Explore the evidence
29 of 88 decisions · 7 collapse at your settings · clear everything
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: lowMath-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: lowSystematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy · reading · ages 4–9
High-dosage tutoring is education's most reliable lever: ~0.29 SD in trials, ~0.2 well-scaled — not Bloom's 2σ. Groups of 3–4 work; 1:1 is unnecessary.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowTutoring — the honest effect, the Bloom 2-sigma myth, and what survives scale · tutoring · ages 5–18 · method
Group within classes or across grades by subject: modest, nearly free wins. Whole-school streaming does nothing, and early between-school tracking harms the bottom.
moderate supportconf: highgc: lowAbility grouping and tracking — four practices, four verdicts · grouping · ages 5–18 · structure
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: lowExplicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction · math · ages 5–18
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
The famous faded-feedback demo doesn't survive meta-analysis; mental practice is real at half the advertised size and never substitutes for physical practice.
mixedconf: highgc: lowFeedback frequency and mental practice in motor learning · motor-skills · ages 4–18
Mastery learning moves tests of what it taught (~0.25) and barely moves independent measures (~0.05) — and time-to-mastery gaps widen, converting ability differences into time.
mixedconf: highgc: lowMastery learning (teach → test → reteach to criterion → advance) · mastery · ages 6–18 · method
Varied practice looks worse today and better at retention — in the lab. Applied settings shrink the edge to zero, and it reverses in under-18s.
mixedconf: highgc: lowinsufficient at your settingsPractice scheduling for motor skills — varied vs blocked, spaced vs massed · motor-skills · ages 4–18
Selective CTE high schools raise male graduation 8-10pp and early-career earnings 17-35% on lottery and cutoff designs; test scores, degrees, and every outcome for girls are flat.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDo career and technical education tracks help students — and which students? · practical · ages 14–18
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: mediuminsufficient at your settingsDoes 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
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: lowDoes teaching programming actually teach programming — and does the method matter? · computer-science · ages 5–18
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
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: lowinsufficient at your settingsManipulatives 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: lowinsufficient at your settingsPhonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters) · reading · ages 4–7
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: mediumPlacement and mastery diagnosis — deciding what to teach next from evidence of current skill · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
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: lowinsufficient at your settingsComprehensible 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
Early specialization predicts junior success; later starts plus other sports predict adult world-class. Selecting on junior results selects the wrong athletes.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediuminsufficient at your settingsEarly sport specialization, talent selection, and the relative age effect · sport · ages 6–18
One systematic review kept 39 studies from 11,771 records; another found 1 RCT among 53. 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
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: lowinsufficient at your settingsReading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning) · reading · ages 8–14
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
Nobody has tested it. There is no controlled trial in which art instruction is the input and independently measured art skill is the outcome — the field's core claim is the one it never studied.
insufficientconf: lowgc: mediumDoes teaching visual art produce artistic skill? · arts · ages 4–18
- Does arts education raise academic achievement?
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?
- Does learning to code improve general thinking?
- Can executive function be trained, and does it transfer to learning?
- Physical activity as an input — dose, fitness, and school outcomes
- Does teaching grammar improve children's writing?
- Does matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning?
- Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads
- Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity?
- Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction?
- Teaching students to think scientifically — does it transfer?
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.