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
- 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
layer
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class
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
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
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.