Explore the evidence
8 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Growth-mindset interventions change beliefs almost everywhere and change achievement almost nowhere: the two independent national-scale trials measured standardized tests and found exactly zero.
mixedconf: highgc: lowDoes teaching a growth mindset raise achievement? · character · ages 4–18
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
Explicit form-focused teaching beats pure exposure, so the archive's negative verdict on L1 grammar does NOT transfer — but the effects are measured on the taught forms, immediately, mostly on adults.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowComprehensible input or explicit grammar teaching — which builds a second language? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
The headline effects are a measurement artefact: drama gives d≈0.89 on researcher-made tests and d≈0.29 on standardized ones, and the two randomised trials with standardized outcomes are null.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumDoes classroom drama build verbal and literacy skills? · arts · ages 5–16
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: lowDoes educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure
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
Two reviews screened ~12,000 records and found one RCT and six quasi-experiments. What evidence exists favours interest (+0.12) over attainment (+0.01), and simulations match real apparatus.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowLaboratory and practical work in school science · science · ages 5–18
Coaching buys ~0.25 SD of score and has for 42 years — a fraction of what's advertised — and none of it is ability. The score moves; the construct doesn't.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumTest preparation — does coaching raise scores, and does a raised score mean raised ability? · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
- Algebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement
- Chronic absenteeism — does raising attendance raise achievement?
- Class-size reduction
- Curriculum choice as a school-level lever
- Deliberate practice and the 10,000-hour rule
- Feedback and formative assessment
- The early home environment — what parents can and cannot causally move
- Mastery learning (teach → test → reteach to criterion → advance)
- Math curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter?
- Feedback frequency and mental practice in motor learning
- Practice scheduling for motor skills — varied vs blocked, spaced vs massed
- Breakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys
- Preschool at scale — Head Start, state pre-K, and what universal provision delivers
- Perry Preschool and Abecedarian — what the famous studies actually establish
- Reading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning)
- Reading Recovery and Tier-2 1:1 early-literacy tutoring
- School spending, charters, and what school-level choices actually move outcomes
- School starting age, relative age, and academic redshirting
- 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.