The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

7 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
group / setting
cost
outcome class

Group within classes or across grades by subject: modest, nearly free wins. Whole-school streaming does nothing, and early between-school tracking harms the bottom.

moderate supportconf: highgc: low
12/1236/48connected:Do career and technical education

Ability grouping and tracking — four practices, four verdicts · grouping · ages 5–18 · structure

Accelerate ready kids: they keep pace with older classmates, bank a year, and show no social-emotional harm at 50. The gifted label itself does nothing; the content does.

moderate supportconf: highgc: medium
8/830/48connected:Algebra timing

Acceleration and gifted programs — the label vs the content · grouping · ages 5–18 · structure

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

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
13/1315/48connected: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

Content-rich history teaching raises history knowledge (g 0.19-0.46) but not standardized reading in under three years; generic 'historical thinking' has no adequately controlled positive result.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
17/1730/48connected:Background knowledge and vocabularDoes document-based source work mo

Should history be built on content knowledge or on generic historical-thinking skills? · history-civics · ages 5–18

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

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
6/67/48connected:Explicit instruction vs discovery/Word problems, schema instruction,

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

Civics teaching buys civic knowledge (d = 0.49) that fades to the control mean in two years and moves neither attitudes nor validated turnout; what moves voting is school quality and noncognitive skill.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
19/1936/48

Does civic education produce civic knowledge, and does civic knowledge produce civic behaviour? · history-civics · ages 5–18

Document-based instruction reliably improves the sourcing and argument tasks it teaches (g ≈ 0.42) and, in the two best-identified trials, moves neither standardized reading nor history knowledge.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
13/1310/48connected:Should history be built on content

Does document-based source work move history knowledge, reading comprehension, or neither? · history-civics · ages 8–18

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