Explore the evidence
11 of 88 decisions · clear everything
- math6
- reading6
- writing6
- early childhood5
- science5
- arts4
- character4
- health4
- assessment3
- debunked3
- foreign language3
- history civics3
- homeschool3
- practice3
- grouping2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- music2
- practical2
- time2
- transfer2
- behavior1
- class size1
- computer science1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- edtech1
- feedback1
- homework1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- retention1
- school structure1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- tutoring1
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
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
Word-problem solving is its own skill: computation fluency doesn't produce it. Teaching problem schemas explicitly does (~0.25–0.45 SD on trained content).
moderate supportconf: highgc: lowWord problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question · math · ages 6–14
Neither acceleration mandates nor delay mandates work — readiness-matched placement does. Push everyone and the median falls; hold everyone back and the top falls.
mixedconf: highgc: lowAlgebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement · math · ages 11–18
The textbook matters at the bottom, not the top: avoid the demonstrated losers; mainstream choices now differ by ~0.02 SD.
mixedconf: highgc: lowMath curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter? · math · ages 5–14
Matching instruction to 'learning styles' does nothing: real matching experiments return d=.04. The correlational literature IS the myth.
debunkedconf: highgc: lowDoes matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked
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: lowManipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences · math · ages 5–14
Early specialization predicts junior success; later starts plus other sports predict adult world-class. Selecting on junior results selects the wrong athletes.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumEarly sport specialization, talent selection, and the relative age effect · sport · ages 6–18
Classroom order is causally worth a great deal — one disruptive peer costs classmates 3% of adult earnings — yet no branded behaviour programme reliably delivers it and exclusion makes things worse.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowHow should a school run its classrooms and its discipline system? · behavior · ages 4–18 · structure
Never operationalised well enough to test: no MI-based trial meets even a loose evidential bar. Four decades in, a valid evaluation is still impossible.
insufficientconf: mediumgc: mediumShould Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked
Brain Gym, Fast ForWord, coloured overlays, the Mozart effect: tested and failed, or never evidence-based at all. Mozart works exactly as well as any other music.
debunkedconf: mediumgc: lowBrain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.