Explore the evidence
8 of 88 decisions · clear everything
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
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
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 at school: the largest randomised trials find nothing on reading, maths or cognition. A small effect on laboratory executive-function tasks is contested, may be real at ~0.2 SD, and is end-of-treatment only.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumDoes learning music make children smarter or better at school? · music · ages 4–16
Narrow reasoning routines are teachable and stay taught for seven months. The far-transfer claim failed its one randomised test: science −0.01, English −0.15, maths −0.11.
no effectconf: mediumgc: lowTeaching students to think scientifically — does it transfer? · science · ages 7–18
- Algebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement
- Does arts education raise academic achievement?
- Background knowledge and vocabulary as drivers of reading comprehension
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?
- Explicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction
- Does matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning?
- Manipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences
- Math curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter?
- Math-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims)
- Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads
- Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity?
- Feedback frequency and mental practice in motor learning
- Practice scheduling for motor skills — varied vs blocked, spaced vs massed
- Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction?
- Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters)
- Systematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy
- Reading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning)
- Reading fluency — guided repeated oral reading, and whether repetition matters
- Reading Recovery and Tier-2 1:1 early-literacy tutoring
- Word problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question
- 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.