Explore the evidence
6 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
- 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
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class
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: low10/1018/48connected:Feedback and formative assessmentMastery learning (teach → test → rSpaced (distributed) practice
Retrieval 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: low7/712/48connected:Interleaving (mixing problem typesMath-fact fluency and timed practiRetrieval practice (the testing ef
Spaced (distributed) practice · practice · ages 6–18 · method
Teaching movement teaches movement: the skills improve, but transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity is near zero in the best trials.
no effectconf: highgc: medium6/710/48connected:Does arts education raise academicPhysical activity as an inputDoes teaching grammar improve chilDoes handwriting and transcription+5
Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity? · physical-development · ages 4–18
Brain training improves the trained task and nothing else: far transfer to intelligence or achievement is 0.001 against active controls.
no effectconf: highgc: low17/1824/48connected:FadeoutTalent and trainabilityDoes learning to code improve geneCan executive function be trained,+1
Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement? · transfer · ages 4–18 · debunked
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
Coding instruction teaches coding (d≈0.68) and not thinking: against active controls far transfer is g=0.15, two validated-instrument RCTs found d≈0.00, and a 46-school maths trial found −0.16 to −0.21.
no effectconf: mediumgc: lowDoes learning to code improve general thinking? · transfer · ages 5–16
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.