Explore the evidence
6 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
survival prior
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
group / setting
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: low7/711/48connected: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
Explicit code teaching beats little-or-no-phonics for word reading — largest in K-1 and at-risk readers; near-null for comprehension and past grade 3. The whole-language contrast is real but the smallest measured.
strong supportconf: highgc: low18/1836/48connected:Does teaching a growth mindset raiDoes homeschooling raise achievemePhonemic awareness training (and wReading-comprehension strategy ins+3
Systematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy · reading · ages 4–9
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: low18/1830/48connected: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
Growth-mindset interventions change beliefs almost everywhere and change achievement almost nowhere: the two independent national-scale trials measured standardized tests and found exactly zero.
mixedconf: highgc: low18/1831/48connected:FadeoutSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoTalent and trainabilityAre self-control and grit teachabl
Does teaching a growth mindset raise achievement? · character · ages 4–18
The famous faded-feedback demo doesn't survive meta-analysis; mental practice is real at half the advertised size and never substitutes for physical practice.
mixedconf: highgc: lowFeedback frequency and mental practice in motor learning · motor-skills · ages 4–18
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: low6/615/48connected: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
Not yet assessed for this question · 4
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?
- Can executive function be trained, and does it transfer to learning?
- Does matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning?
- Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity?
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.