The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

3 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
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
  • nothing assessed yet
group / setting
  • nothing assessed yet
cost
  • nothing assessed yet
outcome class
  • nothing assessed yet

Reading Recovery buys large short-term gains at high cost; the only US long-term estimate is negative. Early 1:1 tutoring works — this model's durability is unproven.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
5/527/48connected:Systematic/explicit phonics vs who

Reading Recovery and Tier-2 1:1 early-literacy tutoring · reading · ages 5–8

Strategy instruction is a one-time boost, not a trainable skill: six sessions buy what fifty do, and modern at-scale trials are ~null.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
4/46/48connected:Does teaching grammar improve chilSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoBackground knowledge and vocabularDoes teaching spelling work, and w

Reading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning) · reading · ages 8–14

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: medium
4/412/48connected:Does teaching movement transfer to

Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction? · 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.