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
survival prior
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
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: low18/1831/48connected:FadeoutSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoTalent and trainabilityAre self-control and grit teachabl
Does teaching a growth mindset raise achievement? · character · 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
Not yet assessed for this question · 5
- Can executive function be trained, and does it transfer to learning?
- Physical activity as an input — dose, fitness, and school outcomes
- Does matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning?
- Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads
- Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction?
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.