Explore the evidence
5 of 88 decisions · 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”
group / setting
outcome class
Sentence combining improves writing where grammar teaching fails — the same meta-analyses score them +0.50 and −0.32.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low8/89/48connected:Does teaching grammar improve chilDoes teaching movement transfer toDoes handwriting and transcriptionDoes teaching spelling work, and w
Does sentence combining improve writing? · writing · ages 5–18
Capitalisation and punctuation move when directly taught and directly measured, and don't move when embedded in writing programmes. A teachable subject, not a writing lever.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumCan capitalisation, punctuation and usage be taught directly as their own subject? · writing · ages 5–18
Explicit form-focused teaching beats pure exposure, so the archive's negative verdict on L1 grammar does NOT transfer — but the effects are measured on the taught forms, immediately, mostly on adults.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowComprehensible input or explicit grammar teaching — which builds a second language? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
Document-based instruction reliably improves the sourcing and argument tasks it teaches (g ≈ 0.42) and, in the two best-identified trials, moves neither standardized reading nor history knowledge.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowDoes document-based source work move history knowledge, reading comprehension, or neither? · history-civics · ages 8–18
Conceptual-change teaching reliably moves the test and nothing shows it removes the intuition. Corrected for design and publication bias, a taught unit is g≈0.64 and a refutation text g≈0.28.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowScience misconceptions and conceptual change — can naive intuitions be taught away? · science · ages 6–18
Not yet assessed for this question · 23
- Algebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement
- 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 vs reform/constructivist math instruction
- The early home environment — what parents can and cannot causally move
- Manipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences
- Math curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter?
- Math-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims)
- Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity?
- Feedback frequency and mental practice in motor learning
- Practice scheduling for motor skills — varied vs blocked, spaced vs massed
- Breakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys
- Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters)
- Systematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy
- 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
- Talent and trainability — what is heritable, and what that does not license
- Vision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement
- Word problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question
- 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.