Explore the evidence
5 of 88 decisions · 1 collapse at your settings · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
domain
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
outcome class
Strategy instruction is writing's best-supported method — at roughly a fifth of its advertised size once measures are independent (d≈0.8 → ~0.15).
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowinsufficient at your settings1/89/48connected:Does teaching spelling work, and wDoes teaching grammar improve chilDoes handwriting and transcription
Does strategy instruction (SRSD, the writing process) improve writing? · writing · ages 5–18
Yes — sight-reading, performance and aural skill move about half a standard deviation under instruction — but the evidence is quasi-experimental and thinner than the transfer literature built on top of it.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: medium4/636/48connected:Does learning music make children Feedback and formative assessmentFeedback frequency and mental pracDeliberate practice and the 10,000+2
Does teaching music produce musical skill? · music · ages 4–18
Sort by what the software replaces: adaptive drill inside the school day buys +0.05-0.20 SD; a device, a connection or the teacher buys zero to negative; LLM tutors have no usable evidence at all.
mixedconf: mediumgc: low5/5339/48connected:Placement and mastery diagnosisMastery learning (teach → test → rTutoringClass-size reduction
Does educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure
Attainment falls steadily with age of first exposure, but the sharp critical period is contested and an earlier classroom start buys nothing durable: start young for immersion, not for two lessons a week.
mixedconf: mediumgc: medium12/1424/48
Is there a critical period for learning a second language, and when should a child start? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
Coding instruction teaches coding (d≈0.68) and not thinking: against active controls far transfer is g=0.15, two validated-instrument RCTs found d≈0.00, and a 46-school maths trial found −0.16 to −0.21.
no effectconf: mediumgc: lowDoes learning to code improve general thinking? · transfer · ages 5–16
Not yet assessed for this question · 18
- Does arts education raise academic achievement?
- Chronic absenteeism — does raising attendance raise achievement?
- Background knowledge and vocabulary as drivers of reading comprehension
- Physical activity as an input — dose, fitness, and school outcomes
- Explicit instruction vs discovery/inquiry — how much guidance?
- Interleaving (mixing problem types vs blocking)
- Manipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences
- Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads
- Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction?
- Breakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys
- Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters)
- Perry Preschool and Abecedarian — what the famous studies actually establish
- Reading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning)
- Reading fluency — guided repeated oral reading, and whether repetition matters
- Reading Recovery and Tier-2 1:1 early-literacy tutoring
- Vision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement
- Worked examples (studying solutions vs solving problems)
- Early sport specialization, talent selection, and the relative age effect
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.