Explore the evidence
10 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
Teaching movement teaches movement: the skills improve, but transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity is near zero in the best trials.
no effectconf: highgc: mediumDoes teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity? · physical-development · ages 4–18
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
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
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: lowDoes 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: lowDoes teaching programming actually teach programming — and does the method matter? · computer-science · 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: lowComprehensible input or explicit grammar teaching — which builds a second language? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
Life-skills courses reliably teach the content and rarely change the conduct; behaviour moves only where instruction sits close in time to the decision, and driver education is worse than nothing.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowDo life-skills courses — money, cooking, driving, health — change what students actually do? · practical · ages 6–18
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: mediumIs there a critical period for learning a second language, and when should a child start? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
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.