Explore the evidence
2 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
domain
layer
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class
Guided inquiry is positive in 16 of 16 PISA regions and unguided inquiry negative in 18 of 20 — but the programmes built on that finding go to zero at scale: +0.22, then +0.01, then +0.02 on the same test.
mixedconf: mediumgc: low19/1927/48connected:Science content sequencingExplicit instruction vs discovery/Laboratory and practical work in sTeaching students to think scienti
Inquiry-based science teaching vs explicit and textbook science teaching · science · ages 8–18
Two reviews screened ~12,000 records and found one RCT and six quasi-experiments. What evidence exists favours interest (+0.12) over attainment (+0.01), and simulations match real apparatus.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowLaboratory and practical work in school science · science · ages 5–18
Not yet assessed for this question · 6
- Background knowledge and vocabulary as drivers of reading comprehension
- Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters)
- Systematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy
- Reading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning)
- Reading fluency — guided repeated oral reading, and whether repetition matters
- Reading Recovery and Tier-2 1:1 early-literacy tutoring
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.