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

High-dosage tutoring is education's most reliable lever: ~0.29 SD in trials, ~0.2 well-scaled — not Bloom's 2σ. Groups of 3–4 work; 1:1 is unnecessary.

strong supportconf: highgc: low
18/1830/48connected:Class-size reductionDoes educational technology raise The parent as instructorSchool spending, charters, and wha

Tutoring — the honest effect, the Bloom 2-sigma myth, and what survives scale · tutoring · ages 5–18 · method

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

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

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