The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

7 of 88 decisions · clear everything

Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
evidencealldrop DA–BA only
evaluatoranyno dev-ledindependent
durabilityanyfollow-up≥1yr≥2yr
what are these? →
sortconfidencerobustfragileA–Z
domain
verdict
confidence
layer
survival prior
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class

Timed retrieval practice builds arithmetic automaticity — beating identical untimed tutoring head-to-head — and the anti-timed-test harm claims have no causal evidence.

strong supportconf: highgc: low
7/711/48connected:Does homeschooling raise achievemeSpaced (distributed) practiceWord problems, schema instruction,

Math-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims) · math · ages 5–12

Explicit code teaching beats little-or-no-phonics for word reading — largest in K-1 and at-risk readers; near-null for comprehension and past grade 3. The whole-language contrast is real but the smallest measured.

strong supportconf: highgc: low
18/1836/48connected:Does teaching a growth mindset raiDoes homeschooling raise achievemePhonemic awareness training (and wReading-comprehension strategy ins+3

Systematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy · reading · ages 4–9

Minimal-guidance math trailed every rival in the one multi-curriculum RCT; explicit instruction for strugglers is math's most replicated result.

moderate supportconf: highgc: low
10/1021/48connected:Explicit instruction vs discovery/

Explicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction · math · ages 5–18

Teaching coding teaches coding: the one clean school RCT gives g=0.47-0.68. Which approach you pick barely matters, and almost every effect size rests on an instrument the developers built.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
22/2225/48connected:Does learning to code improve geneTalent and trainability

Does teaching programming actually teach programming — and does the method matter? · computer-science · ages 5–18

Manipulatives help when bland, guided, and aged ~7–11 — a guided-representation effect, not 'hands-on learning.' Rich, toy-like objects hurt transfer.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
3/36/48

Manipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences · math · ages 5–14

Phonemic awareness transfers to reading only with letters attached: speech-only training peaks near 10 hours and moves reading d=0.19; with print, 0.66.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
6/67/48connected:Systematic/explicit phonics vs who

Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters) · reading · ages 4–7

Strategy instruction is a one-time boost, not a trainable skill: six sessions buy what fifty do, and modern at-scale trials are ~null.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
4/46/48connected:Does teaching grammar improve chilSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoBackground knowledge and vocabularDoes teaching spelling work, and w

Reading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning) · reading · ages 8–14

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.