Explore the evidence
19 of 88 decisions · clear everything
- math6
- reading6
- writing6
- early childhood5
- science5
- arts4
- character4
- health4
- assessment3
- debunked3
- foreign language3
- history civics3
- homeschool3
- practice3
- grouping2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- music2
- practical2
- time2
- transfer2
- behavior1
- class size1
- computer science1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- edtech1
- feedback1
- homework1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- retention1
- school structure1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- tutoring1
Timed retrieval practice builds arithmetic automaticity — beating identical untimed tutoring head-to-head — and the anti-timed-test harm claims have no causal evidence.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowMath-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims) · math · ages 5–12
Testing yourself beats rereading — robust in real classrooms; honest durable size ~0.1–0.3 SD, biggest after delay, thinnest on transfer.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowRetrieval practice (the testing effect) · practice · ages 8–18 · method
Spacing beats massing at equal total time — the most robust finding in learning science. Space repetitions at ~10–20% of how long you need to remember.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowSpaced (distributed) practice · practice · ages 6–18 · method
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: lowAbility 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: mediumAcceleration and gifted programs — the label vs the content · grouping · ages 5–18 · structure
Minimal-guidance math trailed every rival in the one multi-curriculum RCT; explicit instruction for strugglers is math's most replicated result.
moderate supportconf: highgc: lowExplicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction · math · ages 5–18
Neither acceleration mandates nor delay mandates work — readiness-matched placement does. Push everyone and the median falls; hold everyone back and the top falls.
mixedconf: highgc: lowAlgebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement · math · ages 11–18
The textbook matters at the bottom, not the top: avoid the demonstrated losers; mainstream choices now differ by ~0.02 SD.
mixedconf: highgc: lowMath curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter? · math · ages 5–14
Matching instruction to 'learning styles' does nothing: real matching experiments return d=.04. The correlational literature IS the myth.
debunkedconf: highgc: lowDoes matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked
Later bells buy adolescents 40+ measured minutes of sleep — the best-identified positive effect in the archive; the achievement payoff is real but far smaller.
strong supportconf: mediumgc: lowDo later school start times increase adolescent sleep, and does that raise achievement? · health · ages 11–18 · input
Mixing problem types helps where confusion is the enemy — discriminating similar categories, mixed math practice — and is useless or worse for facts and prose.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowInterleaving (mixing problem types vs blocking) · practice · ages 10–18 · method
Manipulatives help when bland, guided, and aged ~7–11 — a guided-representation effect, not 'hands-on learning.' Rich, toy-like objects hurt transfer.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowManipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences · math · ages 5–14
Outdoor time prevents myopia from starting (not progressing); screening plus free glasses raises test scores in children who need them. Two claims, both real.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowVision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement · health · ages 4–18 · input
Word-problem solving is its own skill: computation fluency doesn't produce it. Teaching problem schemas explicitly does (~0.25–0.45 SD on trained content).
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowWord problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question · math · ages 6–14
Correcting a real deficiency moves cognition (iron in anaemic children: 0.79 SD); supplementing already-fed children moves nothing (35 RCTs, 19,343 children).
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowBreakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys · health · ages 4–18 · input
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: lowHow should a school run its classrooms and its discipline system? · behavior · ages 4–18 · structure
School exercise programs don't raise achievement: four of the five largest RCTs are null, and more dose doesn't rescue it. Exercise for health, not for grades.
no effectconf: mediumgc: lowPhysical activity as an input — dose, fitness, and school outcomes · health · ages 4–18 · input
Never operationalised well enough to test: no MI-based trial meets even a loose evidential bar. Four decades in, a valid evaluation is still impossible.
insufficientconf: mediumgc: mediumShould Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked
Brain Gym, Fast ForWord, coloured overlays, the Mozart effect: tested and failed, or never evidence-based at all. Mozart works exactly as well as any other music.
debunkedconf: mediumgc: lowBrain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.