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

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

Comprehension is knowledge — but vocabulary teaching moves standardized comprehension only d≈0.10. The big content-knowledge bet (Core Knowledge lottery, 0.24) is real and unreplicated.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
5/518/48connected:Curriculum choice as a school-leveShould history be built on contentMath curriculum choiceSystematic/explicit phonics vs who+3

Background knowledge and vocabulary as drivers of reading comprehension · reading · ages 5–14

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

Guided oral reading works, but the ingredient is volume, not repetition: at equal exposure, re-reading has no edge over wide reading.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
4/46/48

Reading fluency — guided repeated oral reading, and whether repetition matters · reading · ages 6–12

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: mediumgc: low
7/78/48connected:Math-fact fluency and timed practiWorked examples (studying solution

Word problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question · math · ages 6–14

The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.