>10.308</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.961)</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.105</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.167)</p></td><td><p>1490</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Child lives w/both their parents</p></td><td char="."><p>0.724</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.447)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.730</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.444)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.013</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.021)</p></td><td><p>1490</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Repeated at least once</p></td><td char="."><p>0.030</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.171)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.034</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.182)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.005</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.008)</p></td><td><p>1490</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><italic>Teacher-level information</italic></p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>Class size</p></td><td char="."><p>22.273</p></td><td char="."><p>(3.347)</p></td><td char="."><p>21.571</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.698)</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.570</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.637)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>N students with special needs (ref. ≥5)</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>0–2 pupils with special needs</p></td><td char="."><p>0.333</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.479)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.229</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.426)</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.090</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.112)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>3–4 pupils with special needs</p></td><td char="."><p>0.364</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.489)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.314</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.471)</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.050</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.117)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Students' grade (ref. grade 3)</p></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><p>Grade 4</p></td><td char="."><p>0.333</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.479)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.486</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.507)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.160</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.104)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade 5</p></td><td char="."><p>0.333</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.479)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.314</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.471)</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.020</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.110)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade 6</p></td><td char="."><p>0.242</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.435)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.171</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.382)</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.080</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.090)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher experience (in years)</p></td><td char="."><p>11.485</p></td><td char="."><p>(8.910)</p></td><td char="."><p>13.371</p></td><td char="."><p>(7.975)</p></td><td char="."><p>1.540</p></td><td char="."><p>(1.957)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher prior trainings</p></td><td char="."><p>0.212</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.415)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.286</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.458)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.030</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.093)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher observations, turnover</p></td><td char="."><p>0.121</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.331)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.171</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.382)</p></td><td char="."><p>0.040</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.079)</p></td><td><p>68</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Notes: Includes only participants that completed the endline questionnaire. To preserve anonymity of respondents, we cannot distinguish attrition in the treatment and control group. To compare the treatment and control group, we regress each of the variables on the treatment indicator, <emph>T</emph> and school fixed effects. Difference is the coefficient and SE the robust standard error. <emph>p</emph> is the <emph>p</emph>-value.+, *, ** are the 10, 5, and 1 percentage levels.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-12">2.5.1. Outcomes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192371725-13">2.5.1.1 Behavior in the classroom</hd> <p>To evaluate the impact of the coaching intervention on teachers' implementation of the instructional techniques introduced in the teaching program, classroom practices were assessed through structured 60-minute observations. Each teacher was observed twice: once at the beginning of the school year and again at its end.</p> <p>Teachers' techniques were initially assessed using a 34-item observation checklist. Each item fell into one of the four broad types of enabling inputs covered during training: (i) physical environment, (ii) organization of assignments, (iii) regulation of senses, attention and emotions, and (iv) pedagogy and teacher mentalization. Upon completion of the training modules, the observation form was refined and reduced to 24 items at the request of the training organizers, as ten items were ultimately not covered during the training. Our analysis focuses exclusively on the restricted set of 24 items. Each of these items was also categorized as either a behavioral or a technological input factor.[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]</p> <p>For each item/educational input, the teachers' technique was assessed on a scale of 1–5 (1 indicating that 'technique was not used at all', and 5 indicating that 'a technique was used extensively'). These variables were later combined into one single index indicative of teachers' overall practices and calculated as their simple average. We also computed four sub-indices based on the nature of the dimension the questions investigated (each sub-index representing a family of outcomes). All these variables have been standardized to have mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 in the control group.</p> <p>In order to avoid any data collection bias, classroom observations were conducted by research assistants who were specifically recruited and trained for this task and were blinded to the teachers' treatment status. Different research assistants conducted the pre- and post-observations. The assistants were trained in advance to obtain a high level of reliability.</p> <p>The full observation form is reported in Appendix A.2. It also provides a mapping of the different items into the four types of inputs.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-14">2.5.1.2 Student outcomes</hd> <p>In order to measure the impact of the coaching intervention on students' academic achievements, we use their performance on a standardized national reading test. This test is mandatory for grade 2, 4, 6 and 8 students, and it is implemented to track students' progress throughout school. The test is online, self-scoring and adaptive, and consists of three subdomains: reading comprehension, decoding, and text comprehension. We standardize each subdomain to mean 0 and standard deviation 1. To measure the composite reading skill, we take the mean of the three subdomains and standardize the composite score. For more details on the national test and how to use them, see Beuchert and Nandrup ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]). We observe this outcome for students in grades 4 and 6 only (not for grades 3 and 5).</p> <p>In order to measure the impact of the coaching intervention on students' socio-emotional skills, we use a national well-being survey. The survey is mandatory for all grade 0–9 students and aims to collect information on their well-being at school. As part of this questionnaire, grade 4–9 students are requested to answer 40 questions investigating different aspects of their well-being at school. In each dimension, students are asked to rate their well-being on a scale of 1–5. Among the 40 items, 3 items have been validated as a measure of students' conscientiousness, 2 for agreeableness, and 3 for emotional stability by Andersen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]), and we follow their way of measuring the three skills (standardizing each item, averaging across the relevant items, and standardizing the composite score). Especially conscientiousness, which relates to facet self-control and grit, has been shown to be strongly associated with academic performance in school (Andersen et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]). We observe these measures for grades 4–6 (not for grade 3 where students get a shorter questionnaire).</p> <p>Table A.1 shows the pairwise correlations between the socio-emotional survey variables.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-15">2.5.2. Covariates</hd> <p>To increase the precision of the effect estimates, we include various sets of baseline covariates.</p> <p>First, we include school fixed effects since randomization was stratified at the school level. Second, we include grade fixed effects and baseline values of the primary outcome variables, derived from classroom observations of teacher practices conducted before the randomization results were announced to schools and teachers. Third, we include information on teachers: the number of students who have repeated class (variable standardized to have mean 0 and standard deviation 1), and the experience of the teacher (in years).</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-16">2.6. Statistical model</hd> <p>We assess the impact of the intervention on outcome</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>y</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> for student <emph>i</emph> using an Intention-To-Treat (ITT) analysis. Specifically, we estimate the following equation:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>y</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><mi>a</mi><msub><mi>T</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">Σ</mi><mrow><mspace width="thinmathspace" /><mi>j</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mrow><mn>17</mn></mrow></msubsup><msub><mi>μ</mi><mi>j</mi></msub><msub><mi>S</mi><mi>j</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mi>b</mi><msub><mi>X</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>ϵ</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>)</p> <p>In this equation, <emph>T</emph> is a dummy variable indicating whether or not teacher or student <emph>i</emph> is assigned to the treatment, and</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>S</mi><mi>j</mi></msub></math> </ephtml> are stratum fixed effects (school fixed effects). Parameter <emph>a</emph> is the parameter of interest and measures the effect of the intervention. While the baseline model is without further covariates, we control for progressively larger sets of baseline covariates, <emph>X</emph>, as a robustness test, as described above. We calculate Huber-White robust standard errors for regressions using teacher-level data, and standard errors clustered at the level of the 68 classrooms included in the sample for regressions using student-level data.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-17">2.7. Sample description, balance checks, and compliance</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192371725-18">2.7.1. Sample description</hd> <p>Table 1 describes the students, classes, and teachers enrolled in the experiment in the control group and the treatment group. The table also shows the difference between the two groups.</p> <p>Half of the sample is girls, and 73% of them live with both parents. The average class size is 22, and grades 4–5 dominate compared to grade 3 and grade 6.</p> <p>Unsurprisingly given the nature of the intervention, about one-third of the classes had 3–4 students with special needs (including children with autism or autism-like features, Asperger's Syndrome, ADHD, behavioral and attention disorder, anxiety, or learning difficulties), and about one-third had 5 or more students with special needs.[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref36">10</reflink>] Moreover, while teachers included in our sample are fairly experienced with 12 years of service on average, only a fourth of them already had benefited from a coaching program prior to the roll-out of the experiment.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-19">2.7.2. Balance checks</hd> <p>Coefficients displayed in the balance checks column ('Difference') are obtained by estimating Equation (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>) (without including covariates <emph>X</emph>) using successively each of the baseline characteristics displayed in the left column of the table as the dependent variable. We do so by using all observations for which endline information is available. The point estimates associated with the treatment variables are not statistically significant at the 10 percent level, except for one coefficient, which reflects a slight overweight of girls in the control group. This suggests that teachers' and students' treatment statuses are uncorrelated with their baseline characteristics.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-20">2.7.3. Compliance</hd> <p>Table 2 investigates the differential uptake of the interventions across control and treatment teachers. In columns 1 to 8, we analyze the impact of a teacher's treatment status on a range of indicators describing their exposure to the teaching program and to the coaching intervention.[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>] First, we find no evidence that treatment teachers attended more professional development training than control respondents: while the point estimate is quite large (0.452), it is never statistically significant at the 10% level (column 1). This implies that any differences we find in the impact of the coaching intervention across treatment and control teachers can be attributed to the help of the coach, not to any differences in exposure to the teaching program.</p> <p>Table 2. Compliance.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td><p>As part of the project</p></td><td><p>Outside of the project</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>(1)</p></td><td><p>(2)</p></td><td><p>(3)</p></td><td><p>(4)</p></td><td><p>(5)</p></td><td><p>(6)</p></td><td><p>(7)</p></td><td><p>(8)</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>How many NEST element trainings did you attend?</p></td><td><p>This year, were you ever associated with a co-teacher?</p></td><td><p>As part of the NEST project, were you associated with a co-teacher?</p></td><td><p>On average, how much time did the co-teacher spend with you in class per week? (min)</p></td><td><p>On average, how much time did the co-teacher spend with you in meetings per week? (min)</p></td><td><p>Outside of the NEST project, were you associated with a co-teacher?</p></td><td><p>On average, how much time did the co-teacher spend with you in class per week? (min)</p></td><td><p>On average, how much time did the co-teacher spend with you in meetings per week? (min)</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Treatment</p></td><td char="."><p>0.452</p></td><td char="."><p>0.899**</p></td><td char="."><p>0.920**</p></td><td char="."><p>67.30**</p></td><td char="."><p>35.79**</p></td><td char="."><p>0.138</p></td><td char="."><p>4.293</p></td><td char="."><p>3.411</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.473)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.066)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.065)</p></td><td char="."><p>(8.227)</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.753)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.084)</p></td><td char="."><p>(3.661)</p></td><td char="."><p>(3.219)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><graphic href="cede_a_2491536_ilm0003.gif" content-type="Graph" /><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup xmlns=""><mi>R</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn></mrow></msup></math></p></td><td char="."><p>0.273</p></td><td char="."><p>0.816</p></td><td char="."><p>0.836</p></td><td char="."><p>0.717</p></td><td char="."><p>0.650</p></td><td char="."><p>0.261</p></td><td char="."><p>0.246</p></td><td char="."><p>0.222</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Control group mean</p></td><td char="."><p>3.906</p></td><td char="."><p><0.1</p></td><td char="."><p><0.1</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td char="."><p>3.125</p></td><td char="."><p><0.1</p></td><td char="."><p>1.452</p></td><td char="."><p>1.935</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>School FE</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade FE</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Covariates</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Notes: The table shows the effect of assignment to the coaching intervention on teachers' actual level of exposure to the intervention. We regressed each of the outcome variables displayed in columns 1–8 on a dummy variable indicative of respondents' treatment assignment, school and grade fixed effects, teachers' number of years of experience (standardized), and a categorical variable indicating the number of children with special needs in the class. We report the coefficient and standard error associated with the treatment variable. Robust standard errors are computed. <emph>N</emph> = 61. In rare cases, <emph>N</emph><61. However, to preserve the anonymity of respondents, we do not report the small deviations.'NEST' is the name used for the overall project including the teaching program modules.+, *, ** are the 10, 5, and 1 percentage levels.</p> <p>Investigating teachers' exposure to coaching intervention, we find little evidence of non-compliance. First, less than</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mn>10</mn><mtext>%</mtext></math> </ephtml> of the control teachers benefited from any coaching intervention throughout the year, while an additional 90% of the treatment teachers benefited from one (column 2). Second, we find that the result is entirely driven by differences in the extent to which treatment and control teachers benefit from the coaching intervention evaluated as part of this project (column 3). Alternative coaching programs accessible to all teachers – and, in particular, control teachers – do nothing to reduce this differential exposure rate (column 6).</p> <p>However, while teachers were supposed to spend 2.5 hours per week with their coach throughout the entire school year, we find that they spent only slightly more than 1.5 hours (67 minutes (column 4) + 36 minutes (column 5)) together.</p> <p>With a mean of 18.1 years of experience (standard deviation 6.9), the coaches were generally highly experienced teachers.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref39">12</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-21">3. Results</hd> <p>Most teachers thought that the NEST elements were not too difficult to use. To get an impression about teachers' overall perception of the program, we asked them about their view of the NEST elements in total (in addition to the survey questions about each individual element as described in Section A.3.1.) Figure 2 shows the distribution on four statements about how easy it was to use the NEST elements on a scale ranging from 1 (fully disagree) through 10 (fully agree). Most responses were in the range from 5 to 10.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Distribution of responses to questions about the use of the NEST elements. Notes: Teachers were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with four statements: [Easy to apply] 'NEST elements are easy to apply'. [Know effect] 'It is easy to know whether the NEST elements actually benefit the students'. [Use everyday] 'It is easy to remember to use the NEST elements in everyday work.' [Use in practice] 'It is easy to know how to use the NEST elements in practice when you teach a class'. Response categories range from 1 (fully disagree) to 10 (fully agree). The figure is based on kernel density estimates. Response categories 1 and 2 are averaged to preserve anonymity.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-22">3.1. Effects on teacher behavior</hd> <p>In Table 3, we report the effects of coaching on the overall use of practices taught in the training program and on each of the dimensions and types of inputs measured. As mentioned, the use of tools is measured on a 1–5 scale, with 1 indicating that 'a technique was not used at all' and 5 indicating that 'a technique was widely used'.</p> <p>Table 3. ITT estimates of the coaching intervention's impact on observed teacher behavior.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td><p>(1)</p></td><td><p>(2)</p></td><td><p>(3)</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Teacher practices, overall</p></td><td char="."><p>0.389+</p></td><td char="."><p>0.424+</p></td><td char="."><p>0.440+</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.231)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.223)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.227)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher practices, Physical Environment</p></td><td char="."><p>0.194</p></td><td char="."><p>0.160</p></td><td char="."><p>0.167</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.221)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.217)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.225)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher practices, Organization of Assignments</p></td><td char="."><p>0.260</p></td><td char="."><p>0.335</p></td><td char="."><p>0.321</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.225)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.224)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.230)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher practices, Regulation of Senses, Attention and Emotions</p></td><td char="."><p>0.396</p></td><td char="."><p>0.481+</p></td><td char="."><p>0.496*</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.268)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.240)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.245)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher practices, Pedagogy and Teacher Mentalization</p></td><td char="."><p>0.198</p></td><td char="."><p>0.215</p></td><td char="."><p>0.278</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.248)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.248)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.242)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teaching practices, tec. factors</p></td><td char="."><p>0.473*</p></td><td char="."><p>0.410*</p></td><td char="."><p>0.422*</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.196)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.181)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.192)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teaching practices, beh. factors</p></td><td char="."><p>0.328</p></td><td char="."><p>0.364</p></td><td char="."><p>0.376</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.236)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.235)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.239)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>School FE</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade FE</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Baseline value</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Repeat class</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher experience</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Notes: Data for this table was collected by student assistants who directly observed the teachers in their classroom and graded their practices using a standardized questionnaire. Entries are coefficients (robust standard errors in parentheses). All outcome variables have been standardized to have mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 in the control group.+, *, ** are the 10, 5, and 1 percentage levels. <emph>N</emph> = 61.</p> <p>The coaching intervention increased the overall teaching score by 0.44 standard deviations (statistically significant at the 10% level), suggesting a quite substantial impact on the extent to which teachers adopted the teaching techniques introduced during the training. We observe that this effect is primarily driven by teaching practices focused on the regulation of senses, attention and emotions, which increased by 0.5 standard deviations (statistically significant at the 5% level). In contrast, the impact was less pronounced for teaching practices related to pedagogy and teacher mentalization (+0.278 standard deviations) and improvements to the physical environment (+0.167 standard deviations).</p> <p>We further examine the effects of the intervention on teachers' practices by distinguishing between behavioral input factors (e.g. using direction instead of correction, providing support during transitions, maintaining a calm voice) and technological input factors (e.g. making 5-point voice scales or charts visible in the classroom, setting up a break area). While we initially expected that coaching would have a greater impact on behavioral input factors – given their intrinsic difficulty to change – we find that the point estimates for technological input factors are larger (though not statistically different). They are also statistically significant when point estimates for behavioral input factors are not. This suggests that the coaching intervention may not have had the anticipated impact and was potentially less effective in shifting the harder-to-change practices it was specifically designed to influence.</p> <p>The coefficients are stable across specifications as we progressively control for a larger set of baseline covariates.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-23">3.2. Effects on student outcomes</hd> <p>We find no statistically significant effect suggesting that the coaching intervention improved student outcomes. Table 4 shows that the effects on the composite reading score, as well as on two subdomains – language comprehension and text comprehension – are generally small and consistently fail to be statistically significant at the 10 percent level.</p> <p>Table 4. ITT estimates of the coaching intervention's impact on student outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td><p>(1)</p></td><td><p>(2)</p></td><td><p>(3)</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Reading test score</p></td><td char="."><p>0.00530</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0279</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0345</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.070)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.067)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.068)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Language comprehension</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0280</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0242</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0270</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.065)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.055)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.061)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Decoding</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0702</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0703</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0601</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.072)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.049)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.048)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Text comprehension</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0290</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.100</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.105</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.076)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.083)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.083)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conscientiousness index</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0719</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0332</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0102</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.067)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.067)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.059)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Agreeableness index</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0947</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0634</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0620</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.070)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.067)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.067)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Emotional stability index</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.194**</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.163*</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.178**</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.066)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.064)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.059)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>School FE</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade FE</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Baseline value</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Student covariates</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher experience</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Notes: The national test in reading is mandatory for grade 4 and 6 students. The wellbeing survey is mandatory for grades 4-6. Entries are coefficients (classroom-clustered standard errors in parentheses).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>N</mi><mo>=</mo><mo>[</mo><mn>899</mn><mo>;</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>,</mo><mn>222</mn><mo>]</mo></math> </ephtml> . All outcome variables have been standardized to have mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 in the population.+, *, ** are the 10, 5, and 1 percentage levels.</p> <p>However, we find some evidence suggesting that the coaching intervention may have had a negative effect on students' well-being. Indeed, while the effects on two of the measures of socio-emotional skills (conscientiousness and agreeableness) are close to zero and not statistically significant at the 10 percent level, the effect on emotional stability is negative and statistically significant at the one percent level, suggesting that students in classrooms where the coaching intervention was implemented experienced more negative feelings such as loneliness and insecurity. The size of this effect (0.16–0.19 standard deviations) is substantial compared to effect sizes reported in many other educational interventions evaluated through field experiments (Kraft [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-24">4. Discussion</hd> <p>Overall, the field experiment confirmed the main hypothesis that coaching can act as a facilitator or catalyst for the implementation of theory into practice. However, contrary to our initial expectation, the intervention's impact was not stronger on input factors that are inherently more difficult to alter, such as teachers' actions in the classroom, than on those that are relatively easier to modify, such as elements aimed at improving the classroom's physical and visual organization. In fact, point estimates for behavioral input factors were lower and less statistically significant than those for technological input factors. Even though the difference in effects was not statistically significant, one interpretation of this result may be that it is easier for coaches to observe and provide feedback on the use of such more tangible techniques than the behavioral techniques. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the studied intervention in changing teachers' pedagogical practices in the classroom.</p> <p>Besides the main effects on teacher behavior, we found no indications that student learning was improved by the treatment. On the contrary, we found that emotional stability was reduced. If this effect is not a false positive, two possible explanations emerge. First, any positive impact of increased teaching practices in this dimension due to the coaching intervention may have been offset by unintended disruptive effects. For instance, the periodic presence of an additional adult in the classroom may have inadvertently caused disturbances, or the newly introduced teaching practices may require more time and practice to be implemented effectively, initially feeling awkward or unnatural. Second, the content of the training program itself (adopted from the ASD NEST program in New York City) may not have been well-suited to the context of this study.</p> <p>We find no evidence that the increased use of teaching practices promoted in the teacher training program may have induced any negative impact on students, suggesting that the observed negative effect would more likely be driven by potential disruptive effects of the coaching intervention itself. In Table 5, we present the results of a regression where teachers' observed use of NEST elements at follow-up (overall score) is regressed on student outcomes. We find no indication that greater adoption of these teaching practices is negatively correlated with student outcomes – if anything, the relationship appears to be positive. Specifically, the correlation with emotional stability is close to zero, while the correlations with conscientiousness and agreeableness are positive and statistically significant when controlling for grade fixed effects, teachers' observed use of NEST elements at baseline, and baseline covariates (student covariates and teacher experience).</p> <p>Table 5. Correlations between teachers' observed use of NEST elements (overall score) and student outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td><p>(1)</p></td><td><p>(2)</p></td><td><p>(3)</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Reading test score</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.00351</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0219</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0204</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.042)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.043)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.045)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Language comprehension</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0246</p></td><td char="."><p>0.00109</p></td><td char="."><p>0.00251</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.037)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.038)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.040)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Decoding</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0637</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0418</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.0403</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.038)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.032)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.032)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Text comprehension</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0304</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.00781</p></td><td char="."><p>−0.00716</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.044)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.049)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.050)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Conscientiousness index</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0747+</p></td><td char="."><p>0.113**</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0987**</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.039)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.036)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.030)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Agreeableness index</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0531</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0790*</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0701+</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.039)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.038)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.037)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Emotional stability index</p></td><td char="."><p>0.00874</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0412</p></td><td char="."><p>0.0378</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td char="."><p>(0.033)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.032)</p></td><td char="."><p>(0.034)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>School FE</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grade FE</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Baseline value</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Student covariates</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher experience</p></td><td /><td><p>YES</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Notes: The national test in reading is mandatory for grade 4 and 6 students. Entries are coefficients (classroom-clustered standard errors in parentheses).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>N</mi><mo>=</mo><mo>[</mo><mn>800</mn><mo>;</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>,</mo><mn>098</mn><mo>]</mo></math> </ephtml> . All outcome variables have been standardized to have mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 in the population.+, *, ** are the 10, 5, and 1 percentage levels.</p> <p>The lack of stronger effects on the students could have many explanations. Despite the observed effect on teachers' use of the techniques, the behavioral change may have been too weak to translate into more substantial student improvements. While the coaching intervention provided no explicit incentives to change effort, non-monetary incentives in terms of, for example, peer pressure or image concerns may arise. However, such effects are likely not lasting or strong enough to shift students' outcomes. Even though our intervention is much more intensive than the peer observations studied by e.g. Burgess, Rawal, and Taylor ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]), the increase in effort driven by non-monetary incentives may still be limited.</p> <p>It may also be that the techniques taught at the teaching program were not effective enough or that the teachers' translation of the theoretical knowledge into practice was not done adequately. Alternatively, it may take more time before the change in teacher behavior reflects positively on the students' learning and socio-emotional development. Yet, the negative effect on emotional stability provides some indication that there is a risk that the effects of the coaching intervention come at a cost.</p> <p>It is also worth noting that the effects that we observe are isolated results of the coaching intervention on top of the teaching program, which was also received by the active control group. This means that the Hawthorne effects that stem from being part of an intervention or from the awareness of being observed and measured by a group of researchers may affect the treatment and control group equally and therefore cannot contribute to the differences in outcomes. As a result, our design captures the marginal impact of adding a coaching program on top of a teacher training program. While previous studies on coaching have generally reported positive effects, they often did not isolate the impact of coaching from that of concurrently implemented training or courses. In contrast, our conclusion is more nuanced and suggests that the impact of the coaching component alone may, in some cases, be quite limited.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-25">5. Conclusion</hd> <p>Teacher training and other types of professional development may be a way of increasing teacher skills. However, it has proven difficult to translate new knowledge from training programs into practice, and therefore, further guidance in terms of coaching may be needed. Yet, evidence on the standalone effect of coaching, without being paired with training programs, remains scarce.</p> <p>The results presented here indicate that coaching may act as a catalyst for this process. However, they also highlight the need for caution regarding the extent of its impact and the expectations surrounding this type of intervention, while warning of potential unintended consequences. Teachers receiving the coach intervention became better at transferring what they learned at the teaching program into changes in teaching practices in the classroom. However, we did not find indications that this translated into improved student outcomes. In fact, we actually found evidence suggesting that coaching intervention may have had short-term negative impacts on students. Whether this is due to the content of the training program or to the coaching intervention itself remains to be seen. We see the potential for more research on different types of coaching combined with different types of teacher training.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-26">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We thank Sanne Dalgaard Toft for excellent research assistance. We are grateful for helpful comments from the editor, two referees and colleagues.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-27">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-28">Data availability statement</hd> <p>The analyses of this paper are based on administrative registers maintained by Statistics Denmark. Analysis of these data can only be conducted on servers hosted by Statistics Denmark. Statistics Denmark guidelines as well as current legislation entail that these data cannot be made publicly available. The authors of the paper will ensure that the analysis data sets as well as any programs needed to replicate the results of this paper are archived for at least five years following the date of publication. In the interest of scientific validation and replication of the analyses of this paper, the Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University, will assist researchers who are interested in validating the results of the paper. Statistics Denmark must approve any researcher who is to have access to the data and data access can be obtained from Aarhus only. Replications requests should be directed to the ECONAU data management team at datamanager@econ.au.dk.</p> <hd id="AN0192371725-29">Supplemental data</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2025.2491536</p> <ref id="AN0192371725-30"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> We had also planned to study the potential theoretical mechanisms. Following Hanna, Mullainathan, and Schwartzstein ([10]), we asked teachers in a pre-and post-survey about their awareness of and knowledge about the different techniques in order to potentially separate the information, attention, and training effects of the coach. However, the measures used to capture the different mechanisms proved to be irrelevant in the context of this study, as we explain below.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The pre-analysis plan is publicly available on the AEA registry: https://<ulink href="http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2419">www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2419</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> The program was adapted from the ASD NEST program, which was implemented in the US and aimed at including students with autism spectrum disorders in ordinary age-appropriate classrooms. The program 'employs components of evidence-based models, approaches, and practices' (Koenig et al.[15]). More information on the program can be found on the following webpage: <ulink href="http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/asdnest/">http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/asdnest/</ulink> (accessed on August 30, 2023).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref24" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> This information was given as inspiration and it is unclear whether and how much they used the three models in practice.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref18" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> In parallel to the experiment, grade levels 3–6 mathematics teachers working in the same 17 schools were invited to participate in the teaching program. However, for budgetary reasons, only Danish teachers were eligible for the coaching intervention.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> When schools appointed more than one coach, the teacher-coach pairs were randomly generated.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> In Appendix A.3, we provide information on the specific measures and the empirical analysis of potential mechanisms.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Calculations were performed in Optimal Design (Spybrook et al.[22]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref5" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Of the 24 items, four were classified as technological input factors' two related to the physical environment and two to the regulation of senses, attention, and emotions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The phrasing of the question specified that children with special needs may be 'children with one or more mental diagnoses and children under investigation or with special needs without an actual diagnosis'.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Covariates and outcomes are almost always observed for the 61 teachers who answer the endline survey. However, in rare cases, slightly fewer or more observations are available. To preserve the anonymity of respondents, we always report the number of observations to be 61 as the gap is less than or equal to three observations.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Experience ranged from about 5 years to more than 30 years. Exact numbers are not provided in order to preserve anonymity.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> While emotional stability in students is concerned with feeling secure and not feeling lonely, the teaching practices denoted Regulation of Senses, Attention, and Emotions are associated with self-regulation using break areas, calming material, motion breaks and learning to put problems into perspective, see A.2. Therefore, the significant effects on those two variables are not necessarily related even though the wording overlaps.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0192371725-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Allen, Joseph P., Robert C. Pianta, Anne Gregory, Amori Yee Mikami, and Janetta Lun. 2011. " An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement." Science (New York, N.Y.) 333 (6045): 1034 – 1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Andersen, Simon Calmar, Miriam Gensowski, Steven G. Ludeke, and Oliver P. John. 2020. " A Stable Relationship Between Personality and Academic Performance from Childhood Through Adolescence. An Original Study and Replication in Hundred–Thousand–Person Samples." Journal of Personality 88 (5): 925 – 939. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Andersen, Simon, Bastien Michel, and Helena Nielsen. 2024. Impact and Mechanisms: Why Consulting Matters in Human Capital Intensive Organizations. Evidence from a Field Experiment on Teacher Coaching. AEA RCT Registry. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2419-1.1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beuchert, Louise Voldby, and Anne Brink Nandrup. 2018. " The Danish National Tests at a Glance." Nationaloekonomisk Tidsskrift 1 : 1 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burgess, Simon, Shenila Rawal, and Eric S. Taylor. 2021. " Teacher Peer Observation and Student Test Scores: Evidence from a Field Experiment in English Secondary Schools." Journal of Labor Economics 39 (4): 1155 – 1186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cecchini, Mathilde, and Gitte Sommer Harrits. 2022. " The Professional Agency Narrative – Conceptualizing the Role of Professional Knowledge in Frontline Work." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 32 (1): 41 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff. 2014. " Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood." American Economic Review 104 (9): 2633 – 2679. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, Julie, Vivian Wong, Anandita Krishnamachari, and Rebekah Berlin. 2020. " Teacher Coaching in a Simulated Environment." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 42 (2): 208 – 231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank, Kenneth A., Ran Xu, and William R. Penuel. 2018. " Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Human Service Organizations: Implications from Agent-Based Models." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 37 (4): 867 – 895. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22081.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanna, Rema, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Joshua Schwartzstein. 2014. " Learning Through Noticing: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (3): 1311 – 1353. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, Douglas N., and Tim R. Sass. 2011. " Teacher Training, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement." Journal of Public Economics 95 (7): 798 – 812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jakobsen, Morten, Christian Bøtcher Jacobsen, and Søren Serritzlew. 2019. " Managing the Behavior of Public Frontline Employees Through Change-Oriented Training: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29 (4): 556 – 571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy080.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, Mary M. 1999. " The Role of Preservice Teacher Education." In Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, edited by Darling-Hammond Linda and Sykes Gary, 54 – 85. San Francisco : Jossey Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, Mary M. 2016. " How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching? " Review of Educational Research 86 (4): 945 – 980.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koenig, Kristie P., Jamie Bleiweiss, Susan Brennan, Shirley Cohen, and Dorothy E. Siegel. 2009. " The ASD Nest Program: A Model for Inclusive Public Education for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders." Teaching Exceptional Children 42 (1): 6 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, Matthew A. 2020. " Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions." Educational Researcher 49 (4): 241 – 253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, Matthew A., David Blazar, and Dylan Hogan. 2018. " The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence." Review of Educational Research 88 (4): 547 – 588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kretlow, Allison Graves, and Christina C. Bartholomew. 2010. " Using Coaching to Improve the Fidelity of Evidence-Based Practices: A Review of Studies." Teacher Education and Special Education 33 (4): 279 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410371643.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Møller, Anne Mette. 2022. " Mobilizing Knowledge in Frontline Work: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Exploration." Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 5 (1): 50 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raaphorst, Nadine. 2018. " How to Prove, How to Interpret and What to Do? Uncertainty Experiences of Street-Level Tax Officials." Public Management Review 20 (4): 485 – 502. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1299199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schachter, Rachel E. 2015. " An Analytic Study of the Professional Development Research in Early Childhood Education." Early Education and Development 26 (8): 1057 – 1085. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1009335.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spybrook, J., H. Bloom, R. Congdon, C. Hill, A. Martinez, Stephen W. Raudenbush, and A. To. 2011. "Optimal Design Plus Empirical Evidence: Documentation for the 'Optimal Design' Software." Technical Report. William T. Grant Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UVM. 2022. "The Danish Education System." The Ministry of Children and Education. https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2022/files/the-danish-education-system.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Simon Calmar Andersen; Bastien Michel and Helena Skyt Nielsen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref40"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1500923
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Coaching and Implementation -- Insights from a Field Experiment in Danish Schools
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simon+Calmar+Andersen%22">Simon Calmar Andersen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bastien+Michel%22">Bastien Michel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Helena+Skyt+Nielsen%22">Helena Skyt Nielsen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Education+Economics%22"><i>Education Economics</i></searchLink>. 2026 34(2):173-188.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coaching+%28Performance%29%22">Coaching (Performance)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inservice+Teacher+Education%22">Inservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+School+Teachers%22">Public School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Behavior%22">Teacher Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Denmark%22">Denmark</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09645292.2025.2491536
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0964-5292<br />1469-5782
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: We study the effect of peer coaching separately from the effect of training on teachers' implementation of new teaching techniques. We conducted a preregistered field experiment involving 68 teachers and 1490 students in Denmark. Teachers in an active control group took part in a teaching program that introduced new teaching techniques. On top of the teaching program, the treatment group received coaching from peers. External observers, blinded to the treatment status, assessed teachers' use of the program techniques in the classroom. While we observe greater implementation by teachers, the overall effects are mixed, calling for caution.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1500923
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1500923
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09645292.2025.2491536
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 173
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coaching (Performance)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Denmark
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Coaching and Implementation -- Insights from a Field Experiment in Danish Schools
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Simon Calmar Andersen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bastien Michel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Helena Skyt Nielsen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0964-5292
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-5782
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Education Economics
              Type: main
ResultId 1