Explore the evidence
3 of 88 decisions · 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
cost
outcome class
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: medium11/1515/48connected: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: mediumShould Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked
Teaching grammar does not improve writing at any age tested — and it displaces the things that do.
negativeconf: mediumgc: low11/1227/48connected:Comprehensible input or explicit gDoes sentence combining improve wrDoes teaching spelling work, and wDoes handwriting and transcription+4
Does teaching grammar improve children's writing? · writing · ages 5–18
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.