Explore the evidence
2 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
domain
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
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
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: lowTeaching students to think scientifically — does it transfer? · science · ages 7–18
Not yet assessed for this question · 12
- Does arts education raise academic achievement?
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?
- Physical activity as an input — dose, fitness, and school outcomes
- Fadeout — why early gains disappear, and what actually persists
- Math-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims)
- Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity?
- Systematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy
- Retrieval practice (the testing effect)
- Spaced (distributed) practice
- Talent and trainability — what is heritable, and what that does not license
- Teacher quality — selection over credentials and workshops
- Tutoring — the honest effect, the Bloom 2-sigma myth, and what survives scale
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.