Explore the evidence
2 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
- debunked3
- health3
- practice3
- grouping2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- transfer2
- arts1
- character1
- class size1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- edtech1
- feedback1
- foreign language1
- homeschool1
- mastery1
- music1
- physical development1
- school structure1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- time1
- tutoring1
- writing1
verdict
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
group / setting
outcome class
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: low53/5339/48connected:Placement and mastery diagnosisMastery learning (teach → test → rTutoringClass-size reduction
Does educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure
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
Not yet assessed for this question · 1
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.