Explore the evidence
1 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class
Teaching grammar does not improve writing at any age tested — and it displaces the things that do.
negativeconf: mediumgc: low12/1227/48connected:Comprehensible input or explicit gDoes sentence combining improve wrDoes teaching spelling work, and wDoes handwriting and transcription+4
Does teaching grammar improve children's writing? · writing · ages 5–18
Not yet assessed for this question · 8
- Fadeout — why early gains disappear, and what actually persists
- Math-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims)
- 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.