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
group / setting
cost
outcome class

Curriculum is nearly free, so choosing beats not choosing — but the payoff is avoiding a demonstrated loser, not finding a magic winner. Content is the high-upside bet.

mixedconf: highgc: low
9/927/48connected:Background knowledge and vocabularScience content sequencing

Curriculum choice as a school-level lever · curriculum · ages 4–14 · structure

Sort by what the software replaces: adaptive drill inside the school day buys +0.05-0.20 SD; a device, a connection or the teacher buys zero to negative; LLM tutors have no usable evidence at all.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
53/5339/48connected:Placement and mastery diagnosisMastery learning (teach → test → rTutoringClass-size reduction

Does educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure

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: medium
16/1629/48

Homework — effects by age and by dosage · homework · ages 5–18 · structure

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