Explore the evidence
6 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
domain
- math6
- reading6
- early childhood5
- arts4
- health4
- science4
- debunked3
- practice3
- writing3
- character2
- grouping2
- history civics2
- homeschool2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- assessment1
- behavior1
- class size1
- computer science1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- feedback1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- practical1
- school structure1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- time1
- transfer1
- tutoring1
layer
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
outcome class
Grit is conscientiousness renamed and adds 0.4% to grade prediction; self-control genuinely predicts life outcomes but is 60% heritable with zero shared environment, and training moves ratings, not lives.
mixedconf: highgc: medium20/2036/48connected:Should a school buy a social and eDoes teaching a growth mindset raiHow should a school run its classr
Are self-control and grit teachable levers on achievement? · character · ages 4–18
Growth-mindset interventions change beliefs almost everywhere and change achievement almost nowhere: the two independent national-scale trials measured standardized tests and found exactly zero.
mixedconf: highgc: low18/1829/48connected:FadeoutSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoTalent and trainabilityAre self-control and grit teachabl
Does teaching a growth mindset raise achievement? · character · ages 4–18
Guided inquiry is positive in 16 of 16 PISA regions and unguided inquiry negative in 18 of 20 — but the programmes built on that finding go to zero at scale: +0.22, then +0.01, then +0.02 on the same test.
mixedconf: mediumgc: low19/1927/48connected:Science content sequencingExplicit instruction vs discovery/Laboratory and practical work in sTeaching students to think scienti
Inquiry-based science teaching vs explicit and textbook science teaching · science · ages 8–18
Two reviews screened ~12,000 records and found one RCT and six quasi-experiments. What evidence exists favours interest (+0.12) over attainment (+0.01), and simulations match real apparatus.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowLaboratory and practical work in school science · science · ages 5–18
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: medium15/1515/48connected: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
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.