Backed by research
The science behind Teacher Supreme
Third-period algebra. You have just asked how anybody got x = 4 out of 3x + 7 = 19. A student who never shows work says they took the 7 off both sides first, because the 7 was not attached to the x the way the 3 was, and only then divided. That is the real reasoning, said out loud, by a student who normally writes down an answer and nothing else. What you say next can name that reasoning — the 7 is added and the 3 multiplies, so you undo the adding first — and a student who can name it can use it again.
Most of us say “Good job!” — or “Nice work,” “Keep it up,” “I like that,” “Way to go” — and move to the next desk. These are familiar in every classroom, and there is nothing wrong with any of them. They are fast, they are warm, and they keep the room moving.
The trouble is what the student is left holding. Stop that same student in the hallway at lunch and ask what they did well in algebra today. The answer is “I don’t know — my teacher said good job.” The compliment survives; the thing that earned it does not. And because the student cannot name what they did, they cannot choose to do it again on tonight’s homework, or on Friday’s quiz when the equation has fractions in it, or in April on the state test. Nothing about tomorrow changed.
The other option takes no longer. Say the student’s name, then say what you saw: “Marcus, you told me each step and why it works — that is explaining your reasoning. It let me see exactly how you were thinking. Do it again on every hard problem.” Ask Marcus at lunch now and the answer is “I showed my steps — I said why I subtracted before I divided.” They can name the move, so they can run it again on purpose on Friday, when the equation has fractions in it and the answer is no longer obvious — which is the only thing that was ever going to raise the grade.
Same breath. Same teacher. Same student. The difference is in the wording, not in effort, caring, or years on the job — and it has been measured. In the Mueller and Dweck study further down this page, one line of praise decided whether ten-year-olds picked the harder problem or the easier one, and whether they got better or worse after a setback.
Nobody hands a new teacher that better sentence. There are 25 things worth noticing in a classroom and three ranked moves for each — 75 sentences — and no one can hold 75 sentences in mind while also teaching a lesson, watching the door, and tracking who has not spoken today. Teacher Supreme keeps them and shows you the right one during the student interaction, written from published classroom research. Here is that evidence, with sources you can check.
Where a claim is our own reasoning rather than something a study measured, the card says so plainly. We would rather be checkable than impressive.
How We Verify the Research Behind Teacher Supreme
Teacher Supreme draws its 25 classroom behaviors, and the coaching that goes with them, from published research in education and psychology. We give the most weight to the strongest kinds of evidence: randomized controlled trials, the research standard for showing cause and effect, and meta-analyses, which combine the results of many studies.
For every behavior, we trace the research back to the original study. We check how the study was designed, how many students and schools took part, whether the result was statistically significant (unlikely to be due to chance), how large the effect was, whether other studies repeated it, and whether the federal What Works Clearinghouse has reviewed it. We then rate the teaching practice behind each behavior on the U.S. Department of Education’s four evidence levels: Strong, Moderate, Promising and Research rationale. Before a rating is published, a separate review checks it against the original study for errors. When a study does not hold up, we correct the page.
- 13 behaviors that move learning forward, such as explaining reasoning, defending a claim with evidence and teaching a classmate. Eleven are supported by studies that found a statistically significant positive link to learning, including a randomized trial in 47 school districts. When a teacher names one of these behaviors out loud, the student hears exactly what to keep doing. A review of six studies found that praise naming the behavior went with more time on task and fewer inappropriate behaviors (Royer, Lane, Dunlap & Ennis, 2019).
- 12 behaviors that hinder learning, such as off-task talk, phone use during class and refusing a reasonable instruction. Each is defined and measured in published research, so a teacher can recognize it early and respond with words that steer the student back to the work.
- Teacher Supreme as a whole: meets the Level 4 definition. It is built on this research. The next step is a classroom study that measures its effect on student learning.
The 25 behaviors are organized by the most widely cited model of student engagement, which separates engagement in thinking from engagement in class activities (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004), and its opposite, which researchers call disaffection (Skinner, Kindermann & Furrer, 2009): Cognitive Investment (cognitive engagement: reasoning and metacognition), Active Participation (behavioral engagement: collaboration and discussion), Cognitive Withdrawal (cognitive disengagement, caught early) and Off-Task Behavior (behavioral disengagement, caught early).
How we judge the research
For every source on this page we tell you four things: how many studies and how many students it covers, what kind of study it was — an experiment that can show cause, or a correlation that shows two things travel together — which way the result went, and its limits.
We do not print effect sizes. A single number to two decimals suggests more precision than this kind of research has: it is an average across different tests, ages and study designs, and rankings built that way, Hattie’s best known among them, have been criticized for combining studies that cannot fairly be compared (Simpson, 2017; Bergeron, 2017). Most well-run school programs tested in randomized trials move achievement only a little (Kraft, 2020), so a claim of a large gain deserves a hard look.
The practices Teacher Supreme helps you notice and coach — explaining reasoning, summarizing, where-to-next feedback — are the practices the 25 indicators name, and every finding below is about the practice. Teacher Supreme itself has not been studied.
Why this exists
The argument, and the studies it rests on. Where a finding is contested or narrower than it is usually quoted, that is said here rather than left for you to discover.
Teachers already know what works. That was never the problem.
When Mary Budd Rowe taught teachers to pause about three seconds after asking a question instead of the one second most of us manage, student answers grew by 300 to 700 percent and students who had stopped speaking started again. Learning that one pause took six to twelve hours of practice. Seven or eight teachers in ten reached it. And most drifted back to their old pace by the third or fourth week unless someone was there to talk it through with them. One pause. That is what a new habit costs a teacher who is already running.
Coaching works — and it thins out the moment it scales.
The strongest answer we have is putting a coach beside a teacher. A review of sixty studies that could support cause found coaching clearly improved teachers’ classroom instruction and improved student achievement more modestly — and both shrank after the authors’ own correction for publication bias. The finding that matters here is the next one. Programs reaching a hundred teachers or more did markedly worse than small ones, on instruction and on achievement. That comparison is across different programs rather than one program grown large, so read it as a pattern and not a law. But the pattern is the whole problem: you cannot put a person next to every teacher every day.
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D. & Hogan, D. (2018), Review of Educational Research 88(4), 547–588
What a teacher says during a student interaction is not a small difference.
A 2020 re-analysis pulled 435 primary studies out of 32 existing reviews — 994 measurements, more than sixty thousand participants — and found that feedback helps learning on average. The average is not the finding. Feedback that carries real information about the task, and about how a student can steer their own learning, showed the largest benefits. Feedback that only rewards or punishes — a mark, a “good job” — showed among the smallest, and simply supplying the right answer, a different kind of feedback, did better than that. Two limits we will state rather than let you find: the strongest result rests on 42 of those 994 measurements and compares different studies rather than running them head to head, and the authors’ own test flags publication bias in the journal articles. Treat them as upper bounds. The gap between them is still the difference between two sentences a teacher could say in the same student interaction.
The technology to give a teacher the right words in the moment did not exist until now.
This is the part that is ours, not a citation. A teacher does not need another course, another binder, another August workshop. They need the right research-backed words to say during a student interaction — and until recently nothing could do that. It could not hear a name in the middle of a room, hold what happened to that student last Tuesday, and hand back the research-backed words to say next. That is new. Teacher Supreme is what happens when someone who spent thirty-five years in those classrooms gets to create with it.
Not a research finding — the reason this was built. James Morris, M.Ed., taught 35 years in public K-12 education
How to read the research on this page
The research on this page is about the teaching practices Teacher Supreme puts in a teacher’s hands: specific feedback, wait time, warm relationships, and coaching that names what the student did. Teacher Supreme is built on it, and the pilot kit measures teacher workload and the students reached, so a school can see the results in its own classrooms.
- The link between warmer teacher–student relationships and higher achievement is real but small, and it is a correlation: across 189 studies and about a quarter of a million students, the link with engagement was moderate and the link with achievement small. Conflict runs almost as strongly the other way. The authors say plainly that their data do not permit conclusions about cause, and they warn that part of the engagement figure may come from the same person rating both things.
- One well-known finding we rely on inside the product — that praising the process beats praising the person — has a replication that failed on most of its measures, though it reproduced the original’s main outcome and the original authors dispute the rest. We name that on the science page rather than leave you to find it.
Why the words point at the work, never at the child
Feedback does not always help. In a landmark review of the question — 607 measured results covering 23,663 observations — the average effect was modest, and in more than a third of them feedback made performance worse.
What separated the two was where the feedback pointed. Comments about the work — which question, which step, what to do next — helped. Comments about the person — praise of the child, comparison with classmates — did the least good, and feedback that pulled attention off the task and onto the person was the kind that backfired.
Every coaching move in Teacher Supreme is written to the first kind. It is why it offers words like “ask him to show you step two” and never “he’s a strong student.”
Kluger & DeNisi (1996), Psychological Bulletin 119(2), 254–284 — a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Why three levels: Try first, Say next, Go deeper
Feedback works at different levels. A widely cited review of the research separates feedback about the task (is this answer right?), about the process (how to get there), and about self-regulation (the student checking their own work).
It finds the process and self-regulation levels most powerful for deep learning, and praise of the person the least. That is why no line praises the person, and why most lines name how the student did the work or hand the checking to the student.
Hattie & Timperley (2007), “The Power of Feedback,” Review of Educational Research 77(1), 81–112.
A human mind holds about four things at once. A class has thirty.
Miller’s famous “seven, plus or minus two” was never a hard limit — Miller offered it as a rough estimate. Reviewing decades of experiments, Cowan (2001) put the real ceiling lower: about four chunks, roughly three to five, measured when a person cannot rehearse the items or group them into larger ones. Cognitive-load theory supplies the consequence for learning: working memory is the bottleneck when someone is taking in new material, and capacity spent on information extraneous to the task — noise, clutter, things to keep track of — is capacity no longer available for the learning itself (Paas & van Merriënboer, 2020). No study measures a teacher trying to carry a full classroom’s allergies, IEP pages, missing work and who has not spoken in a week while also teaching the lesson; that extension is ours, not a finding. But the direction is not in question. Memory is the scarce resource in a classroom, and every bit of it spent on retrieval is not spent on the student standing in front of you.
In Teacher Supreme: This is the whole design. Teacher Supreme takes the remembering and leaves the teaching alone — the teacher does the noticing and the judging, and Teacher Supreme carries the allergy, the accommodation, the promise made on Tuesday, and who has not been reached this week.
Source: Cowan, N. (2001), “The magical number 4 in short-term memory,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24(1), 87–114; Paas & van Merriënboer (2020), Current Directions in Psychological Science 29(4), 394–398 →Positive interactions should substantially outnumber corrections — the exact ratio is not the point.
Two classroom studies raised teachers’ rate of praise over reprimands and watched what happened: students were on task more and disrupted less (Cook et al., 2017 — a small study, six teachers; Caldarella et al., 2023, a larger one). Neither found a target number to hit. The popular 4:1 and 5:1 “magic ratios” were reviewed by Sabey, Charlton & Charlton (2019), who found no empirical support for any specific ratio while still backing the direction: stay well positive. So Teacher Supreme shows you your own balance of positive to corrective interactions — your pattern, never a target to hit.
In Teacher Supreme: Teacher Supreme logs every interaction by type and shows each teacher their own positive-to-correction balance on the daily recap. When one student’s positives slip behind their corrections, it names that student and offers a specific positive to use — turning an invisible habit into something a teacher can see and act on.
Source: Cook et al. (2017) & Caldarella et al. (2023), Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions; Sabey, Charlton & Charlton (2019), Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders →Warmer teacher-student relationships go with higher achievement — modestly.
Göktaş and Kaya (2023) pooled 17 earlier meta-analyses — a meta-analysis of meta-analyses — and found that positive teacher–student relationships go with higher academic achievement, a modest link, and that conflictual relationships go with lower achievement. It is correlational, so it cannot tell you which way the arrow points: a student who is already doing well may also draw warmer treatment. What it does say is that across hundreds of studies the two travel together.
In Teacher Supreme: Teacher Supreme holds the details a teacher would otherwise have to carry in their head — the peanut allergy, the extended-time accommodation, the brother in the hospital, the promise made on Tuesday — so they are in front of you when that student is. The research above is about relationships between teachers and students; Teacher Supreme helps a teacher act on it, one student at a time.
Source: Göktaş, E., & Kaya, M. (2023), “The Effects of Teacher Relationships on Student Academic Achievement: A Second Order Meta-Analysis,” Participatory Educational Research 10(1), 275–289 →Feedback is among the highest-impact things a teacher can do — especially when it says what to do next.
A 2020 meta-analysis of 435 studies and more than 61,000 participants (Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie) found that feedback helps learning on average — and that the kind of feedback matters most. Feedback that tells a student what was right or wrong and adds what to do next, and how to manage their own learning, showed far larger benefits than feedback that only rewards or reprimands and carries almost nothing about the task. Two limits: that comparison is across different studies rather than one study run head to head, and the authors’ own test flags publication bias, so read it as a direction, not a precise size. Formative assessment as a whole is less certain than it is often described: a 2011 meta-analysis of 13 studies found a small effect, and a 2012 methodological critique concluded that considerable uncertainty remains about its effect on achievement (Kingston & Nash, 2011; Briggs et al., 2012).
In Teacher Supreme: Snap-Check-In, part of the paid plan, reads a photo of the student’s worksheet, marks it, names the precise item to revisit, and shows the next words to say — the high-information feedback the research says matters most, turning grading from after-hours paperwork into in-the-moment coaching.
Source: Wisniewski, Zierer & Hattie (2020), “The Power of Feedback Revisited,” Frontiers in Psychology 10:3087; Kingston & Nash (2011), Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 30(4); Briggs, Ruiz-Primo, Furtak, Shepard & Yin (2012), Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 31(4), 13–17 →Short quizzes in real classrooms help students learn — and they help more when students see the right answer.
A 2021 meta-analysis pooled 222 classroom studies, with a combined sample of 48,478 learners across many schools and grade levels, and found that quizzing students on what they had been taught raised their later test results — a consistent, moderate benefit. These were comparisons of quizzed students with students who were not quizzed, or who restudied or used another strategy, so they speak to cause, not only to correlation, and five separate checks found little sign that only the favourable studies had been published. When students were shown the correct answers after the quiz, the benefit was larger than without. The outcomes were classroom exams and tests of the material taught, not standardized tests. A separate synthesis of 317 experiments found that practice spread out over time is remembered longer, and that the longer something must be remembered, the longer the best gap between practice sessions (Cepeda et al., 2006) — mostly memory studies of word lists rather than classrooms.
In Teacher Supreme: Snap-Check-In scores the work a student is doing during practice and shows, for each question missed, what the student wrote and the correct answer — so the correction can reach the student the same period. Snap-Check-In puts that research to work during the lesson.
Source: Yang, Luo, Vadillo, Yu & Shanks (2021), “Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review,” Psychological Bulletin 147(4), 399–435; Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted & Rohrer (2006), Psychological Bulletin 132(3), 354–380 →Schools are not under-spending on teacher development.
TNTP’s The Mirage studied three large districts and one charter network and put professional-development spending at roughly $18,000 per teacher per year — about 19 school days, a tenth of the year, and an estimated $8 billion annually across the fifty largest districts. It could not link teacher improvement to any particular kind or amount of development. Those are 2015 figures from four systems, not a national census, and they are the best-known numbers in the field.
In Teacher Supreme: Teacher Supreme puts the coaching inside the student interaction. The teacher says what they just saw, and the right research-backed words to say come back during that interaction: in-the-moment mentoring, professional development in context, at 10:42 in room 214 rather than in a lecture hall before the students arrive.
Source: TNTP (2015), The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development →Checked against ESSA’s four evidence levels, Teacher Supreme meets the definition of Level 4: built on a rationale from high-quality research, with its evaluation planned.
ESSA defines four evidence levels. Level 1 needs an experimental study, Level 2 a quasi-experimental one, Level 3 a correlational study with controls. Level 4 — “demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings… that such activity, strategy or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes” — is the tier written for a program like Teacher Supreme, and Teacher Supreme meets it: the research is on this page, the mechanism is stated, and the evaluation is planned. Because it is professional learning rather than curriculum, Title II-A is the usual funding home; confirm allowability with your own federal programs office.
In Teacher Supreme: The evaluation uses numbers Teacher Supreme already records, which the teacher owns: each teacher’s positive-to-corrective balance, which students were reached in each class period, and teacher workload at the start and end of a pilot (the NASA Task Load Index, six questions). A school can measure these before and after a pilot and compare them with classrooms that did not use it.
Source: ESSA §8101(21)(A) evidence definitions; U.S. Department of Education, Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments →Praising effort instead of intelligence changed what ten-year-olds chose to do next.
Mueller and Dweck (1998) ran six studies with 412 fifth graders in all, most of them working through sets of Raven’s matrices puzzles, and told them all the same thing about their score. Then one group was praised for being smart (“You must be smart at these problems”), a second was praised for working hard (“You must have worked hard at these problems”), and a third heard no praise. The only difference was what the praise credited: being smart, or working hard. In the first study, offered a choice next, 67% of the students praised for being smart picked a task that would let them look good rather than the one they would learn more from. After a round of deliberate failure, those same students were less willing to keep working, enjoyed the work less, said the problem was that they were not smart enough — and then scored below their own opening round. The students praised for their effort stayed with it longer, put the failure down to effort, and finished higher than they started. In one of the studies, 38% of the students praised for intelligence misreported their score to children they did not know, against 13% of those praised for the work they did and 14% of a control group. The samples were not a narrow slice: three of the six studies were majority African American and Hispanic, and a fourth was evenly split. A 2019 repeat of the first study with children in China (Li & Bates, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148(9)) did not find the same effects on motivation, so the finding is not settled. Person praise hands a student something to protect. Process praise hands a student something to repeat.
In Teacher Supreme: This is the rule the entire coaching library is written to, and it is enforced in the code, not just intended. Every coaching line names what the student actually did, names the strategy, then says when to use it again, addressed to that student by name — “Marcus, you told me each step and why it works — that is explaining your reasoning. It let me see exactly how you were thinking. Do it again on every hard problem.” Twenty-five indicators and seventy-five ranked moves, each written from published classroom research and marked Research-based on the student’s card. In class no one reads any of this: the teacher says what they see, and the research-backed words to say appear on the student’s card during the interaction.
Source: Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(1), 33–52 →Student misbehavior is linked to teacher burnout, most strongly to emotional exhaustion.
A meta-analysis of 21 independent groups of teachers found student misbehavior linked to all three signs of burnout: emotional exhaustion, distancing from students, and a lower sense of accomplishment, with emotional exhaustion the strongest (Aloe, Shisler, Norris, Nickerson & Rinker, 2014). In a study of 492 teachers, how a teacher judged a disruptive situation shaped the emotions the teacher felt, and those emotions fed burnout (Chang, 2013). And across 16 studies, teachers who felt able to manage behavior showed less burnout (Aloe, Amo & Shanahan, 2014). These studies find links, not proof of cause.
In Teacher Supreme: When a student says "I don’t know," refuses a reasonable instruction, or keeps a phone out, Teacher Supreme names what was observed (Says I Don’t Know, Defiance / Back Talk, Device Misuse) and gives the words to say next, so the teacher answers the behavior instead of taking it personally. Teacher Supreme’s pilot kit measures teacher workload before and after, so a school can see the effect for itself.
Source: Aloe, A. M., Shisler, S. M., Norris, B. D., Nickerson, A. B., & Rinker, T. W. (2014), Educational Research Review 12, 30–44 →Feedback works as a cycle: teach, find the gap, respond, and see what the student does next.
A systematic review for the Education Endowment Foundation identified 171 studies of feedback in schools and kept the 43 papers, containing 51 studies published in or after 2000, that met its criteria (Newman, Kwan, Schucan Bird & Hoo, 2021). The guidance built on it asks teachers to lay the groundwork with strong teaching, give feedback that moves the learning forward, and plan for how the student will use it.
In Teacher Supreme: When a teacher uses Try first, Say next or Go deeper, Teacher Supreme saves the words used with the date on that student’s record, so the teacher can look back at what came next for that student.
Source: Newman, M., Kwan, I., Schucan Bird, K., & Hoo, H.-T. (2021), The impact of feedback on student attainment: a systematic review, EPPI-Centre, UCL, for the Education Endowment Foundation →Teacher–student relationships are linked to achievement, behavior and well-being, most strongly in middle and high school.
A review of 26 meta-analyses covering about 2.64 million students, preschool through 12th grade, found teacher–student relationships linked to academic achievement, to appropriate behavior and fewer behavior problems, and to well-being. The links were larger for middle and high school students (Emslander, Holzberger, Ofstad, Fischbach & Scherer, 2025). These studies find links, not proof of cause.
In Teacher Supreme: Every Try first, Say next and Go deeper is about the work or the behavior in front of the teacher, never a judgment of the student, so a correction keeps the relationship intact.
Source: Emslander, V., Holzberger, D., Ofstad, S. B., Fischbach, A., & Scherer, R. (2025), Psychological Bulletin 151(3), 365–397 →What that looks like at 10:14 on a Tuesday
The difference is not effort, or caring, or years on the job. It is the sentence.
Three real interactions, in three different rooms. Each line on the right shows the kind of sentence the research asks for. Each one does the same three things: it names what the student actually did, it names the strategy so the student can find it again, and it says when to use it next.
English 9
A student cuts a three-page chapter down to the one thing that changed between the two characters, and leaves out the weather, the bus ride, and the dog.
What most of us say
“Nice work!”
What Teacher Supreme shows you
“You kept the main idea and dropped the details that don’t matter. That’s the hardest part of summarizing — do the same with the next long reading.”
Biology
A student’s onion-root-tip slide keeps drifting out of focus and every cell looks like a smudge. Instead of copying the lab partner’s drawing, they re-mount the slide, re-focus, and find a cell caught in anaphase.
What most of us say
“You’re so smart.”
What Teacher Supreme shows you
“You kept working when it got hard, and that effort is why you got this far. Keep going the same way.”
U.S. History
A student argues the tariff hurt farmers, gets pushed on it, and goes back to the primary source to find the line about grain prices rather than restating the claim louder.
What most of us say
“Great answer!”
What Teacher Supreme shows you
“You backed your claim with evidence from the text. That makes your answer hard to argue with. Every time someone asks ‘how do you know?’, go back for proof.”
Teacher Supreme holds all seventy-five of these for you while you teach. You say what you see, and the words come to you.
How Teacher Supreme uses AI
The AI remembers, matches and drafts. The teacher notices and decides.
- Every entry in a student’s record starts with something the teacher did: a tap, a spoken note or a photo. Nothing is sent to a parent until the teacher reads and approves it.
- The coaching words come from a fixed library of 25 indicators, each with three levels of words written from published classroom research. The AI matches what the teacher saw or heard to that library and fits the words to what was said.
- Student names on the class list are replaced with codes on the teacher’s phone before any text reaches the AI.
- Anytime Advice is provided on the teacher’s phone from what the teacher recorded.
- Snap-Check-In uses AI to read and score a photo of student work, and names the likely mix-up behind a missed question. The name area on the photo is covered on the teacher’s phone before it is sent. The teacher checks the results.
- Every photo is read on the teacher’s phone first. The roster photo never leaves the phone; only coded text is sent. On attendance sheets, gradebook screens and nurse’s lists, the teacher’s students are replaced by codes inside the picture. On seating charts, the names that match the roster become codes. On IEP and 504 pages, names, ID numbers and contact details are covered. The on-phone text reader loads from teachersupreme.com itself.
- Every tap, spoken note, photo of work and score is saved with the date on that student’s record, building a portfolio of learning across the period, the day and the week.
- Progress Reports are drafted from what the teacher saved: check-ins and logged observations. The teacher reads each one, changes anything, and sends it.
The research behind the indicators
Every indicator is tied to published research.
Each of the 25 indicators is something a teacher can see or hear a student say or do, and each is tied to peer-reviewed research on that behavior. The teaching advice for each indicator is based on that research. Each card inside Teacher Supreme shows the words marked Research-based, with the strength of the evidence.
- Explains Reasoning
- Summarization
- Sustained Focus
- Thoughtful Questioning
- Evidence-Based Defense
- Transfer Strategies
- Goal-setting
- Peer Teaching
- Group Contribution
- Peer Collaboration
- Clarifying Questions
- Discussion Participation
- Help Seeking
- Task Avoidance
- Low/No Effort
- Rushed Work
- Says I Don’t Know
- Intellectual Guessing
- Delayed Response
- Disrupts Others
- Side Conversation
- Device Misuse
- Copying Work
- Wandering / Daydreaming
- Defiance / Back Talk
Citing a source is not a claim that its authors endorse this product, and an indicator being research-grounded is not a claim that Teacher Supreme has been validated as a diagnostic instrument. It has not.
The microphone, kept honest
A classroom is full of voices. Here is how only yours counts.
Listening is teacher-activated only, and two physical checks sit behind it. The first asks whether the voice was close to the phone. The second asks whether its pitch sat inside a band you enrolled by reading three sentences once — what is kept is four numbers on your own device, no recording, deleted in one tap. A child’s speaking pitch sits measurably above an adult’s, which is why plain arithmetic is enough. Both checks claim only that a voice was consistent with yours — never identity — and both fail open: with nothing to go on, the card comes through. The checks can only remove a wrong trigger, never one of yours.
When it mishears a name, it resolves against your roster by sound — the students actually in the room — and when more than one student could fit, it asks instead of choosing. Before anything reaches the AI, your phone replaces every student name with a code. If a browser cannot listen at all, Teacher Supreme says so, and you tap the student’s card instead.
This is in-the-moment mentoring: professional development that arrives when it is useful, instead of in a workshop in August. Every move is written from published classroom research, so you can trust the words you say.
Start your 28-day free trial