The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

7 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

Unassisted discovery loses to explicit teaching; well-scaffolded guided discovery beats both. The operative variable is guidance, not ideology.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
13/1315/48connected:Worked examples (studying solutionExplicit vs reform/constructivist Science content sequencingInquiry-based science teaching vs +1

Explicit instruction vs discovery/inquiry — how much guidance? · instruction-style · ages 4–18 · method

Mixing problem types helps where confusion is the enemy — discriminating similar categories, mixed math practice — and is useless or worse for facts and prose.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
7/718/48connected:Spaced (distributed) practiceScience content sequencing

Interleaving (mixing problem types vs blocking) · practice · ages 10–18 · method

Novices learn faster studying solutions than solving problems — then the effect reverses with expertise. Use worked examples early; fade them.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
6/66/48connected:Explicit instruction vs discovery/Word problems, schema instruction,

Worked examples (studying solutions vs solving problems) · instruction-style · ages 10–18 · method

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: low
53/5339/48connected: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

Classroom order is causally worth a great deal — one disruptive peer costs classmates 3% of adult earnings — yet no branded behaviour programme reliably delivers it and exclusion makes things worse.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
25/2536/48connected:Talent and trainabilityCan executive function be trained,Should a school buy a social and eAre self-control and grit teachabl

How should a school run its classrooms and its discipline system? · behavior · ages 4–18 · structure

Perry and Abecedarian: n=123 and n=111, IQ gains gone by adolescence, attainment effects real but multiplicity-fragile. Too thin to carry the policy built on them.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
8/836/48connected:Preschool at scale

Perry Preschool and Abecedarian — what the famous studies actually establish · early-childhood · ages 4–5 · structure

Coaching buys ~0.25 SD of score and has for 42 years — a fraction of what's advertised — and none of it is ability. The score moves; the construct doesn't.

mixedconf: mediumgc: medium
20/2036/48

Test preparation — does coaching raise scores, and does a raised score mean raised ability? · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure

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