The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

3 of 88 decisions · 1 collapse at your settings · 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
group / setting
cost
outcome class

Unassisted discovery loses to explicit teaching; well-scaffolded guided discovery beats both. The operative variable is guidance, not ideology.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowinsufficient at your settings
1/1315/48connected:Worked examples (studying solutionExplicit vs reform/constructivist Science content sequencingInquiry-based science teaching vs +1

Explicit instruction vs discovery/inquiry — how much guidance? · instruction-style · ages 4–18 · method

Novices learn faster studying solutions than solving problems — then the effect reverses with expertise. Use worked examples early; fade them.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
2/67/48connected:Explicit instruction vs discovery/Word problems, schema instruction,

Worked examples (studying solutions vs solving problems) · instruction-style · ages 10–18 · method

Classroom order is causally worth a great deal — one disruptive peer costs classmates 3% of adult earnings — yet no branded behaviour programme reliably delivers it and exclusion makes things worse.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
16/2536/48connected:Talent and trainabilityCan executive function be trained,Should a school buy a social and eAre self-control and grit teachabl

How should a school run its classrooms and its discipline system? · behavior · ages 4–18 · structure

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