Explore the evidence
3 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
- writing6
- early childhood5
- arts3
- debunked3
- health3
- practice3
- assessment2
- grouping2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- music2
- science2
- transfer2
- character1
- class size1
- computer science1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- feedback1
- foreign language1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- practical1
- school structure1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- time1
- tutoring1
verdict
confidence
layer
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
outcome class
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
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
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: medium20/2036/48
Test preparation — does coaching raise scores, and does a raised score mean raised ability? · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.