Providing consistent, individualized feedback to teachers is essential for improving instruction but can be prohibitively resource-intensive in most educational contexts. We develop M-Powering Teachers, an automated tool based on natural language processing to give teachers feedback on their uptake of student contributions, a high-leverage dialogic teaching practice that makes students feel heard. We conduct a randomized controlled trial in an online computer science course (N = 1,136 instructors), to evaluate the effectiveness of our tool. We find that M-Powering Teachers improves instructors’ uptake of student contributions by 13% and present suggestive evidence that it also improves students’ satisfaction with the course and assignment completion. These results demonstrate the promise of M-Powering Teachers to complement existing efforts in teachers’ professional development.

We present results from a meta-analysis of 95 experimental and quasi-experimental pre-K–12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professional development and curriculum programs, seeking to understand what content, activities, and formats relate to stronger student outcomes. Across rigorously conducted studies, we found an average weighted impact estimate of +0.21 standard deviations. Programs saw stronger outcomes when they helped teachers learn to use curriculum materials; focused on improving teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and/or understanding of how students learn; incorporated summer workshops; and included teacher meetings to troubleshoot and discuss classroom implementation. We discuss implications for policy and practice.

Both scholars and professional standards identify teachers’ knowledge of students as important to promoting effective instruction and student learning. Prior research investigates two such types of knowledge: knowledge of student thinking and teacher accuracy in predicting student performance on cognitive assessments. However, the field presents weak evidence regarding whether these constructs are amenable to accurate measurement and whether such knowledge relates to instruction and student outcomes. Without this evidence, it is difficult to assess the relevance of this form of teacher knowledge. In this article, evidence from 284 teachers suggests that accuracy can be adequately measured and relates to instruction and student outcomes. Knowledge of student misconceptions proved more difficult to measure, yet still predicted student outcomes in one model.

Poor program implementation constitutes one explanation for null results in trials of educational interventions. For this reason, researchers often collect data about implementation fidelity when conducting such trials. In this article, we document whether and how researchers report and measure program fidelity in recent cluster-randomized trials. We then create two measures—one describing the level of fidelity reported by authors and another describing whether the study reports null results—and examine the correspondence between the two. We also explore whether fidelity is influenced by study size, type of fidelity measured and reported, and features of the intervention. We find that as expected, fidelity level relates to student outcomes; we also find that the presence of new curriculum materials positively predicts fidelity level.

This article describes and evaluates a web-based coaching program designed to support teachers in implementing Common Core–aligned math instruction. Web-based coaching programs can be operated at relatively lower costs, are scalable, and make it more feasible to pair teachers with coaches who have expertise in their content area and grade level. Results from our randomized field trial document sizable and sustained effects on both teachers’ ability to analyze instruction and on their instructional practice, as measured by the Mathematical Quality of Instruction instrument and student surveys. However, these improvements in instruction did not result in corresponding increases in math test scores as measured by state standardized tests or interim assessments. We discuss several possible explanations for this pattern of results.