Explore the evidence
4 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
domain
confidence
layer
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
group / setting
outcome class
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
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: medium14/1424/48
Is there a critical period for learning a second language, and when should a child start? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
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: lowReading 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: low4/46/48connected: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
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.