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
- writing2
- arts1
- assessment1
- character1
- class size1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- edtech1
- feedback1
- foreign language1
- homework1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- school structure1
- science1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- time1
- transfer1
- tutoring1
layer
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
group / setting
outcome class
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: low7/79/48connected:Does teaching grammar improve chilDoes sentence combining improve wrSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoExplicit instruction vs discovery/+3
Does teaching spelling work, and what does it transfer to? · writing · ages 5–18
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
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.