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
survival prior
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
cost
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: low3/36/48
Manipulatives 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: 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 · 11
- 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
- Does teaching grammar improve children's writing?
- 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?
- Teaching students to think scientifically — does it transfer?
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.