Explore the evidence
1 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
domain
- math6
- reading6
- writing6
- early childhood5
- health4
- assessment3
- debunked3
- homeschool3
- practice3
- arts2
- foreign language2
- grouping2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- time2
- behavior1
- class size1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- feedback1
- history civics1
- homework1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- practical1
- retention1
- school structure1
- science1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- transfer1
- tutoring1
verdict
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class
No trial has ever varied the sequence of science content and measured the result. The one quasi-experimental test of course order found nothing, and depth-over-breadth is a retrospective survey worth 0.08-0.13 SD.
insufficientconf: mediumgc: medium15/1515/48connected:Background knowledge and vocabularInterleaving (mixing problem typesExplicit instruction vs discovery/Inquiry-based science teaching vs +1
Science content sequencing — coherence, prerequisites, and course order · science · ages 5–18
Not yet assessed for this question · 1
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.