Explore the evidence
7 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Mastery learning moves tests of what it taught (~0.25) and barely moves independent measures (~0.05) — and time-to-mastery gaps widen, converting ability differences into time.
mixedconf: highgc: lowMastery learning (teach → test → reteach to criterion → advance) · mastery · ages 6–18 · method
Brain training improves the trained task and nothing else: far transfer to intelligence or achievement is 0.001 against active controls.
no effectconf: highgc: lowDoes working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement? · transfer · ages 4–18 · debunked
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
Sort by what the software replaces: adaptive drill inside the school day buys +0.05-0.20 SD; a device, a connection or the teacher buys zero to negative; LLM tutors have no usable evidence at all.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowDoes educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure
Coaching buys ~0.25 SD of score and has for 42 years — a fraction of what's advertised — and none of it is ability. The score moves; the construct doesn't.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumTest preparation — does coaching raise scores, and does a raised score mean raised ability? · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
Trust the composite; distrust the breakdown. Subtest strengths-and-weaknesses replicate at chance on retest, and most of what people read off a score report is noise.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowWhat a standardized achievement score does and does not license · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
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
- Acceleration and gifted programs — the label vs the content
- Chronic absenteeism — does raising attendance raise achievement?
- Class-size reduction
- Curriculum choice as a school-level lever
- Feedback and formative assessment
- Grade retention — holding a child back versus promoting, and test-based promotion policies
- Ability grouping and tracking — four practices, four verdicts
- Vision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement
- The early home environment — what parents can and cannot causally move
- Homeschool socialisation — the most-asked question, and the least answerable one
- Length of the school day and year, time-on-task, extended time, and summer
- Interleaving (mixing problem types vs blocking)
- Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction?
- Breakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys
- Placement and mastery diagnosis — deciding what to teach next from evidence of current skill
- Preschool at scale — Head Start, state pre-K, and what universal provision delivers
- Perry Preschool and Abecedarian — what the famous studies actually establish
- School spending, charters, and what school-level choices actually move outcomes
- School starting age, relative age, and academic redshirting
- Do later school start times increase adolescent sleep, and does that raise achievement?
- Teacher quality — selection over credentials and workshops
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.