The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

8 of 88 decisions · clear everything

Survives the gold standard Independent, durable, rigorous The debunked shelf Cheap wins For parents at home Famous numbers, deflated Where we admit ignorance The terrain

evidenceall drop D A–B A only

evaluatorany no dev-led independent

durabilityany follow-up ≥1yr ≥2yr

what are these? →

Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”

who's delivering

group / setting

cost

outcome class

Unallocated money is the worst buy in the database; the same dollars as No-Excuses charters buy +0.3–0.4 SD/yr — and the average charter is a precise null.

mixedconf: highgc: low

8/839/48connected:Tutoring Background knowledge and vocabular Teacher quality Math curriculum choice

School spending, charters, and what school-level choices actually move outcomes · school-structure · ages 4–18 · structure

Yes — sight-reading, performance and aural skill move about half a standard deviation under instruction — but the evidence is quasi-experimental and thinner than the transfer literature built on top of it.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: medium

6/636/48connected:Does learning music make children Feedback and formative assessment Feedback frequency and mental prac Deliberate practice and the 10,000+2

Does teaching music produce musical skill? · music · ages 4–18

Not at school: the largest randomised trials find nothing on reading, maths or cognition. A small effect on laboratory executive-function tasks is contested, may be real at ~0.2 SD, and is end-of-treatment only.

mixedconf: mediumgc: medium

19/1936/48connected:Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, a Does teaching music produce musica Fadeout

Does learning music make children smarter or better at school? · music · ages 4–16

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: low

19/1927/48connected:Science content sequencing Explicit instruction vs discovery/Laboratory and practical work in s Teaching 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: low

22/2221/48connected:Science misconceptions and concept Inquiry-based science teaching vs

Laboratory and practical work in school science · science · ages 5–18

Conceptual-change teaching reliably moves the test and nothing shows it removes the intuition. Corrected for design and publication bias, a taught unit is g≈0.64 and a refutation text g≈0.28.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low

10/1017/48connected:Laboratory and practical work in s

Science misconceptions and conceptual change — can naive intuitions be taught away? · science · ages 6–18

Narrow reasoning routines are teachable and stay taught for seven months. The far-transfer claim failed its one randomised test: science −0.01, English −0.15, maths −0.11.

no effectconf: mediumgc: low

14/1412/48connected:Inquiry-based science teaching vs

Teaching students to think scientifically — does it transfer? · science · ages 7–18

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: medium

15/1515/48connected:Background knowledge and vocabular Interleaving (mixing problem types Explicit instruction vs discovery/Inquiry-based science teaching vs +1

Science content sequencing — coherence, prerequisites, and course order · science · ages 5–18

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