Explore the evidence
6 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
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
outcome class
No. The two randomised programmes that tested it — 42 Houston schools and five EEF trials across 400 English schools — return nulls on reading and maths; only writing, the outcome nearest the treatment, moves.
no effectconf: mediumgc: low4/49/48connected:Does teaching movement transfer toDoes teaching visual art produce aAre museum and theatre trips worthDoes classroom drama build verbal
Does arts education raise academic achievement? · arts · ages 5–14
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
School exercise programs don't raise achievement: four of the five largest RCTs are null, and more dose doesn't rescue it. Exercise for health, not for grades.
no effectconf: mediumgc: lowPhysical activity as an input — dose, fitness, and school outcomes · health · ages 4–18 · input
Narrow reasoning routines are teachable and stay taught for seven months. The far-transfer claim failed its one randomised test: science −0.01, English −0.15, maths −0.11.
no effectconf: mediumgc: lowTeaching students to think scientifically — does it transfer? · science · ages 7–18
No trial has ever varied the sequence of science content and measured the result. The one quasi-experimental test of course order found nothing, and depth-over-breadth is a retrospective survey worth 0.08-0.13 SD.
insufficientconf: mediumgc: medium6/1515/48connected:Background knowledge and vocabularInterleaving (mixing problem typesExplicit instruction vs discovery/Inquiry-based science teaching vs +1
Science content sequencing — coherence, prerequisites, and course order · science · ages 5–18
Never operationalised well enough to test: no MI-based trial meets even a loose evidential bar. Four decades in, a valid evaluation is still impossible.
insufficientconf: mediumgc: mediuminsufficient at your settingsShould Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction? · 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.