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
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
cost
outcome class
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
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: medium16/1625/48connected:Does educational technology raise Feedback and formative assessmentMastery learning (teach → test → r
Placement and mastery diagnosis — deciding what to teach next from evidence of current skill · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
Not yet assessed for this question · 12
- Acceleration and gifted programs — the label vs the content
- Background knowledge and vocabulary as drivers of reading comprehension
- Explicit instruction vs discovery/inquiry — how much guidance?
- Explicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction
- Ability grouping and tracking — four practices, four verdicts
- Interleaving (mixing problem types vs blocking)
- Manipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences
- Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters)
- Reading fluency — guided repeated oral reading, and whether repetition matters
- Vision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement
- Word problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question
- Worked examples (studying solutions vs solving problems)
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.