The Evidence on Teaching

Explore the evidence

3 of 88 decisions · clear everything

Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
evidencealldrop DA–BA only
evaluatoranyno dev-ledindependent
durabilityanyfollow-up≥1yr≥2yr
what are these? →
sortconfidencerobustfragileA–Z
domain
verdict
confidence
layer
survival prior
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class

Outdoor time prevents myopia from starting (not progressing); screening plus free glasses raises test scores in children who need them. Two claims, both real.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low
17/1736/48

Vision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement · health · ages 4–18 · input

Correcting a real deficiency moves cognition (iron in anaemic children: 0.79 SD); supplementing already-fed children moves nothing (35 RCTs, 19,343 children).

mixedconf: mediumgc: low
20/2018/48connected:Does teaching movement transfer to

Breakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys · health · ages 4–18 · input

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: low
21/2124/48

What a standardized achievement score does and does not license · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure

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.