The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

8 of 88 decisions · clear everything

Survives the gold standard Independent, durable, rigorous The debunked shelf Cheap wins For parents at home Famous numbers, deflated Where we admit ignorance The terrain

evidenceall drop D A–B A only

evaluatorany no dev-led independent

durabilityany follow-up ≥1yr ≥2yr

what are these? →

Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”

who's delivering

group / setting

cost

outcome class

Testing yourself beats rereading — robust in real classrooms; honest durable size ~0.1–0.3 SD, biggest after delay, thinnest on transfer.

strong supportconf: highgc: low

10/1018/48connected:Feedback and formative assessment Mastery learning (teach → test → r Spaced (distributed) practice

Retrieval practice (the testing effect) · practice · ages 8–18 · method

Spacing beats massing at equal total time — the most robust finding in learning science. Space repetitions at ~10–20% of how long you need to remember.

strong supportconf: highgc: low

7/712/48connected:Interleaving (mixing problem types Math-fact fluency and timed practi Retrieval practice (the testing ef

Spaced (distributed) practice · practice · ages 6–18 · method

Curriculum is nearly free, so choosing beats not choosing — but the payoff is avoiding a demonstrated loser, not finding a magic winner. Content is the high-upside bet.

mixedconf: highgc: low

9/927/48connected:Background knowledge and vocabular Science content sequencing

Curriculum choice as a school-level lever · curriculum · ages 4–14 · structure

Immersion costs nothing in English and buys a little — a lottery puts English reading 0.13-0.22 SD ahead by grades 5 and 8 — but no lottery has ever measured how much of the second language students actually learn.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low

8/824/48

Does dual-language immersion work, and is the gain in the second language or in English? · foreign-language · 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: low

22/2225/48connected:Does learning to code improve gene Talent and trainability

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

Mixing problem types helps where confusion is the enemy — discriminating similar categories, mixed math practice — and is useless or worse for facts and prose.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low

7/718/48connected:Spaced (distributed) practice Science content sequencing

Interleaving (mixing problem types vs blocking) · practice · ages 10–18 · method

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: low

11/1118/48connected:Does teaching grammar improve chil

Comprehensible input or explicit grammar teaching — which builds a second language? · foreign-language · ages 4–18

Attainment falls steadily with age of first exposure, but the sharp critical period is contested and an earlier classroom start buys nothing durable: start young for immersion, not for two lessons a week.

mixedconf: mediumgc: medium

14/1424/48

Is there a critical period for learning a second language, and when should a child start? · foreign-language · ages 4–18

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