Explore the evidence
55 of 88 decisions · clear everything
- math6
- writing6
- reading5
- science5
- arts4
- character4
- health4
- debunked3
- history civics3
- practice3
- assessment2
- early childhood2
- foreign language2
- grouping2
- homeschool2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- transfer2
- behavior1
- computer science1
- curriculum1
- edtech1
- feedback1
- homework1
- mastery1
- music1
- physical development1
- practical1
- school structure1
- sport1
- teachers1
- time1
Timed retrieval practice builds arithmetic automaticity — beating identical untimed tutoring head-to-head — and the anti-timed-test harm claims have no causal evidence.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowMath-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims) · math · ages 5–12
Testing yourself beats rereading — robust in real classrooms; honest durable size ~0.1–0.3 SD, biggest after delay, thinnest on transfer.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowRetrieval practice (the testing effect) · practice · ages 8–18 · method
Spacing beats massing at equal total time — the most robust finding in learning science. Space repetitions at ~10–20% of how long you need to remember.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowSpaced (distributed) practice · practice · ages 6–18 · method
Explicit code teaching beats little-or-no-phonics for word reading — largest in K-1 and at-risk readers; near-null for comprehension and past grade 3. The whole-language contrast is real but the smallest measured.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowSystematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy · reading · ages 4–9
Teacher quality is the largest within-school lever — 1 SD of teacher ≈ 0.10–0.15 SD/yr, worth more than ten fewer students — and credentials predict none of it. Select; don't workshop.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowTeacher quality — selection over credentials and workshops · teachers · ages 4–18 · structure
Group within classes or across grades by subject: modest, nearly free wins. Whole-school streaming does nothing, and early between-school tracking harms the bottom.
moderate supportconf: highgc: lowAbility grouping and tracking — four practices, four verdicts · grouping · ages 5–18 · structure
Accelerate ready kids: they keep pace with older classmates, bank a year, and show no social-emotional harm at 50. The gifted label itself does nothing; the content does.
moderate supportconf: highgc: mediumAcceleration and gifted programs — the label vs the content · grouping · ages 5–18 · structure
Minimal-guidance math trailed every rival in the one multi-curriculum RCT; explicit instruction for strugglers is math's most replicated result.
moderate supportconf: highgc: lowExplicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction · math · ages 5–18
Neither acceleration mandates nor delay mandates work — readiness-matched placement does. Push everyone and the median falls; hold everyone back and the top falls.
mixedconf: highgc: lowAlgebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement · math · ages 11–18
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: mediumAre self-control and grit teachable levers on achievement? · character · ages 4–18
Curriculum is nearly free, so choosing beats not choosing — but the payoff is avoiding a demonstrated loser, not finding a magic winner. Content is the high-upside bet.
mixedconf: highgc: lowCurriculum choice as a school-level lever · curriculum · ages 4–14 · structure
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: lowDoes teaching a growth mindset raise achievement? · character · ages 4–18
Feedback on the task helps modestly; feedback on the person backfires — a stable third of measured effects reverse. The famous 0.4–0.7 number has no computed source.
mixedconf: highgc: lowFeedback and formative assessment · feedback · ages 5–18 · method
The famous faded-feedback demo doesn't survive meta-analysis; mental practice is real at half the advertised size and never substitutes for physical practice.
mixedconf: highgc: lowFeedback frequency and mental practice in motor learning · motor-skills · ages 4–18
Mastery learning moves tests of what it taught (~0.25) and barely moves independent measures (~0.05) — and time-to-mastery gaps widen, converting ability differences into time.
mixedconf: highgc: lowMastery learning (teach → test → reteach to criterion → advance) · mastery · ages 6–18 · method
The textbook matters at the bottom, not the top: avoid the demonstrated losers; mainstream choices now differ by ~0.02 SD.
mixedconf: highgc: lowMath curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter? · math · ages 5–14
Varied practice looks worse today and better at retention — in the lab. Applied settings shrink the edge to zero, and it reverses in under-18s.
mixedconf: highgc: lowPractice scheduling for motor skills — varied vs blocked, spaced vs massed · motor-skills · ages 4–18
Unallocated money is the worst buy in the database; the same dollars as No-Excuses charters buy +0.3–0.4 SD/yr — and the average charter is a precise null.
mixedconf: highgc: lowSchool spending, charters, and what school-level choices actually move outcomes · school-structure · ages 4–18 · structure
Should a school buy a social and emotional learning programme? · character · ages 4–18
Most measured 'home environment' effects are parents' genes: three-quarters of parent-child transmission isn't rearing, and a whole better childhood buys ~4 IQ points.
mixedconf: highgc: lowThe early home environment — what parents can and cannot causally move · early-childhood · ages 4–10 · input
Later bells buy adolescents 40+ measured minutes of sleep — the best-identified positive effect in the archive; the achievement payoff is real but far smaller.
strong supportconf: mediumgc: lowDo later school start times increase adolescent sleep, and does that raise achievement? · health · ages 11–18 · input
Yes, on their own terms: lottery-assigned museum and theatre trips move blind-rated analysis of art, plot knowledge and tolerance by 0.08-0.18 SD weeks later, and a film of the same play moves nothing.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowAre museum and theatre trips worth the day out of school? · arts · ages 8–18
Comprehension is knowledge — but vocabulary teaching moves standardized comprehension only d≈0.10. The big content-knowledge bet (Core Knowledge lottery, 0.24) is real and unreplicated.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowBackground knowledge and vocabulary as drivers of reading comprehension · reading · ages 5–14
Teaching handwriting works and transfers: freeing the hand frees composition, with gains still present at six months — even taught in groups of three.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: mediumDoes handwriting and transcription instruction matter, and should young children type instead? · writing · ages 5–12
Sentence combining improves writing where grammar teaching fails — the same meta-analyses score them +0.50 and −0.32.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDoes sentence combining improve writing? · writing · ages 5–18
Strategy instruction is writing's best-supported method — at roughly a fifth of its advertised size once measures are independent (d≈0.8 → ~0.15).
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDoes strategy instruction (SRSD, the writing process) improve writing? · writing · ages 5–18
Yes — sight-reading, performance and aural skill move about half a standard deviation under instruction — but the evidence is quasi-experimental and thinner than the transfer literature built on top of it.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: mediumDoes teaching music produce musical skill? · music · ages 4–18
Teaching coding teaches coding: the one clean school RCT gives g=0.47-0.68. Which approach you pick barely matters, and almost every effect size rests on an instrument the developers built.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDoes teaching programming actually teach programming — and does the method matter? · computer-science · ages 5–18
Formal spelling instruction works (ES 0.54) and more formal beats less formal — explicit wins again, and it transfers beyond spelling itself.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDoes teaching spelling work, and what does it transfer to? · writing · ages 5–18
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: lowInterleaving (mixing problem types vs blocking) · practice · ages 10–18 · method
Manipulatives help when bland, guided, and aged ~7–11 — a guided-representation effect, not 'hands-on learning.' Rich, toy-like objects hurt transfer.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowManipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences · math · ages 5–14
Diagnose what a child already knows: teachers cut 40–50% of curriculum for high-ability children and achievement ROSE. The payoff is skipping, not monitoring.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: mediumPlacement and mastery diagnosis — deciding what to teach next from evidence of current skill · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
Content-rich history teaching raises history knowledge (g 0.19-0.46) but not standardized reading in under three years; generic 'historical thinking' has no adequately controlled positive result.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowShould history be built on content knowledge or on generic historical-thinking skills? · history-civics · ages 5–18
Word-problem solving is its own skill: computation fluency doesn't produce it. Teaching problem schemas explicitly does (~0.25–0.45 SD on trained content).
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowWord problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question · math · ages 6–14
Novices learn faster studying solutions than solving problems — then the effect reverses with expertise. Use worked examples early; fade them.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowWorked examples (studying solutions vs solving problems) · instruction-style · ages 10–18 · method
Correcting a real deficiency moves cognition (iron in anaemic children: 0.79 SD); supplementing already-fed children moves nothing (35 RCTs, 19,343 children).
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowBreakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys · health · ages 4–18 · input
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
A missed day costs little (~0.005 SD); interventions reliably buy days back cheaply, but nobody has shown the recovered days move achievement.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumChronic absenteeism — does raising attendance raise achievement? · time · ages 4–18 · input
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
Life-skills courses reliably teach the content and rarely change the conduct; behaviour moves only where instruction sits close in time to the decision, and driver education is worse than nothing.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowDo life-skills courses — money, cooking, driving, health — change what students actually do? · practical · ages 6–18
Civics teaching buys civic knowledge (d = 0.49) that fades to the control mean in two years and moves neither attitudes nor validated turnout; what moves voting is school quality and noncognitive skill.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowDoes civic education produce civic knowledge, and does civic knowledge produce civic behaviour? · history-civics · ages 5–18
The headline effects are a measurement artefact: drama gives d≈0.89 on researcher-made tests and d≈0.29 on standardized ones, and the two randomised trials with standardized outcomes are null.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumDoes classroom drama build verbal and literacy skills? · arts · ages 5–16
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
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: lowDoes educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure
Near-zero in primary and almost entirely correlational in secondary. The causal base is three small trials; what the homework IS beats how much of it there is.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumHomework — effects by age and by dosage · homework · 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: lowHow should a school run its classrooms and its discipline system? · behavior · ages 4–18 · structure
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: lowInquiry-based science teaching vs explicit and textbook science teaching · science · ages 8–18
Attainment falls steadily with age of first exposure, but the sharp critical period is contested and an earlier classroom start buys nothing durable: start young for immersion, not for two lessons a week.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumIs there a critical period for learning a second language, and when should a child start? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
One systematic review kept 39 studies from 11,771 records; another found 1 RCT among 53. 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
Strategy instruction is a one-time boost, not a trainable skill: six sessions buy what fifty do, and modern at-scale trials are ~null.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowReading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning) · reading · ages 8–14
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
What parents are asked to DO is the whole effect: tutoring a skill d≈1.15, listening to reading 0.51, reading aloud ~0.18 — same parent, same child. All deflate under better designs.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumThe parent as instructor — what survives when the person teaching is the person who raised the child · homeschool · ages 4–18 · method
Trust the composite; distrust the breakdown. Subtest strengths-and-weaknesses replicate at chance on retest, and most of what people read off a score report is noise.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowWhat a standardized achievement score does and does not license · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
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: mediumScience content sequencing — coherence, prerequisites, and course order · science · ages 5–18
Nobody has tested it. There is no controlled trial in which art instruction is the input and independently measured art skill is the outcome — the field's core claim is the one it never studied.
insufficientconf: lowgc: mediumDoes teaching visual art produce artistic skill? · arts · ages 4–18
- Does arts education raise academic achievement?
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?
- Does learning to code improve general thinking?
- Can executive function be trained, and does it transfer to learning?
- Physical activity as an input — dose, fitness, and school outcomes
- Explicit instruction vs discovery/inquiry — how much guidance?
- Does teaching grammar improve children's writing?
- Homeschool socialisation — the most-asked question, and the least answerable one
- Does matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning?
- Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads
- Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity?
- Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction?
- Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters)
- Reading fluency — guided repeated oral reading, and whether repetition matters
- School starting age, relative age, and academic redshirting
- Teaching students to think scientifically — does it transfer?
- Vision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement
- 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.