Explore the evidence
10 of 88 decisions · 4 collapse at your settings · 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
Timed retrieval practice builds arithmetic automaticity — beating identical untimed tutoring head-to-head — and the anti-timed-test harm claims have no causal evidence.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowMath-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims) · math · ages 5–12
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: lowExplicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction · math · ages 5–18
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: highgc: lowWord problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question · math · ages 6–14
Neither acceleration mandates nor delay mandates work — readiness-matched placement does. Push everyone and the median falls; hold everyone back and the top falls.
mixedconf: highgc: lowAlgebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement · math · ages 11–18
The textbook matters at the bottom, not the top: avoid the demonstrated losers; mainstream choices now differ by ~0.02 SD.
mixedconf: highgc: lowMath curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter? · math · ages 5–14
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: lowinsufficient at your settingsDoes dual-language immersion work, and is the gain in the second language or in English? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
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: lowinsufficient at your settingsManipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences · math · ages 5–14
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: lowinsufficient at your settingsComprehensible input or explicit grammar teaching — which builds a second language? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
Near-zero in primary and almost entirely correlational in secondary. The causal base is three small trials; what the homework IS beats how much of it there is.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumHomework — effects by age and by dosage · homework · ages 5–18 · structure
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: mediuminsufficient at your settingsIs 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.