The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

8 of 88 decisions · clear everything

Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
evidencealldrop DA–BA only
evaluatoranyno dev-ledindependent
durabilityanyfollow-up≥1yr≥2yr
what are these? →
sortconfidencerobustfragileA–Z
domain
verdict
confidence
layer
survival prior
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class

Timed retrieval practice builds arithmetic automaticity — beating identical untimed tutoring head-to-head — and the anti-timed-test harm claims have no causal evidence.

strong supportconf: highgc: low
7/711/48connected:Does homeschooling raise achievemeSpaced (distributed) practiceWord problems, schema instruction,

Math-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims) · math · ages 5–12

Testing yourself beats rereading — robust in real classrooms; honest durable size ~0.1–0.3 SD, biggest after delay, thinnest on transfer.

strong supportconf: highgc: low
10/1018/48connected:Feedback and formative assessmentMastery learning (teach → test → rSpaced (distributed) practice

Retrieval practice (the testing effect) · practice · ages 8–18 · method

Spacing beats massing at equal total time — the most robust finding in learning science. Space repetitions at ~10–20% of how long you need to remember.

strong supportconf: highgc: low
7/712/48connected:Interleaving (mixing problem typesMath-fact fluency and timed practiRetrieval practice (the testing ef

Spaced (distributed) practice · practice · ages 6–18 · method

Minimal-guidance math trailed every rival in the one multi-curriculum RCT; explicit instruction for strugglers is math's most replicated result.

moderate supportconf: highgc: low
10/1021/48connected:Explicit instruction vs discovery/

Explicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction · math · ages 5–18

Neither acceleration mandates nor delay mandates work — readiness-matched placement does. Push everyone and the median falls; hold everyone back and the top falls.

mixedconf: highgc: low
9/936/48connected:Acceleration and gifted programsSchool starting age, relative age,

Algebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement · math · ages 11–18

The textbook matters at the bottom, not the top: avoid the demonstrated losers; mainstream choices now differ by ~0.02 SD.

mixedconf: highgc: low
11/1124/48connected:Background knowledge and vocabularSchool spending, charters, and wha

Math curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter? · math · ages 5–14

Teaching movement teaches movement: the skills improve, but transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity is near zero in the best trials.

no effectconf: highgc: medium
7/710/48connected:Does arts education raise academicPhysical activity as an inputDoes teaching grammar improve chilDoes handwriting and transcription+5

Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity? · physical-development · ages 4–18

Brain training improves the trained task and nothing else: far transfer to intelligence or achievement is 0.001 against active controls.

no effectconf: highgc: low
18/1827/48connected:FadeoutTalent and trainabilityDoes learning to code improve geneCan executive function be trained,+1

Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement? · transfer · ages 4–18 · debunked

The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.