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
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
  • nothing assessed yet
group / setting
  • nothing assessed yet
cost
  • nothing assessed yet
outcome class
  • nothing assessed yet

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

High-dosage tutoring is education's most reliable lever: ~0.29 SD in trials, ~0.2 well-scaled — not Bloom's 2σ. Groups of 3–4 work; 1:1 is unnecessary.

strong supportconf: highgc: low
16/1830/48connected:Class-size reductionDoes educational technology raise The parent as instructorSchool spending, charters, and wha

Tutoring — the honest effect, the Bloom 2-sigma myth, and what survives scale · tutoring · ages 5–18 · method

The 10,000-hour rule is dead: practice explains ~14% of performance variance, is itself heritable, and identical twins 20,000 hours apart didn't differ. Necessary, insufficient.

mixedconf: highgc: medium
7/836/48connected:Does teaching music produce musica

Deliberate practice and the 10,000-hour rule · deliberate-practice · ages 6–18 · method

Feedback on the task helps modestly; feedback on the person backfires — a stable third of studies reverse. The famous 0.4–0.7 number has no computed source.

mixedconf: highgc: low
15/1812/48connected:Retrieval practice (the testing efDoes teaching music produce musicaPlacement and mastery diagnosis

Feedback and formative assessment · feedback · ages 5–18 · method

Mastery learning moves tests of what it taught (~0.25) and barely moves independent measures (~0.05) — and time-to-mastery gaps widen, converting ability differences into time.

mixedconf: highgc: low
5/69/48connected:Does educational technology raise Retrieval practice (the testing efPlacement and mastery diagnosis

Mastery learning (teach → test → reteach to criterion → advance) · mastery · ages 6–18 · method

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
17/1824/48connected: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

Matching instruction to 'learning styles' does nothing: real matching experiments return d=.04. The correlational literature IS the myth.

debunkedconf: highgc: low
13/1324/48connected:Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, a

Does matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked

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