{ "schemaVersion": "1.1.0", "rack": { "id": "rack:learning-sciences", "version": "0.2.0", "title": "Learning-sciences, pedagogy, and instructional-methods knowledge rack", "status": "draft", "createdAt": "2026-08-30", "supersedes": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "scope": "A classified, cross-lifespan, cross-domain retrieval source for pedagogical specialist agents, spanning theories, frameworks, principles, methods, tactics, learner and context constructs, measures, constraints, and anti-patterns from infancy through adult and later-life learning.", "nonPolicyNotice": "These records are candidates for retrieval and review, not kernel rules. An agent must check learner evidence, task fit, context, permissions, and contraindications before recommending or instantiating anything here." }, "taxonomy": { "taxonomyVersion": "1.0.0", "note": "Controlled vocabularies for the 0.2.0 rack. Every entry must classify on all seven facets. Free-text description belongs in entry fields, never in facet values.", "facets": { "layer": { "question": "What kind of knowledge object is this?", "values": { "theory": "An explanatory account of how learning or development works; generates predictions, is not itself an instruction.", "framework": "An organizing scheme for designing, analyzing, or classifying instruction; usually not a causal claim.", "principle": "A general design rule abstracted from convergent evidence; applies across many methods.", "method": "A named instructional approach at lesson-to-course grain that bundles many moves.", "tactic": "A single concrete instructional or study move inside a lesson or session.", "construct": "A measurable learner, task, or context variable that moderates or mediates learning.", "measure": "An instrument or measurement approach used to observe learning.", "constraint": "A normative, ethical, legal, or access requirement that bounds what may be done.", "anti-pattern": "A popular practice that is refuted, contested beyond its evidence, or harmful as usually implemented." } }, "tradition": { "question": "Which research tradition produced it?", "values": { "cognitive": "Information processing, memory, and cognitive architecture research.", "behavioral": "Reinforcement, practice scheduling, and behavior-analytic research.", "sociocultural": "Vygotskian, situated, and participation-based accounts.", "constructivist": "Knowledge-building, conceptual change, and discovery traditions.", "motivational-social": "Motivation, social psychology, identity, and belonging research.", "developmental": "Developmental and lifespan psychology.", "psychometric": "Measurement, validity, and assessment theory.", "instructional-design": "Systematic design, ISD, and design-based research.", "critical-equity": "Equity, inclusion, disability, and culturally responsive scholarship.", "neuroscience": "Cognitive and educational neuroscience." } }, "domain": { "question": "Which subject or professional domain does it apply to?", "values": [ "general", "literacy", "mathematics", "science", "computing", "engineering-design", "history-social-studies", "arts", "music", "physical-motor", "world-language", "health", "special-education", "multilingual", "professional-workplace", "teacher-development", "assessment-measurement", "digital-environments" ] }, "lifespanStage": { "question": "Which learner stage is it evidenced for?", "ordered": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult", "cross-lifespan" ], "note": "A stage means 'evidence exists for this stage', not 'the learner has this capability'. Never infer individual capability from a stage." }, "function": { "question": "What job does it do in a learning cycle?", "values": [ "diagnose", "motivate", "explain", "practice", "feedback", "consolidate", "transfer", "assess", "self-regulate", "sequence", "collaborate", "access", "climate" ] }, "grainSize": { "question": "At what scale is it enacted?", "ordered": [ "micro-move", "lesson", "unit-course", "program-system" ] }, "maturity": { "question": "How settled is the knowledge object itself, independent of its effect size?", "values": { "established": "Long-standing, replicated, and stable in its bounded form.", "consolidating": "Substantial evidence with active moderator debate.", "emerging": "Promising but thin or recent evidence.", "disputed": "Active credible disagreement about existence or size of the effect.", "deprecated": "Superseded or shown not to hold as claimed." } } }, "crosswalk": { "note": "Maps 0.1.0 free-text learnerStages onto controlled lifespanStage values.", "early-childhood": [ "preschool" ], "infancy": [ "infancy-toddler" ], "K-12": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "early-primary": [ "primary" ], "primary": [ "primary" ], "upper-primary": [ "primary", "middle" ], "secondary": [ "secondary" ], "adolescent": [ "middle", "secondary" ], "emerging-adult": [ "postsecondary" ], "adult": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "adult novice": [ "adult-workplace" ], "adult literacy": [ "adult-workplace" ], "older-adult": [ "older-adult" ], "older struggling reader": [ "middle", "secondary" ] } }, "evidenceScale": { "strong": "Convergent direct evidence, an evidence-rated institutional practice guide, or convergent institutional consensus synthesis supports the bounded claim. Amended in 0.2.0 and now machine-enforced by build-rack.mjs.", "context-dependent": "Evidence is positive or plausible but materially moderated by population, content, implementation, comparator, or outcome.", "hypothesis": "A useful explanatory or design hypothesis whose predicted ordering or mechanism is not established as a general causal rule.", "contested": "Credible reviews disagree, effects are small or heterogeneous, or popular claims exceed the evidence.", "refuted": "The proposed instructional benefit lacks the required interaction evidence or is contradicted by adequate tests.", "normative-standard": "An authoritative design, fairness, or accessibility standard; this is not an intervention effect estimate." }, "recommendationScale": { "candidate-default-with-fit-check": "Usually worth considering inside its evidence boundary, but still requires task and learner fit checks.", "contextual-option": "Retrieve as an option only when stated prerequisites and boundary conditions are present.", "experimental-only": "Use only as an explicitly provisional design with measurement and review.", "do-not-generalize": "Do not convert the broad label into an achievement claim or default policy.", "avoid": "Do not use as a learner classification or instructional matching policy." }, "sources": [ { "id": "source:adding-it-up", "title": "Adding It Up", "authorsOrInstitution": "National Academies Press", "year": 2001, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/9822", "doi": "10.17226/9822", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:adesope-practice-testing", "title": "Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing", "authorsOrInstitution": "Adesope, Olusola O.; Trevisan, Dominic A.; Sundararajan, Narayankripa", "year": 2017, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306", "doi": "10.3102/0034654316689306", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:adolescent-literacy-wwc", "title": "Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2008, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/8", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:adolescent-nasem", "title": "The Promise of Adolescence", "authorsOrInstitution": "Committee on the Neurobiological and Socio-behavioral Science of Adolescent Development and Its Applications; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Health and Medicine Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine", "year": 2019, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/25388", "doi": "10.17226/25388", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:aero", "title": "Australian Education Research Organisation evidence resources", "authorsOrInstitution": "Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO)", "year": 2025, "venue": "AERO", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://www.edresearch.edu.au/", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:agarwal-retrieval-classroom", "title": "Retrieval Practice Consistently Benefits Student Learning: a Systematic Review of Applied Research in Schools and Classrooms", "authorsOrInstitution": "Agarwal, Pooja K.; Nunes, Ludmila D.; Blunt, Janell R.", "year": 2021, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:alfieri-discovery", "title": "Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?", "authorsOrInstitution": "Alfieri, Louis; Brooks, Patricia J.; Aldrich, Naomi J.; Tenenbaum, Harriet R.", "year": 2011, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017", "doi": "10.1037/a0021017", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:algebra-wwc", "title": "Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge in Middle and High School Students (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2015, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_algebra_040715.pdf", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:arthur-training-meta", "title": "Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Arthur, Winfred; Bennett, Winston; Edens, Pamela S.; Bell, Suzanne T.", "year": 2003, "venue": "Journal of Applied Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:ashcraft-krause", "title": "Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety", "authorsOrInstitution": "Ashcraft, Mark H.; Krause, Jeremy A.", "year": 2007, "venue": "Psychonomic Bulletin & Review", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194059", "doi": "10.3758/BF03194059", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:assessment-nrc", "title": "Knowing What Students Know", "authorsOrInstitution": "National Academies Press", "year": 2001, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/10019", "doi": "10.17226/10019", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:baldwin-ford", "title": "TRANSFER OF TRAINING: A REVIEW AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH", "authorsOrInstitution": "BALDWIN, TIMOTHY T.; FORD, J. KEVIN", "year": 1988, "venue": "Personnel Psychology", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:bandura-self-efficacy", "title": "Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Bandura, Albert", "year": 1977, "venue": "Psychological Review", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191", "doi": "10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:barroso-math-anxiety", "title": "A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Barroso, Connie; Ganley, Colleen M.; McGraw, Amanda L.; Geer, Elyssa A.; Hart, Sara A.; Daucourt, Mia C.", "year": 2021, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000307", "doi": "10.1037/bul0000307", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:behavior-wwc", "title": "Reducing Behavior Problems in the Elementary School Classroom (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2008, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/4", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:bernard-distance", "title": "How Does Distance Education Compare With Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature", "authorsOrInstitution": "Bernard, Robert M., et al.", "year": 2004, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379", "doi": "10.3102/00346543074003379", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:bjork-self-regulated", "title": "Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions", "authorsOrInstitution": "Bjork, Robert A.; Dunlosky, John; Kornell, Nate", "year": 2013, "venue": "Annual Review of Psychology", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823", "doi": "10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:blair-raver-tools", "title": "Closing the Achievement Gap through Modification of Neurocognitive and Neuroendocrine Function: Results from a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of an Innovative Approach to the Education of Children in Kindergarten", "authorsOrInstitution": "Blair, Clancy; Raver, C. Cybele", "year": 2014, "venue": "PLoS ONE", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112393", "doi": "10.1371/journal.pone.0112393", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:bloom-two-sigma", "title": "The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring", "authorsOrInstitution": "BLOOM, BENJAMIN S.", "year": 1984, "venue": "Educational Researcher", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013006004", "doi": "10.3102/0013189X013006004", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:blume-transfer-meta", "title": "Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review", "authorsOrInstitution": "Blume, Brian D.; Ford, J. Kevin; Baldwin, Timothy T.; Huang, Jason L.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Journal of Management", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880", "doi": "10.1177/0149206309352880", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:booth-siegler", "title": "Numerical Magnitude Representations Influence Arithmetic Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Booth, Julie L; Siegler, Robert S", "year": 2008, "venue": "Child Development", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01173.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01173.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:bryfonski-tblt", "title": "TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Bryfonski, Lara; McKay, Todd H.", "year": 2017, "venue": "Language Teaching Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817744389", "doi": "10.1177/1362168817744389", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:carless-feedback-literacy", "title": "The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback", "authorsOrInstitution": "Carless, David; Boud, David", "year": 2018, "venue": "Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354", "doi": "10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:casel", "title": "CASEL Framework for Systemic Social and Emotional Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL)", "year": 2025, "venue": "CASEL", "type": "framework", "url": "https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "unverified-host-blocks-automated-requests" } }, { "id": "source:castles-reading-wars", "title": "Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert", "authorsOrInstitution": "Castles, Anne; Rastle, Kathleen; Nation, Kate", "year": 2018, "venue": "Psychological Science in the Public Interest", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271", "doi": "10.1177/1529100618772271", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:cefr", "title": "Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Council of Europe", "year": 2020, "venue": "Council of Europe", "type": "framework", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "unverified-host-blocks-automated-requests" } }, { "id": "source:chen-pbl-meta", "title": "Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators", "authorsOrInstitution": "Chen, Cheng-Huan; Yang, Yong-Cih", "year": 2019, "venue": "Educational Research Review", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001", "doi": "10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:chi-overt-activities", "title": "Active‐Constructive‐Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities", "authorsOrInstitution": "Chi, Michelene T. H.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Topics in Cognitive Science", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:chi-self-explanation", "title": "Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems", "authorsOrInstitution": "Chi, Michelene T.H.; Bassok, Miriam; Lewis, Matthew W.; Reimann, Peter; Glaser, Robert", "year": 1989, "venue": "Cognitive Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1", "doi": "10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:clark-digital-games", "title": "Digital Games, Design, and Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Clark, Douglas B.; Tanner-Smith, Emily E.; Killingsworth, Stephen S.", "year": 2016, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065", "doi": "10.3102/0034654315582065", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:clark-paivio", "title": "Dual coding theory and education", "authorsOrInstitution": "Clark, James M.; Paivio, Allan", "year": 1991, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076", "doi": "10.1007/BF01320076", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:clements-trajectories", "title": "Learning Trajectories in Mathematics Education", "authorsOrInstitution": "Clements, Douglas H.; Sarama, Julie", "year": 2004, "venue": "Mathematical Thinking and Learning", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_1", "doi": "10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:cognitive-load", "title": "Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later", "authorsOrInstitution": "Sweller, John; van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G.; Paas, Fred", "year": 2019, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:cohen-tutoring-meta", "title": "Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-analysis of Findings", "authorsOrInstitution": "Cohen, Peter A; Kulik, James A.; Kulik, Chen-Lin C.", "year": 1982, "venue": "American Educational Research Journal", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019002237", "doi": "10.3102/00028312019002237", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:cohen-values-affirmation", "title": "Reducing the Racial Achievement Gap: A Social-Psychological Intervention", "authorsOrInstitution": "Cohen, Geoffrey L.; Garcia, Julio; Apfel, Nancy; Master, Allison", "year": 2006, "venue": "Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128317", "doi": "10.1126/science.1128317", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:collaboration-meta", "title": "A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kyndt, Eva; Raes, Elisabeth; Lismont, Bart; Timmers, Fran; Cascallar, Eduardo; Dochy, Filip", "year": 2013, "venue": "Educational Research Review", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002", "doi": "10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:cook-simulation-jama", "title": "Technology-Enhanced Simulation for Health Professions Education", "authorsOrInstitution": "Cook, David A., et al.", "year": 2011, "venue": "JAMA", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1234", "doi": "10.1001/jama.2011.1234", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:cooper-homework", "title": "Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003", "authorsOrInstitution": "Cooper, Harris; Robinson, Jorgianne Civey; Patall, Erika A", "year": 2006, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001", "doi": "10.3102/00346543076001001", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:crede-grit-meta", "title": "Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Credé, Marcus; Tynan, Michael C.; Harms, Peter D.", "year": 2017, "venue": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000102", "doi": "10.1037/pspp0000102", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:cs-framework", "title": "K-12 Computer Science Framework", "authorsOrInstitution": "K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee", "year": 2016, "venue": "k12cs.org", "type": "framework", "url": "https://k12cs.org/framework-statements-by-concept/", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:dejong-simulations", "title": "Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains", "authorsOrInstitution": "De Jong, Ton; Van Joolingen, Wouter R.", "year": 1998, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179", "doi": "10.3102/00346543068002179", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:dekker-neuromyths", "title": "Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers", "authorsOrInstitution": "Dekker, Sanne; Lee, Nikki C.; Howard-Jones, Paul; Jolles, Jelle", "year": 2012, "venue": "Frontiers in Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429", "doi": "10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:deliberate-practice-meta", "title": "Deliberate Practice and Performance in Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions: A Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Macnamara, Brooke N.; Hambrick, David Z.; Oswald, Frederick L.", "year": 2014, "venue": "Psychological Science", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535810", "doi": "10.1177/0956797614535810", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:deno-cbm", "title": "Curriculum-Based Measurement: The Emerging Alternative", "authorsOrInstitution": "Deno, Stanley L.", "year": 1985, "venue": "Exceptional Children", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298505200303", "doi": "10.1177/001440298505200303", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:deslauriers-feeling", "title": "Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom", "authorsOrInstitution": "Deslauriers, Louis; McCarty, Logan S.; Miller, Kelly; Callaghan, Kristina; Kestin, Greg", "year": 2019, "venue": "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116", "doi": "10.1073/pnas.1821936116", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:deunk-differentiation", "title": "Effective differentiation Practices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education", "authorsOrInstitution": "Deunk, Marjolein I.; Smale-Jacobse, Annemieke E.; de Boer, Hester; Doolaard, Simone; Bosker, Roel J.", "year": 2018, "venue": "Educational Research Review", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002", "doi": "10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:diamond-executive-function", "title": "Executive Functions", "authorsOrInstitution": "Diamond, Adele", "year": 2013, "venue": "Annual Review of Psychology", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750", "doi": "10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:diamond-ling", "title": "Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for improving executive functions that appear justified and those that, despite much hype, do not", "authorsOrInstitution": "Diamond, Adele; Ling, Daphne S.", "year": 2016, "venue": "Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005", "doi": "10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:diekelmann-born-sleep", "title": "The memory function of sleep", "authorsOrInstitution": "Diekelmann, Susanne; Born, Jan", "year": 2010, "venue": "Nature Reviews Neuroscience", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2762", "doi": "10.1038/nrn2762", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:dietrichson-low-ses", "title": "Academic Interventions for Elementary and Middle School Students With Low Socioeconomic Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Dietrichson, Jens; Bøg, Martin; Filges, Trine; Klint Jørgensen, Anne-Marie", "year": 2017, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316687036", "doi": "10.3102/0034654316687036", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:dignath-buttner", "title": "Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level", "authorsOrInstitution": "Dignath, Charlotte; Büttner, Gerhard", "year": 2008, "venue": "Metacognition and Learning", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x", "doi": "10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:dochy-pbl-meta", "title": "Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Dochy, Filip; Segers, Mien; Van den Bossche, Piet; Gijbels, David", "year": 2003, "venue": "Learning and Instruction", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7", "doi": "10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:donnelly-physical-activity", "title": "Physical Activity, Fitness, Cognitive Function, and Academic Achievement in Children", "authorsOrInstitution": "Donnelly, Joseph E., et al.", "year": 2016, "venue": "Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000901", "doi": "10.1249/MSS.0000000000000901", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:double-peer-assessment", "title": "The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies", "authorsOrInstitution": "Double, Kit S.; McGrane, Joshua A.; Hopfenbeck, Therese N.", "year": 2019, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:duckworth-grit", "title": "Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Duckworth, Angela L.; Peterson, Christopher; Matthews, Michael D.; Kelly, Dennis R.", "year": 2007, "venue": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087", "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:dunlosky-rawson-overconfidence", "title": "Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention", "authorsOrInstitution": "Dunlosky, John; Rawson, Katherine A.", "year": 2012, "venue": "Learning and Instruction", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003", "doi": "10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:dunlosky-techniques", "title": "Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques", "authorsOrInstitution": "Dunlosky, John; Rawson, Katherine A.; Marsh, Elizabeth J.; Nathan, Mitchell J.; Willingham, Daniel T.", "year": 2013, "venue": "Psychological Science in the Public Interest", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266", "doi": "10.1177/1529100612453266", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:durkin-tnvpk", "title": "The development of place value concepts: Approximation before principles", "authorsOrInstitution": "Mix, Kelly S; Bower, Corinne A; Hancock, Gregory R; Yuan, Lei; Smith, Linda B", "year": 2022, "venue": "Child Development", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13724", "doi": "10.1111/cdev.13724", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:durlak-sel", "title": "The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions", "authorsOrInstitution": "Durlak, Joseph A; Weissberg, Roger P; Dymnicki, Allison B; Taylor, Rebecca D; Schellinger, Kriston B", "year": 2011, "venue": "Child Development", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:early-childhood-wwc", "title": "Preparing Young Children for School (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2022, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/30", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:early-math-nrc", "title": "Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood", "authorsOrInstitution": "National Academies Press", "year": 2009, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/12519", "doi": "10.17226/12519", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:early-math-wwc", "title": "Teaching Math to Young Children (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2013, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/PracticeGuide/18/Published", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:eccles-wigfield-2020", "title": "From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation", "authorsOrInstitution": "Eccles, Jacquelynne S.; Wigfield, Allan", "year": 2020, "venue": "Contemporary Educational Psychology", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859", "doi": "10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:education-life-work", "title": "Education for Life and Work", "authorsOrInstitution": "National Academies Press", "year": 2012, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/13398", "doi": "10.17226/13398", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:eef-toolkit", "title": "Teaching and Learning Toolkit", "authorsOrInstitution": "Education Endowment Foundation (UK)", "year": 2025, "venue": "EEF", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "unverified-host-blocks-automated-requests" } }, { "id": "source:ehri-phonics-meta", "title": "Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Ehri, Linnea C.; Nunes, Simone R.; Stahl, Steven A.; Willows, Dale M.", "year": 2001, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393", "doi": "10.3102/00346543071003393", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:el-stem-nasem", "title": "English Learners in STEM Subjects", "authorsOrInstitution": "Committee on Supporting English Learners in STEM Subjects; Board on Science Education; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine", "year": 2018, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/25182", "doi": "10.17226/25182", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:ell-wwc", "title": "Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2014, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/19", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:elleman-vocabulary", "title": "The Impact of Vocabulary Instruction on Passage-Level Comprehension of School-Age Children: A Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Elleman, Amy M.; Lindo, Endia J.; Morphy, Paul; Compton, Donald L.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200", "doi": "10.1080/19345740802539200", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:elliot-mcgregor", "title": "A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Elliot, Andrew J.; McGregor, Holly A.", "year": 2001, "venue": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501", "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:english-learners-nasem", "title": "Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English", "authorsOrInstitution": "Committee on Fostering School Success for English Learners: Toward New Directions in Policy, Practice, and Research; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Health and Medicine Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine", "year": 2017, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/24677", "doi": "10.17226/24677", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:ericsson-deliberate-practice", "title": "The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Ericsson, K. Anders; Krampe, Ralf T.; Tesch-Römer, Clemens", "year": 1993, "venue": "Psychological Review", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363", "doi": "10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:feedback-meta", "title": "The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kluger, Avraham N.; DeNisi, Angelo", "year": 1996, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254", "doi": "10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:filges-class-size", "title": "Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools: a systematic review", "authorsOrInstitution": "Filges, Trine; Sonne‐Schmidt, Christoffer Scavenius; Nielsen, Bjørn Christian Viinholt", "year": 2018, "venue": "Campbell Systematic Reviews", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.10", "doi": "10.4073/csr.2018.10", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:flore-stereotype-meta", "title": "Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Flore, Paulette C.; Wicherts, Jelte M.", "year": 2015, "venue": "Journal of School Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002", "doi": "10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:formative-critique", "title": "Formative assessment: a critical review", "authorsOrInstitution": "Bennett, Randy Elliot", "year": 2011, "venue": "Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678", "doi": "10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:formative-review", "title": "Assessment and Classroom Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Black, Paul; Wiliam, Dylan", "year": 1998, "venue": "Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102", "doi": "10.1080/0969595980050102", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:fredricks-engagement", "title": "School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence", "authorsOrInstitution": "Fredricks, Jennifer A; Blumenfeld, Phyllis C; Paris, Alison H", "year": 2004, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059", "doi": "10.3102/00346543074001059", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:freeman-active-learning", "title": "Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics", "authorsOrInstitution": "Freeman, Scott, et al.", "year": 2014, "venue": "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111", "doi": "10.1073/pnas.1319030111", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:fuchs-rti", "title": "Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?", "authorsOrInstitution": "FUCHS, DOUGLAS; FUCHS, LYNN S.", "year": 2006, "venue": "Reading Research Quarterly", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4", "doi": "10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:furtak-inquiry", "title": "Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching", "authorsOrInstitution": "Furtak, Erin Marie; Seidel, Tina; Iverson, Heidi; Briggs, Derek C.", "year": 2012, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206", "doi": "10.3102/0034654312457206", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:fyfe-concreteness-fading", "title": "Concreteness Fading in Mathematics and Science Instruction: a Systematic Review", "authorsOrInstitution": "Fyfe, Emily R.; McNeil, Nicole M.; Son, Ji Y.; Goldstone, Robert L.", "year": 2014, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:garrison-coi", "title": "Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education", "authorsOrInstitution": "Garrison, D.Randy; Anderson, Terry; Archer, Walter", "year": 1999, "venue": "The Internet and Higher Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6", "doi": "10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:gentner-analogical", "title": "Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Gentner, Dedre; Loewenstein, Jeffrey; Thompson, Leigh", "year": 2003, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393", "doi": "10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:ginns-modality", "title": "Meta-analysis of the modality effect", "authorsOrInstitution": "Ginns, Paul", "year": 2005, "venue": "Learning and Instruction", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001", "doi": "10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:goldin-meadow-gesture", "title": "Gesturing Gives Children New Ideas About Math", "authorsOrInstitution": "Goldin-Meadow, Susan; Cook, Susan Wagner; Mitchell, Zachary A.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Psychological Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02297.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02297.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:graham-elementary-writing", "title": "A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Graham, Steve; McKeown, Debra; Kiuhara, Sharlene; Harris, Karen R.", "year": 2012, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185", "doi": "10.1037/a0029185", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:graham-perin-writing", "title": "A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Graham, Steve; Perin, Dolores", "year": 2007, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445", "doi": "10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:growth-mindset-meta", "title": "Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Macnamara, Brooke N.; Burgoyne, Alexander P.", "year": 2023, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000352", "doi": "10.1037/bul0000352", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:guided-play-review", "title": "Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Skene, Kayleigh; O’Farrelly, Christine M; Byrne, Elizabeth M; Kirby, Natalie; Stevens, Eloise C; Ramchandani, Paul G", "year": 2022, "venue": "Child Development", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13730", "doi": "10.1111/cdev.13730", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hannay-pair-programming", "title": "The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hannay, Jo E.; Dybå, Tore; Arisholm, Erik; Sjøberg, Dag I.K.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Information and Software Technology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001", "doi": "10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hattie-donoghue-model", "title": "Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hattie, John A C; Donoghue, Gregory M", "year": 2016, "venue": "npj Science of Learning", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13", "doi": "10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hattie-study-skills", "title": "Effects of Learning Skills Interventions on Student Learning: A Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hattie, John; Biggs, John; Purdie, Nola", "year": 1996, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002099", "doi": "10.3102/00346543066002099", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hattie-timperley-feedback", "title": "The Power of Feedback", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hattie, John; Timperley, Helen", "year": 2007, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487", "doi": "10.3102/003465430298487", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:heckman-perry", "title": "The rate of return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program", "authorsOrInstitution": "Heckman, James J.; Moon, Seong Hyeok; Pinto, Rodrigo; Savelyev, Peter A.; Yavitz, Adam", "year": 2010, "venue": "Journal of Public Economics", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.001", "doi": "10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.001", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hertzog-enrichment", "title": "Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hertzog, Christopher; Kramer, Arthur F.; Wilson, Robert S.; Lindenberger, Ulman", "year": 2008, "venue": "Psychological Science in the Public Interest", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01034.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01034.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hidi-renninger", "title": "The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hidi, Suzanne; Renninger, K. Ann", "year": 2006, "venue": "Educational Psychologist", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4", "doi": "10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hmelo-silver-pbl", "title": "Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E.", "year": 2004, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3", "doi": "10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:honicke-broadbent", "title": "The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review", "authorsOrInstitution": "Honicke, Toni; Broadbent, Jaclyn", "year": 2016, "venue": "Educational Research Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002", "doi": "10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hoover-gough-svr", "title": "The simple view of reading", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hoover, Wesley A.; Gough, Philip B.", "year": 1990, "venue": "Reading and Writing", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799", "doi": "10.1007/BF00401799", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:howard-jones-neuromyths", "title": "Neuroscience and education: myths and messages", "authorsOrInstitution": "Howard-Jones, Paul A.", "year": 2014, "venue": "Nature Reviews Neuroscience", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817", "doi": "10.1038/nrn3817", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hpl1", "title": "How People Learn", "authorsOrInstitution": "National Academies Press", "year": 2000, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/9853", "doi": "10.17226/9853", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hpl2", "title": "How People Learn II", "authorsOrInstitution": "Committee on How People Learn II: The Science and Practice of Learning; Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine", "year": 2018, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/24783", "doi": "10.17226/24783", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:hulleman-utility-value", "title": "Promoting Interest and Performance in High School Science Classes", "authorsOrInstitution": "Hulleman, Chris S.; Harackiewicz, Judith M.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177067", "doi": "10.1126/science.1177067", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:icap", "title": "The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes", "authorsOrInstitution": "Chi, Michelene T. H.; Wylie, Ruth", "year": 2014, "venue": "Educational Psychologist", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823", "doi": "10.1080/00461520.2014.965823", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:ies-study", "title": "Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Pashler, H.; Bain, P.; Bottge, B.; Graesser, A.; Koedinger, K.; McDaniel, M.; Metcalfe, J. / Institute of Education Sciences", "year": 2007, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/1", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:interleaving-meta", "title": "Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Brunmair, Matthias; Richter, Tobias", "year": 2019, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000209", "doi": "10.1037/bul0000209", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:jitendra-schema", "title": "Improving at-risk learners’ understanding of fractions.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Fuchs, Lynn S., et al.", "year": 2013, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032446", "doi": "10.1037/a0032446", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:johnson-cooperative", "title": "An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Johnson, David W.; Johnson, Roger T.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Educational Researcher", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057", "doi": "10.3102/0013189X09339057", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:jonsson-rubrics", "title": "The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences", "authorsOrInstitution": "Jonsson, Anders; Svingby, Gunilla", "year": 2007, "venue": "Educational Research Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002", "doi": "10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:jussim-harber", "title": "Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Knowns and Unknowns, Resolved and Unresolved Controversies", "authorsOrInstitution": "Jussim, Lee; Harber, Kent D.", "year": 2005, "venue": "Personality and Social Psychology Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3", "doi": "10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal", "title": "The Expertise Reversal Effect", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kalyuga, Slava; Ayres, Paul; Chandler, Paul; Sweller, John", "year": 2003, "venue": "Educational Psychologist", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4", "doi": "10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:karpicke-blunt", "title": "Retrieval Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping", "authorsOrInstitution": "Karpicke, Jeffrey D.; Blunt, Janell R.", "year": 2011, "venue": "Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327", "doi": "10.1126/science.1199327", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kerfoot-spaced-education", "title": "Can student tutors act as examiners in an objective structured clinical examination?", "authorsOrInstitution": "Chenot, Jean‐François, et al.", "year": 2007, "venue": "Medical Education", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02895.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02895.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kingston-nash-formative", "title": "Formative Assessment: A Meta-Analysis and a Call for Research", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kingston, Neal; Nash, Brooke", "year": 2011, "venue": "Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kirschner-digital-native", "title": "The myths of the digital native and the multitasker", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kirschner, Paul A.; De Bruyckere, Pedro", "year": 2017, "venue": "Teaching and Teacher Education", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001", "doi": "10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance", "title": "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kirschner, Paul A.; Sweller, John; Clark, Richard E.", "year": 2006, "venue": "Educational Psychologist", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1", "doi": "10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kirschner-urban-legends", "title": "Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kirschner, Paul A.; van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G.", "year": 2013, "venue": "Educational Psychologist", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395", "doi": "10.1080/00461520.2013.804395", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kizilcec-mooc-srl", "title": "Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kizilcec, René F.; Pérez-Sanagustín, Mar; Maldonado, Jorge J.", "year": 2017, "venue": "Computers & Education", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001", "doi": "10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kli-framework", "title": "The Knowledge‐Learning‐Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science‐Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Koedinger, Kenneth R.; Corbett, Albert T.; Perfetti, Charles", "year": 2012, "venue": "Cognitive Science", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kornell-bjork-interleaving", "title": "Learning Concepts and Categories", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kornell, Nate; Bjork, Robert A.", "year": 2008, "venue": "Psychological Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:korpershoek-classroom-management", "title": "A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Classroom Management Strategies and Classroom Management Programs on Students’ Academic, Behavioral, Emotional, and Motivational Outcomes", "authorsOrInstitution": "Korpershoek, Hanke; Harms, Truus; de Boer, Hester; van Kuijk, Mechteld; Doolaard, Simone", "year": 2016, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799", "doi": "10.3102/0034654315626799", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kraft-coaching", "title": "The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kraft, Matthew A.; Blazar, David; Hogan, Dylan", "year": 2018, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268", "doi": "10.3102/0034654318759268", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:krathwohl-taxonomy", "title": "A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview", "authorsOrInstitution": "Krathwohl, David R.", "year": 2002, "venue": "Theory Into Practice", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2", "doi": "10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kulik-fletcher-its", "title": "Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kulik, James A.; Fletcher, J. D.", "year": 2016, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420", "doi": "10.3102/0034654315581420", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kulik-mastery", "title": "Effectiveness of Mastery Learning Programs: A Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kulik, Chen-Lin C.; Kulik, James A.; Bangert-Drowns, Robert L.", "year": 1990, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060002265", "doi": "10.3102/00346543060002265", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:kullberg-variation", "title": "What is made possible to learn when using the variation theory of learning in teaching mathematics?", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kullberg, Angelika; Runesson Kempe, Ulla; Marton, Ference", "year": 2017, "venue": "ZDM", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0858-4", "doi": "10.1007/s11858-017-0858-4", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:lazonder-harmsen", "title": "Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Lazonder, Ard W.; Harmsen, Ruth", "year": 2016, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366", "doi": "10.3102/0034654315627366", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:learning-styles", "title": "Learning Styles", "authorsOrInstitution": "Pashler, Harold; McDaniel, Mark; Rohrer, Doug; Bjork, Robert", "year": 2008, "venue": "Psychological Science in the Public Interest", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:li-corrective-feedback", "title": "The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta‐Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Li, Shaofeng", "year": 2010, "venue": "Language Learning", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:lillard-montessori", "title": "Montessori Preschool Elevates and Equalizes Child Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study", "authorsOrInstitution": "Lillard, Angeline S.; Heise, Megan J.; Richey, Eve M.; Tong, Xin; Hart, Alyssa; Bray, Paige M.", "year": 2017, "venue": "Frontiers in Psychology", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783", "doi": "10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:literacy-wwc", "title": "Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2016, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/PracticeGuide/21/Published", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:locke-latham-goals", "title": "Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Locke, Edwin A.; Latham, Gary P.", "year": 2002, "venue": "American Psychologist", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705", "doi": "10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:ma-its-meta", "title": "Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Ma, Wenting; Adesope, Olusola O.; Nesbit, John C.; Liu, Qing", "year": 2014, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037123", "doi": "10.1037/a0037123", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:madigan-screen-time", "title": "Association Between Screen Time and Children’s Performance on a Developmental Screening Test", "authorsOrInstitution": "Madigan, Sheri; Browne, Dillon; Racine, Nicole; Mori, Camille; Tough, Suzanne", "year": 2019, "venue": "JAMA Pediatrics", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5056", "doi": "10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5056", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:marulis-vocabulary", "title": "The Effects of Vocabulary Intervention on Young Children’s Word Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Marulis, Loren M.; Neuman, Susan B.", "year": 2010, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310377087", "doi": "10.3102/0034654310377087", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:math-intervention-wwc", "title": "Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Intervention in the Elementary Grades (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2021, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide/26", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:mayer-moreno-load", "title": "Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Mayer, Richard E.; Moreno, Roxana", "year": 2003, "venue": "Educational Psychologist", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6", "doi": "10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:mayer-multimedia-2017", "title": "Using multimedia for e‐learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Mayer, R.E.", "year": 2017, "venue": "Journal of Computer Assisted Learning", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197", "doi": "10.1111/jcal.12197", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:mcgaghie-simulation", "title": "Does Simulation-Based Medical Education With Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence", "authorsOrInstitution": "McGaghie, William C.; Issenberg, S. Barry; Cohen, Elaine R.; Barsuk, Jeffrey H.; Wayne, Diane B.", "year": 2011, "venue": "Academic Medicine", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119", "doi": "10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e119", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:melby-lervag-wm-training", "title": "Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Melby-Lervåg, Monica; Hulme, Charles", "year": 2013, "venue": "Developmental Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028228", "doi": "10.1037/a0028228", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:merriam-adult-theory", "title": "Andragogy and Self‐Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Learning Theory", "authorsOrInstitution": "Merriam, Sharan B.", "year": 2001, "venue": "New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.3", "doi": "10.1002/ace.3", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:metacognition-meta", "title": "Long-term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on student academic performance: A meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "de Boer, Hester; Donker, Anouk S.; Kostons, Danny D.N.M.; van der Werf, Greetje P.C.", "year": 2018, "venue": "Educational Research Review", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.002", "doi": "10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.002", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:metcalfe-errors", "title": "Learning from Errors", "authorsOrInstitution": "Metcalfe, Janet", "year": 2017, "venue": "Annual Review of Psychology", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022", "doi": "10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:meyer-threshold", "title": "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Meyer, Jan H. F.; Land, Ray", "year": 2005, "venue": "Higher Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5", "doi": "10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:mezirow-transformative", "title": "Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice", "authorsOrInstitution": "Mezirow, Jack", "year": 1997, "venue": "New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401", "doi": "10.1002/ace.7401", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:mishra-tpack", "title": "Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge", "authorsOrInstitution": "Mishra, Punya; Koehler, Matthew J.", "year": 2006, "venue": "Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:mol-dialogic-meta", "title": "Added Value of Dialogic Parent–Child Book Readings: A Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Mol, Suzanne E.; Bus, Adriana G.; de Jong, Maria T.; Smeets, Daisy J. H.", "year": 2008, "venue": "Early Education and Development", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701838603", "doi": "10.1080/10409280701838603", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:morehead-replication", "title": "Note-taking habits of 21st Century college students: implications for student learning, memory, and achievement", "authorsOrInstitution": "Morehead, Kayla; Dunlosky, John; Rawson, Katherine A.; Blasiman, Rachael; Hollis, R. Benjamin", "year": 2019, "venue": "Memory", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1569694", "doi": "10.1080/09658211.2019.1569694", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:motivation-meta", "title": "A systematic review and meta-analysis of self-determination-theory-based interventions in the education context", "authorsOrInstitution": "Wang, Yurou; Wang, Hui; Wang, Shengnan; Wind, Stefanie A.; Gill, Christopher", "year": 2024, "venue": "Learning and Motivation", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102015", "doi": "10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102015", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:mueller-oppenheimer", "title": "The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard", "authorsOrInstitution": "Mueller, Pam A.; Oppenheimer, Daniel M.", "year": 2014, "venue": "Psychological Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581", "doi": "10.1177/0956797614524581", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:nesbit-concept-mapping", "title": "Learning With Concept and Knowledge Maps: A Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Nesbit, John C.; Adesope, Olusola O.", "year": 2006, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003413", "doi": "10.3102/00346543076003413", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:nicol-macfarlane", "title": "Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice", "authorsOrInstitution": "Nicol, David J.; Macfarlane‐Dick, Debra", "year": 2006, "venue": "Studies in Higher Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090", "doi": "10.1080/03075070600572090", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:norris-ortega", "title": "Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta‐analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Norris, John M.; Ortega, Lourdes", "year": 2000, "venue": "Language Learning", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136", "doi": "10.1111/0023-8333.00136", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:nrp", "title": "Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read", "authorsOrInstitution": "National Reading Panel / National Institute of Child Health and Human Development", "year": 2000, "venue": "NICHD", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/product/247", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:nye-teacher-effects", "title": "How Large Are Teacher Effects?", "authorsOrInstitution": "Nye, Barbara; Konstantopoulos, Spyros; Hedges, Larry V.", "year": 2004, "venue": "Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026003237", "doi": "10.3102/01623737026003237", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:oecd-piaac", "title": "Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)", "year": 2024, "venue": "OECD", "type": "framework", "url": "https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/piaac.html", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "unverified-host-blocks-automated-requests" } }, { "id": "source:ophir-multitasking", "title": "Cognitive control in media multitaskers", "authorsOrInstitution": "Ophir, Eyal; Nass, Clifford; Wagner, Anthony D.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106", "doi": "10.1073/pnas.0903620106", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:osborne-argumentation", "title": "Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science", "authorsOrInstitution": "Osborne, Jonathan; Erduran, Sibel; Simon, Shirley", "year": 2004, "venue": "Journal of Research in Science Teaching", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035", "doi": "10.1002/tea.20035", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:paas-vanmerrienboer-2020", "title": "Cognitive-Load Theory: Methods to Manage Working Memory Load in the Learning of Complex Tasks", "authorsOrInstitution": "Paas, Fred; van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G.", "year": 2020, "venue": "Current Directions in Psychological Science", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183", "doi": "10.1177/0963721420922183", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:palincsar-brown", "title": "Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities", "authorsOrInstitution": "Palinscar, Aannemarie Sullivan; Brown, Ann L.", "year": 1984, "venue": "Cognition and Instruction", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1", "doi": "10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:pan-rickard-transfer", "title": "Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Pan, Steven C.; Rickard, Timothy C.", "year": 2018, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000151", "doi": "10.1037/bul0000151", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:panadero-self-assessment", "title": "Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses", "authorsOrInstitution": "Panadero, Ernesto; Jonsson, Anders; Botella, Juan", "year": 2017, "venue": "Educational Research Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004", "doi": "10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:posner-conceptual-change", "title": "Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change", "authorsOrInstitution": "Posner, George J.; Strike, Kenneth A.; Hewson, Peter W.; Gertzog, William A.", "year": 1982, "venue": "Science Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207", "doi": "10.1002/sce.3730660207", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:postsecondary-tech-wwc", "title": "Using Technology to Support Postsecondary Student Learning (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2018, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/25", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:preschool-science-nasem", "title": "Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades", "authorsOrInstitution": "Committee on Enhancing Science and Engineering in Prekindergarten Through Fifth Grades; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine", "year": 2022, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/26215", "doi": "10.17226/26215", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:productive-failure-meta", "title": "When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure", "authorsOrInstitution": "Sinha, Tanmay; Kapur, Manu", "year": 2021, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105", "doi": "10.3102/00346543211019105", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:reading-comprehension-wwc", "title": "Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2010, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/14", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:reading-intervention-wwc", "title": "Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4-9 (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2022, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/29", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:recht-leslie", "title": "Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Recht, Donna R.; Leslie, Lauren", "year": 1988, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16", "doi": "10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:reich-mooc", "title": "The MOOC pivot", "authorsOrInstitution": "Reich, Justin; Ruipérez-Valiente, José A.", "year": 2019, "venue": "Science", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958", "doi": "10.1126/science.aav7958", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:reisman-document-based", "title": "Reading Like a Historian: A Document-Based History Curriculum Intervention in Urban High Schools", "authorsOrInstitution": "Reisman, Avishag", "year": 2012, "venue": "Cognition and Instruction", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.634081", "doi": "10.1080/07370008.2011.634081", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:retrieval-meta", "title": "Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Yang, Chunliang; Luo, Liang; Vadillo, Miguel A.; Yu, Rongjun; Shanks, David R.", "year": 2021, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309", "doi": "10.1037/bul0000309", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:richland-pretesting", "title": "The roles of feature-specific task set and bottom-up salience in attentional capture: An ERP study.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Eimer, Martin; Kiss, Monika; Press, Clare; Sauter, Disa", "year": 2009, "venue": "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015872", "doi": "10.1037/a0015872", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:rittle-johnson-iterative", "title": "Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Rittle-Johnson, Bethany; Siegler, Robert S.; Alibali, Martha Wagner", "year": 2001, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346", "doi": "10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:rittle-johnson-star-comparison", "title": "Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Rittle-Johnson, Bethany; Star, Jon R.", "year": 2007, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.561", "doi": "10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.561", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:roediger-karpicke", "title": "Test-Enhanced Learning", "authorsOrInstitution": "Roediger, Henry L.; Karpicke, Jeffrey D.", "year": 2006, "venue": "Psychological Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:rohrer-taylor", "title": "The effects of overlearning and distributed practise on the retention of mathematics knowledge", "authorsOrInstitution": "Rohrer, Doug; Taylor, Kelli", "year": 2006, "venue": "Applied Cognitive Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1266", "doi": "10.1002/acp.1266", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:roorda-relationships", "title": "The Influence of Affective Teacher–Student Relationships on Students’ School Engagement and Achievement", "authorsOrInstitution": "Roorda, Debora L.; Koomen, Helma M. Y.; Spilt, Jantine L.; Oort, Frans J.", "year": 2011, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793", "doi": "10.3102/0034654311421793", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:rosenshine-principles", "title": "Principles of Instruction: Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know", "authorsOrInstitution": "Rosenshine, Barak", "year": 2012, "venue": "American Educator", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Rosenshine.pdf", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:rosenshine-reciprocal", "title": "Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research", "authorsOrInstitution": "Rosenshine, Barak; Meister, Carla", "year": 1994, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064004479", "doi": "10.3102/00346543064004479", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:roseth-cooperative", "title": "Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Roseth, Cary J.; Johnson, David W.; Johnson, Roger T.", "year": 2008, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223", "doi": "10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:rowe-wait-time", "title": "Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be A Way of Speeding Up!", "authorsOrInstitution": "Rowe, Mary Budd", "year": 1986, "venue": "Journal of Teacher Education", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718603700110", "doi": "10.1177/002248718603700110", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:rowland-testing-meta", "title": "The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Rowland, Christopher A.", "year": 2014, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559", "doi": "10.1037/a0037559", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:rutten-simulations", "title": "The learning effects of computer simulations in science education", "authorsOrInstitution": "Rutten, Nico; van Joolingen, Wouter R.; van der Veen, Jan T.", "year": 2012, "venue": "Computers & Education", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017", "doi": "10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:ryan-deci-sdt", "title": "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Ryan, Richard M.; Deci, Edward L.", "year": 2000, "venue": "American Psychologist", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68", "doi": "10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:sadler-formative", "title": "Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems", "authorsOrInstitution": "Sadler, D. Royce", "year": 1989, "venue": "Instructional Science", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714", "doi": "10.1007/BF00117714", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:sailer-gamification", "title": "The Gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Sailer, Michael; Homner, Lisa", "year": 2019, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:sala-gobet-music", "title": "Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Sala, Giovanni; Gobet, Fernand", "year": 2020, "venue": "Memory & Cognition", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2", "doi": "10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:salthouse-aging", "title": "What and When of Cognitive Aging", "authorsOrInstitution": "Salthouse, Timothy A.", "year": 2004, "venue": "Current Directions in Psychological Science", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00293.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00293.x", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:scaffolding-review", "title": "Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research", "authorsOrInstitution": "van de Pol, Janneke; Volman, Monique; Beishuizen, Jos", "year": 2010, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:scherer-computational-thinking", "title": "The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Scherer, Ronny; Siddiq, Fazilat; Sánchez Viveros, Bárbara", "year": 2019, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000314", "doi": "10.1037/edu0000314", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:schwartz-martin-invention", "title": "Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning: The Hidden Efficiency of Encouraging Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction", "authorsOrInstitution": "Schwartz, Daniel L.; Martin, Taylor", "year": 2004, "venue": "Cognition and Instruction", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1", "doi": "10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:science-framework", "title": "A Framework for K-12 Science Education", "authorsOrInstitution": "National Academies Press", "year": 2012, "venue": "National Academies Press", "type": "consensus-report", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17226/13165", "doi": "10.17226/13165", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:senechal-lefevre", "title": "Parental Involvement in the Development of Children’s Reading Skill: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study", "authorsOrInstitution": "Sénéchal, Monique; LeFevre, Jo-Anne", "year": 2002, "venue": "Child Development", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00417", "doi": "10.1111/1467-8624.00417", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:shanahan-disciplinary", "title": "Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents: Rethinking Content- Area Literacy", "authorsOrInstitution": "SHANAHAN, TIMOTHY; SHANAHAN, CYNTHIA", "year": 2008, "venue": "Harvard Educational Review", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101", "doi": "10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:shea-morgan-contextual", "title": "Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Shea, John B.; Morgan, Robyn L.", "year": 1979, "venue": "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179", "doi": "10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:shute-formative-feedback", "title": "Focus on Formative Feedback", "authorsOrInstitution": "Shute, Valerie J.", "year": 2008, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795", "doi": "10.3102/0034654307313795", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:siegler-ramani-games", "title": "Playing linear number board games—but not circular ones—improves low-income preschoolers’ numerical understanding.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Siegler, Robert S.; Ramani, Geetha B.", "year": 2009, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014239", "doi": "10.1037/a0014239", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:simons-brain-training", "title": "Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work?", "authorsOrInstitution": "Simons, Daniel J., et al.", "year": 2016, "venue": "Psychological Science in the Public Interest", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983", "doi": "10.1177/1529100616661983", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:sirin-ses-meta", "title": "Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research", "authorsOrInstitution": "Sirin, Selcuk R.", "year": 2005, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417", "doi": "10.3102/00346543075003417", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:sisk-mindset-meta", "title": "To What Extent and Under Which Circumstances Are Growth Mind-Sets Important to Academic Achievement? Two Meta-Analyses", "authorsOrInstitution": "Sisk, Victoria F.; Burgoyne, Alexander P.; Sun, Jingze; Butler, Jennifer L.; Macnamara, Brooke N.", "year": 2018, "venue": "Psychological Science", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704", "doi": "10.1177/0956797617739704", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:slamecka-generation", "title": "The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Slamecka, Norman J.; Graf, Peter", "year": 1978, "venue": "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592", "doi": "10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:smith-misconceptions", "title": "Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition", "authorsOrInstitution": "Smith III, John P.; diSessa, Andrea A.; Roschelle, Jeremy", "year": 1994, "venue": "Journal of the Learning Sciences", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1", "doi": "10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:soderstrom-bjork", "title": "Learning Versus Performance", "authorsOrInstitution": "Soderstrom, Nicholas C.; Bjork, Robert A.", "year": 2015, "venue": "Perspectives on Psychological Science", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000", "doi": "10.1177/1745691615569000", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:spacing-meta", "title": "Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Cepeda, Nicholas J.; Pashler, Harold; Vul, Edward; Wixted, John T.; Rohrer, Doug", "year": 2006, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354", "doi": "10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:springer-small-group", "title": "Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "Springer, Leonard; Stanne, Mary Elizabeth; Donovan, Samuel S.", "year": 1999, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021", "doi": "10.3102/00346543069001021", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:steele-aronson", "title": "Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Steele, Claude M.; Aronson, Joshua", "year": 1995, "venue": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797", "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:steenbergen-grouping", "title": "What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement", "authorsOrInstitution": "Steenbergen-Hu, Saiying; Makel, Matthew C.; Olszewski-Kubilius, Paula", "year": 2016, "venue": "Review of Educational Research", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417", "doi": "10.3102/0034654316675417", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:sweller-1988", "title": "The Processes of Scientific Discovery: The Strategy of Experimentation", "authorsOrInstitution": "Kulkarni, Deepak; Simon, Herbert A.", "year": 1988, "venue": "Cognitive Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_1", "doi": "10.1207/s15516709cog1202_1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:taylor-sel-followup", "title": "Promoting Positive Youth Development Through School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of Follow-Up Effects", "authorsOrInstitution": "Taylor, Rebecca D; Oberle, Eva; Durlak, Joseph A; Weissberg, Roger P", "year": 2017, "venue": "Child Development", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864", "doi": "10.1111/cdev.12864", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:testing-standards", "title": "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing", "authorsOrInstitution": "American Educational Research Association; American Psychological Association; National Council on Measurement in Education", "year": 2014, "venue": "AERA/APA/NCME", "type": "professional-standard", "url": "https://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/standards", "authority": "normative-standard", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:theobald-active-equity", "title": "Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math", "authorsOrInstitution": "Theobald, Elli J., et al.", "year": 2020, "venue": "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117", "doi": "10.1073/pnas.1916903117", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:therrien-repeated-reading", "title": "Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated Reading", "authorsOrInstitution": "Therrien, William J.", "year": 2004, "venue": "Remedial and Special Education", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801", "doi": "10.1177/07419325040250040801", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:transfer-taxonomy", "title": "When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Barnett, Susan M.; Ceci, Stephen J.", "year": 2002, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612", "doi": "10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:udl-guidelines", "title": "Universal Design for Learning Guidelines 3.0", "authorsOrInstitution": "CAST", "year": 2024, "venue": "CAST", "type": "framework", "url": "https://udlguidelines.cast.org/", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:udl-review", "title": "Unraveling Challenges with the Implementation of Universal Design for Learning: A Systematic Literature Review", "authorsOrInstitution": "Zhang, Ling; Carter, Richard Allen; Greene, Jeffrey A.; Bernacki, Matthew L.", "year": 2024, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:umapathy-pair-programming", "title": "A Meta-Analysis of Pair-Programming in Computer Programming Courses", "authorsOrInstitution": "Umapathy, Karthikeyan; Ritzhaupt, Albert D.", "year": 2017, "venue": "ACM Transactions on Computing Education", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1145/2996201", "doi": "10.1145/2996201", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:unesco-inclusion", "title": "Inclusion in education", "authorsOrInstitution": "UNESCO", "year": 2024, "venue": "UNESCO", "type": "framework", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/inclusion-education", "authority": "institutional-consensus", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:uttal-spatial-training", "title": "The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Uttal, David H., et al.", "year": 2013, "venue": "Psychological Bulletin", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446", "doi": "10.1037/a0028446", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:vanalten-flipped", "title": "Effects of flipping the classroom on learning outcomes and satisfaction: A meta-analysis", "authorsOrInstitution": "van Alten, David C.D.; Phielix, Chris; Janssen, Jeroen; Kester, Liesbeth", "year": 2019, "venue": "Educational Research Review", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003", "doi": "10.1016/j.edurev.2019.05.003", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:vanlehn-tutoring", "title": "The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems", "authorsOrInstitution": "VanLEHN, KURT", "year": 2011, "venue": "Educational Psychologist", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.611369", "doi": "10.1080/00461520.2011.611369", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:vosniadou-conceptual-change", "title": "Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change", "authorsOrInstitution": "Vosniadou, Stella", "year": 1994, "venue": "Learning and Instruction", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3", "doi": "10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:walton-cohen-belonging", "title": "A Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students", "authorsOrInstitution": "Walton, Gregory M.; Cohen, Geoffrey L.", "year": 2011, "venue": "Science", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364", "doi": "10.1126/science.1198364", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:wang-degol-climate", "title": "School Climate: a Review of the Construct, Measurement, and Impact on Student Outcomes", "authorsOrInstitution": "Wang, Ming-Te; Degol, Jessica L.", "year": 2015, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:waterhouse-mi-critique", "title": "Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review", "authorsOrInstitution": "Waterhouse, Lynn", "year": 2006, "venue": "Educational Psychologist", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1", "doi": "10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:wcag22", "title": "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2", "authorsOrInstitution": "World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)", "year": 2023, "venue": "W3C Recommendation", "type": "professional-standard", "url": "https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/", "authority": "normative-standard", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:weisberg-guided-play", "title": "Guided Play: Where Curricular Goals Meet a Playful Pedagogy", "authorsOrInstitution": "Weisberg, Deena Skolnick; Hirsh‐Pasek, Kathy; Golinkoff, Roberta Michnick", "year": 2013, "venue": "Mind, Brain, and Education", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12015", "doi": "10.1111/mbe.12015", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:wheaton-school-start", "title": "School Start Times, Sleep, Behavioral, Health, and Academic Outcomes: A Review of the Literature", "authorsOrInstitution": "Wheaton, Anne G.; Chapman, Daniel P.; Croft, Janet B.", "year": 2016, "venue": "Journal of School Health", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12388", "doi": "10.1111/josh.12388", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:whitehurst-dialogic", "title": "Accelerating language development through picture book reading.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Whitehurst, G. J., et al.", "year": 1988, "venue": "Developmental Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552", "doi": "10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:wiliam-assessment", "title": "What is assessment for learning?", "authorsOrInstitution": "Wiliam, Dylan", "year": 2011, "venue": "Studies in Educational Evaluation", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001", "doi": "10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:willingham-learning-styles", "title": "The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories", "authorsOrInstitution": "Willingham, Daniel T.; Hughes, Elizabeth M.; Dobolyi, David G.", "year": 2015, "venue": "Teaching of Psychology", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505", "doi": "10.1177/0098628315589505", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:wineburg-historical", "title": "Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Wineburg, Samuel S.", "year": 1991, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73", "doi": "10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:winstein-schmidt", "title": "Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Winstein, Carolee J.; Schmidt, Richard A.", "year": 1990, "venue": "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.677", "doi": "10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.677", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:wisniewski-feedback-meta", "title": "The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research", "authorsOrInstitution": "Wisniewski, Benedikt; Zierer, Klaus; Hattie, John", "year": 2020, "venue": "Frontiers in Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087", "doi": "10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:worked-examples-meta", "title": "A Meta-analysis of the Worked Examples Effect on Mathematics Performance", "authorsOrInstitution": "Barbieri, Christina Areizaga; Miller-Cotto, Dana; Clerjuste, Sarah N.; Chawla, Kamal", "year": 2023, "venue": "Educational Psychology Review", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09745-1", "doi": "10.1007/s10648-023-09745-1", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:wouters-serious-games", "title": "A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games.", "authorsOrInstitution": "Wouters, Pieter; van Nimwegen, Christof; van Oostendorp, Herre; van der Spek, Erik D.", "year": 2013, "venue": "Journal of Educational Psychology", "type": "meta-analysis", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311", "doi": "10.1037/a0031311", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:writing-wwc", "title": "Teaching Secondary Students to Write Effectively (IES Practice Guide)", "authorsOrInstitution": "Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse", "year": 2016, "venue": "What Works Clearinghouse", "type": "practice-guide", "url": "https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/PracticeGuide/22/Published", "authority": "institutional-evidence-synthesis", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "http-resolution", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:wulf-attentional-focus", "title": "Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years", "authorsOrInstitution": "Wulf, Gabriele", "year": 2013, "venue": "International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology", "type": "systematic-review", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728", "doi": "10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:yeager-national-mindset", "title": "A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement", "authorsOrInstitution": "Yeager, David S., et al.", "year": 2019, "venue": "Nature", "type": "primary-study", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y", "doi": "10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } }, { "id": "source:zimmerman-srl", "title": "Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview", "authorsOrInstitution": "Zimmerman, Barry J.", "year": 2002, "venue": "Theory Into Practice", "type": "framework", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2", "doi": "10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2", "authority": "primary-peer-reviewed", "provenanceCheck": { "method": "crossref-metadata", "checkedAt": "2026-08-30", "status": "verified" } } ], "entries": [ { "id": "pedagogy:academic-language-multilingual", "label": "Academic language integrated with content for multilingual learners", "aliases": [ "content and language integration", "academic vocabulary" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Provide repeated meaningful encounters and productive use of high-utility academic language within grade-level disciplinary content.", "mechanism": "Speaking, reading, and writing connect language forms to disciplinary concepts across multiple contexts and representations.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "content learning", "academic reading", "disciplinary writing" ], "contexts": [ "multilingual classroom", "content area" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Selected high-utility language", "Structured oral interaction", "Attention to home-language and cultural knowledge" ], "constraints": [ "Maintain access to grade-level ideas", "Distinguish language proficiency from content understanding" ], "risks": [ "Decontextualized vocabulary replacing content", "Deficit assumptions about multilingual learners", "Assessment language obscuring the construct" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Meaningful language use across modes and tasks", "measure": "Understanding and production in speaking, reading, writing, and novel content application", "timing": "Across repeated encounters and a new disciplinary task", "caveat": "English surface fluency is not a complete measure of disciplinary understanding" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "IES/WWC evidence-rated guidance supports intensive academic vocabulary and integrated oral and written language in content teaching.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Elementary and middle-school English learners; adapt to language histories and disciplines.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ell-wwc", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Build academic language through authentic disciplinary use while preserving content rigor and multilingual assets." }, "tags": [ "literacy", "multilingual", "language", "equity" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "multilingual", "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "access" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:accessibility-by-design", "label": "Accessibility by design", "aliases": [ "digital accessibility", "inclusive access" ], "kind": "constraint", "summary": "Make learning content and interaction perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust across sensory, motor, and cognitive access needs.", "mechanism": "Semantic structure, alternatives, captions, keyboard access, visible focus, contrast, and predictable interaction remove barriers before learning can occur.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult", "older-adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "digital learning", "media", "document", "assessment" ], "contexts": [ "web", "app", "slides", "remote learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Semantic structure", "Assistive-technology compatibility", "Human testing with affected users" ], "constraints": [ "WCAG conformance is a floor, not proof of usability or learning", "Retain individualized accommodations" ], "risks": [ "Automated conformance treated as completion", "Inaccessible fallback path", "Alternative format changing the construct" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Equivalent task access", "measure": "WCAG checks, keyboard and screen-reader completion, captions, errors, abandonment, and learner-reported barriers", "timing": "During design and after deployment", "caveat": "Accessibility enables participation but does not itself prove learning effectiveness" } ], "evidence": { "status": "normative-standard", "confidence": "high", "basis": "W3C international technical standard; learning gains require separate study.", "directness": "normative", "generalizability": "Digital content and interaction for all ages.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wcag22", "source:testing-standards" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Treat access as a prerequisite and verify with both conformance tests and real task completion." }, "tags": [ "accessibility", "digital", "standard", "equity" ], "classification": { "layer": "constraint", "traditions": [ "critical-equity", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "digital-environments", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:achievement-goal-orientation", "label": "Achievement goal orientation", "aliases": [ "mastery and performance goals", "2x2 achievement goals" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Learners pursue mastery or performance goals in approach or avoidance form, and these orientations predict different patterns of strategy use and response to difficulty.", "mechanism": "The goal a learner adopts determines what counts as success, and therefore whether difficulty is information or threat.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "climate", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "response to difficulty", "help seeking", "strategy choice" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "assessment systems", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A goal structure the environment actually signals", "Measurement of adopted rather than assigned goals" ], "constraints": [ "Performance-approach goals are not uniformly harmful", "Environmental goal structure and personal goals are distinct", "Effects on achievement are small and inconsistent" ], "risks": [ "Labelling learners by orientation", "Assuming mastery framing alone changes behaviour in a competitive system", "Reading avoidance as low ability" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Goal adoption and response to difficulty", "measure": "Validated goal scales plus observed help-seeking and persistence after failure", "timing": "During challenging work", "caveat": "Assessment and grading structures often override stated framing" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A well-developed measurement literature with consistent process findings and small, inconsistent achievement effects.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Mostly secondary and higher education self-report studies.", "sourceIds": [ "source:elliot-mcgregor", "source:eccles-wigfield-2020" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Change what the environment rewards before trying to change learner goal talk; never use as a learner label." }, "tags": [ "construct", "motivation", "climate", "learner-traits" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "label": "Actionable task- and process-focused feedback", "aliases": [ "formative feedback", "corrective feedback" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Give specific information about the current task or strategy and a usable next step, then allow the learner to act on it.", "mechanism": "Feedback reduces uncertainty about the gap between current and desired performance and can redirect strategy and monitoring.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "practice", "draft revision", "skill refinement" ], "contexts": [ "teacher feedback", "peer review", "adaptive system" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A clear goal or success criterion", "An authentic opportunity to revise or retry" ], "constraints": [ "Calibrate amount and timing", "Preserve the learner's next cognitive action" ], "risks": [ "Person-focused praise or blame", "Answer-giving that creates dependence", "Overload or interruption", "Assuming feedback is uniformly beneficial" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Feedback uptake and reduced repeated error", "measure": "Revision quality, next-task strategy, independent performance, and error recurrence", "timing": "On the next attempt and delayed transfer", "caveat": "Learner satisfaction is not a learning measure" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large meta-analytic evidence shows a positive average with substantial heterogeneity and documented negative effects.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad, but effects depend on attention target, information content, timing, and opportunity to act.", "sourceIds": [ "source:feedback-meta", "source:retrieval-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Strong candidate when it is informative, task-focused, proportionate, and followed by action." }, "tags": [ "general", "feedback", "revision", "practice" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "feedback" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:active-learning-stem", "label": "Active learning in postsecondary STEM", "aliases": [ "clicker questions", "peer instruction", "interactive engagement" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Replacing continuous lecture with structured student activity raises exam performance and cuts failure rates in undergraduate STEM courses, with larger relative gains for underrepresented students.", "mechanism": "Frequent required responses surface misconceptions during class, provide retrieval and feedback, and shift processing to the learner.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "science", "mathematics", "engineering-design", "computing" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback", "collaborate" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "concept mastery", "problem solving", "large-lecture instruction" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "large lecture", "laboratory" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Prepared conceptual questions or tasks", "A response mechanism for every student", "Instructor willingness to adapt on the spot" ], "constraints": [ "'Active' covers a wide range of designs of very different quality", "Publication bias likely inflates the average", "Learners often report learning less while learning more" ], "risks": [ "Labelling any group activity as active learning", "Abandoning the method because students rate it lower", "Reducing it to unstructured discussion" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Exam and concept-inventory performance and failure rate", "measure": "Common exams or validated concept inventories plus DFW rates, disaggregated by subgroup", "timing": "Across a term", "caveat": "Student satisfaction can move opposite to learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large meta-analyses of controlled comparisons in undergraduate STEM, plus a direct experiment showing perceived learning diverges from measured learning.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Undergraduate STEM in particular; the label covers heterogeneous designs.", "sourceIds": [ "source:freeman-active-learning", "source:theobald-active-equity", "source:deslauriers-feeling" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.47, "note": "Examination performance; failure rates about 1.5 times higher under lecturing. Achievement-gap reductions of roughly a third reported for underrepresented students." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Well-evidenced for undergraduate STEM; expect and pre-empt the perceived-learning dip." }, "tags": [ "method", "engagement", "equity", "practice" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:adolescent-agency", "label": "Adolescent agency, identity, and flexible pathways", "aliases": [ "youth agency", "identity-safe learning" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Offer adolescents meaningful bounded choices, supportive relationships, reflection, and pathways connected to interests, identity, and purpose.", "mechanism": "Increasing capacities for abstract reasoning, decision-making, and identity formation can be channeled by authentic agency and relational safety.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "adolescent", "emerging-adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "project", "transition", "goal setting", "community problem" ], "contexts": [ "secondary school", "community learning", "career exploration" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Authentic choices", "Safe supportive relationships", "Differentiated pace and access" ], "constraints": [ "Keep instruction and scaffolding available", "Respect within-age variability" ], "risks": [ "Token choice", "Treating adolescents only as risk", "Assuming independence without support", "Neuromyths" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Purposeful agency with learning progress", "measure": "Choice rationale, goal revision, belonging, persistence, decision quality, and project/reflection artifact", "timing": "Across a meaningful project or transition", "caveat": "Agency should not be inferred from compliance or option clicking" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "National Academies consensus recommendations; specific program effects remain implementation-dependent.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Roughly ages 10-25 with high individual and contextual variability.", "sourceIds": [ "source:adolescent-nasem", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Pair meaningful choice with relationships, competence support, and observable learning goals." }, "tags": [ "adolescent", "agency", "identity", "motivation" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "developmental", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:adolescent-reading-intervention", "label": "Reading intervention for older struggling readers", "aliases": [ "grades 4-9 reading intervention", "adolescent literacy support" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Older struggling readers benefit from targeted intervention that builds word recognition where needed while explicitly developing vocabulary, knowledge, and comprehension of complex text.", "mechanism": "Older learners' difficulties are heterogeneous, so effective intervention diagnoses the component profile and targets it rather than repeating primary-grade instruction.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "practice", "explain" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "decoding gaps in older learners", "comprehension of complex text", "vocabulary growth" ], "contexts": [ "intervention", "secondary classroom", "small group" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Component diagnosis before placement", "Age-appropriate materials", "Sufficient intensity and duration" ], "constraints": [ "Effects for older learners are typically smaller than for early intervention", "Motivation and identity issues are material at this age", "Multi-component programmes make attribution hard" ], "risks": [ "Infantilizing materials", "Assuming all older struggling readers need phonics", "Short low-intensity blocks with no measurable effect" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Component-matched growth", "measure": "Component diagnostics plus standardized comprehension, with attendance and intensity records", "timing": "Across the intervention period", "caveat": "Group-level gains can hide non-responders who need a different profile" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Evidence-rated practice guides for adolescent literacy and for grades 4-9 reading interventions.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Middle and secondary struggling readers in United States studies.", "sourceIds": [ "source:reading-intervention-wwc", "source:adolescent-literacy-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Diagnose the component profile first; do not default to either phonics or comprehension strategies for all older struggling readers." }, "tags": [ "method", "literacy", "intervention", "adolescent" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:adult-competency-frameworks", "label": "Adult competency frameworks and population skill data", "aliases": [ "PIAAC", "adult literacy and numeracy proficiency levels" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Large-scale adult competency assessments describe literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving proficiency across populations, and reveal that a substantial share of adults operate at low proficiency levels.", "mechanism": "Standardized proficiency scales make population-level skill distributions comparable and expose the gap between assumed and actual adult capability.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "professional-workplace", "literacy", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ], "functions": [ "assess", "diagnose", "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "programme targeting", "readability and design decisions", "policy analysis" ], "contexts": [ "policy", "workplace learning", "product design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Correct interpretation of proficiency levels", "Recognition that population data does not describe an individual" ], "constraints": [ "Population-level data cannot classify an individual", "Proficiency levels are constructed cut points, not natural categories", "Country comparisons carry substantial methodological caveats" ], "risks": [ "Designing adult materials for an assumed high proficiency", "Using population statistics to stereotype a group", "Reading proficiency levels as fixed capacity" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Design against realistic proficiency distributions", "measure": "Usability and comprehension testing with the actual target population", "timing": "During design", "caveat": "Designers systematically overestimate typical proficiency" } ], "evidence": { "status": "normative-standard", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A large international assessment programme providing standardized population proficiency data; descriptive rather than causal.", "directness": "normative", "generalizability": "Participating countries; population-level only.", "sourceIds": [ "source:oecd-piaac", "source:testing-standards" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use to calibrate design assumptions about adult materials; never to characterize an individual learner." }, "tags": [ "framework", "adult", "measurement", "access" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:adult-self-directed-learning", "label": "Supported adult self-directed learning", "aliases": [ "andragogy caution", "autonomous workplace learning" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Give adults meaningful control over goals and resources when readiness, domain knowledge, time, feedback, and workplace support make self-direction viable.", "mechanism": "Goal setting, resource selection, monitoring, and authentic application can align learning with professional needs, but these capacities are not guaranteed by age.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "adult", "older-adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "professional learning", "continuing education", "workplace problem" ], "contexts": [ "workplace", "health professions", "online course" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Sufficient domain and metacognitive skill", "Reliable resources", "Feedback", "Protected time", "Supportive work environment" ], "constraints": [ "Combine choice with scaffolds and access", "Measure workplace generalization and maintenance" ], "risks": [ "Assuming all adults are inherently self-directed", "Offloading instructional responsibility", "Ignoring culture, power, access, aging, or workplace climate" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Independent regulation and authentic transfer", "measure": "Goal quality, calibration, strategy and resource changes, objective skill, workplace behavior, and maintenance", "timing": "Across learning and later work performance", "caveat": "Satisfaction and completion alone do not establish learning or transfer" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "National Academies lifespan synthesis supports active engagement and self-regulation while warning that age, context, and support matter.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Adult and workplace learning; domain-specific intervention evidence is heterogeneous.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:metacognition-meta", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Route on readiness and context evidence, never adult age alone." }, "tags": [ "adult", "self-direction", "workplace", "metacognition" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "professional-workplace", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate", "motivate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:algebra-instruction-strategies", "label": "Algebra instruction: structure, solved problems, and strategy choice", "aliases": [ "algebraic structure instruction", "solved problem analysis" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Algebra learning improves when learners analyse solved problems, attend to the structure of expressions and equations, and deliberately choose among solution strategies.", "mechanism": "Studying solved problems shows the reasoning behind steps; structural attention supports valid transformations rather than memorized manipulations.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "equation solving", "expression manipulation", "algebraic reasoning" ], "contexts": [ "secondary classroom", "tutoring", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Arithmetic and rational-number foundations", "Solved problems with reasoning made visible", "Discussion of strategy choice" ], "constraints": [ "Comparing strategies requires a baseline foothold, or it overloads novices", "Structural language must be taught, not assumed", "Procedural drilling alone produces brittle transfer" ], "risks": [ "Strategy comparison before any strategy is secure", "Solved problems presented without discussion", "Memorized manipulation rules with no structural meaning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Structure-based reasoning and strategy choice", "measure": "Novel equation forms plus justification of chosen strategy", "timing": "Across the unit and at delay", "caveat": "Correct answers can be produced by pattern-matching the practised forms" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Evidence-rated practice guide for algebra with recommendations on solved problems, structure, and strategy choice.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Middle and secondary algebra in United States settings.", "sourceIds": [ "source:algebra-wwc", "source:worked-examples-meta", "source:rittle-johnson-star-comparison" ], "sourceLocators": [ { "sourceId": "source:algebra-wwc", "locator": "Recommendations on using solved problems and on teaching students to utilize structure (minimal to moderate evidence ratings)" } ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Sequence solved-problem analysis before strategy comparison; check that structure language is actually being used." }, "tags": [ "method", "mathematics", "example", "comparison" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:analogical-case-comparison", "label": "Analogical comparison of cases", "aliases": [ "case comparison", "structural alignment", "compare two examples" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Comparing two or more cases side by side and stating what they share promotes abstraction of the deep structure and later transfer.", "mechanism": "Structural alignment forces attention to relations rather than surface features, producing a more portable schema than a single case does.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "mathematics", "science", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "explain" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "principle abstraction", "transfer preparation", "negotiation and judgment training" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "professional education", "instructional materials" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "At least two cases sharing deep structure with different surfaces", "An explicit prompt to compare and state the commonality" ], "constraints": [ "Merely presenting cases without comparison prompts does little", "Cases must differ on surface and match on structure", "Novices may align on the wrong features without guidance" ], "risks": [ "Comparison prompts that elicit surface similarity", "Too many cases at once overloading novices", "Assuming spontaneous transfer without the explicit prompt" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Stated principle and later spontaneous transfer", "measure": "Quality of the stated commonality plus performance on a new surface-different case", "timing": "After comparison and at delay", "caveat": "Correct comparison does not guarantee spontaneous later use" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Controlled experiments show explicit comparison substantially raises later transfer relative to studying cases separately.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Demonstrated from classroom topics to professional negotiation training.", "sourceIds": [ "source:gentner-analogical", "source:transfer-taxonomy", "source:rittle-johnson-star-comparison" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "One of the few reliable levers on transfer; require an explicit comparison prompt, not just co-presentation." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "transfer", "comparison", "abstraction" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:andragogy", "label": "Andragogy (Knowles' assumptions about adult learners)", "aliases": [ "adult learning principles", "Knowles' andragogy" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "A set of assumptions that adults are self-directed, bring experience, are readiness- and problem-centred, and are internally motivated; influential as design guidance but weak as an empirical theory.", "mechanism": "The assumptions direct designers toward autonomy, experience-linking, and immediate applicability, which map onto better-evidenced motivational and prior-knowledge findings.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "professional-workplace", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "disputed" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "adult course design", "workplace training design" ], "contexts": [ "workplace learning", "continuing education", "higher education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Learners with relevant experience and a real application context" ], "constraints": [ "The assumptions are not adult-specific: children also learn better with relevance and agency", "Adult status does not confer self-direction in an unfamiliar domain", "It has never been a well-tested causal theory" ], "risks": [ "Withdrawing needed instruction because the learner is an adult", "Assuming experience is always an asset rather than sometimes a misconception", "Presenting andragogy as settled science" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Actual self-direction in this domain", "measure": "Observed planning, monitoring, and help-seeking on a real task in the target domain", "timing": "At the start of a programme", "caveat": "Confident adults frequently over-estimate their self-direction in a new domain" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Widely used design heuristics whose adult-specific claims are not empirically established; reviewed critically in the adult-learning literature.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Design vocabulary rather than evidence; the underlying motivational findings are better sourced elsewhere.", "sourceIds": [ "source:merriam-adult-theory", "source:ryan-deci-sdt" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Use the design instincts, cite the motivation and prior-knowledge evidence instead; never withhold instruction because the learner is an adult." }, "tags": [ "theory", "adult", "contested", "self-direction" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:assessment-fair-access", "label": "Fair and accessible assessment", "aliases": [ "assessment accessibility", "accommodation validity" ], "kind": "constraint", "summary": "Remove construct-irrelevant access barriers and verify whether accommodations preserve or alter the intended construct.", "mechanism": "Accessible presentation and interaction reduce variance caused by sensory, motor, language, cultural, or technology barriers rather than target competence.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "assessment", "performance task", "digital interaction" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "remote", "high-stakes" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A clearly bounded construct", "Accessibility expertise, assistive-technology compatibility, and representative testing" ], "constraints": [ "Accommodation preserves the intended construct; modification changes it and may break comparability", "Report adaptation use" ], "risks": [ "Assuming identical treatment is fair", "Adding access late", "Silently comparing modified and unmodified scores" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Comparable access to the intended construct", "measure": "Accessibility audit, assistive-technology completion, accommodation usability, subgroup/DIF analysis, and cognitive lab", "timing": "Before launch and after deployment", "caveat": "A subgroup score gap alone neither proves nor rules out item bias" } ], "evidence": { "status": "normative-standard", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Professional standards for fairness, accessibility, and intended score use.", "directness": "normative", "generalizability": "All assessment, especially diverse and high-stakes populations.", "sourceIds": [ "source:testing-standards", "source:wcag22" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Accessibility and fairness are validity conditions, not optional enhancements." }, "tags": [ "assessment", "accessibility", "fairness", "accommodation" ], "classification": { "layer": "constraint", "traditions": [ "psychometric", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "assess", "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:assessment-for-learning-strategies", "label": "Assessment for learning as instructional strategy", "aliases": [ "five key strategies of formative assessment", "eliciting evidence of learning" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Formative practice is best specified as concrete strategies: clarifying criteria, eliciting evidence, giving feedback that moves learners forward, activating peers, and activating learners as owners of their learning.", "mechanism": "Naming discrete strategies makes formative practice implementable and auditable rather than an attitude, which is where the umbrella term fails.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "assess", "feedback", "self-regulate", "collaborate" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "formative practice design", "professional development", "instructional auditing" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "school systems", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A specific strategy chosen rather than the general label", "Evidence-eliciting tasks with diagnostic value", "A planned response to the evidence" ], "constraints": [ "Strategy-level evidence is stronger than umbrella-level evidence", "Implementation depends on teacher questioning skill", "Peer and self strategies need their own training" ], "risks": [ "Adopting the vocabulary without changing practice", "Eliciting evidence and not acting on it", "Conflating this with more testing" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Strategy-level implementation and response", "measure": "Observation of which strategies occur plus documented instructional response to elicited evidence", "timing": "Per lesson and per unit", "caveat": "Frequency of assessment is not formative practice" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A well-developed strategy specification grounded in the formative assessment literature; strategy-level evidence is stronger than the umbrella construct's.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad; strategies vary in individual evidence strength.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wiliam-assessment", "source:formative-review", "source:hattie-timperley-feedback" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Implement and cite at strategy level, which is also how a retrieval system should index it." }, "tags": [ "framework", "assessment", "feedback", "diagnostic" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:assessment-triangle", "label": "Assessment triangle: cognition, observation, interpretation", "aliases": [ "evidence-centered assessment" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Align a model of the target competence, tasks that elicit relevant observations, and an interpretation model linking observations to claims.", "mechanism": "Explicit claim-evidence-task mappings limit overinterpretation and surface construct gaps or irrelevant barriers.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "diagnostic assessment", "performance task", "test design" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "program evaluation", "large-scale assessment" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicit construct and intended use", "Task specification and interpretation rules" ], "constraints": [ "Validation is ongoing", "Evidence burden rises with stakes" ], "risks": [ "Choosing a task format before defining the claim", "Overinterpreting sparse evidence", "Ignoring construct-irrelevant language or interface demands" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Traceable claim-evidence-task alignment", "measure": "Mapping coverage, scoring agreement, empirical fit, and documented limitations", "timing": "Before deployment and during monitoring", "caveat": "A coherent design argument still requires empirical evidence" } ], "evidence": { "status": "normative-standard", "confidence": "high", "basis": "National Academies consensus design framework.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Applies to assessment design across domains; not a causal intervention estimate.", "sourceIds": [ "source:assessment-nrc", "source:testing-standards" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use as a design and review contract for any consequential pedagogical claim." }, "tags": [ "assessment", "validity", "design", "provenance" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "assess" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:assessment-validity-precision", "label": "Validity argument and score precision", "aliases": [ "assessment validity", "reliability" ], "kind": "constraint", "summary": "Support the intended interpretation and use with relevant evidence, and report uncertainty appropriate to the decision.", "mechanism": "Reliability and error analysis bound score precision; a validity argument links score meaning to the construct, population, purpose, and consequences.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "scoring", "diagnosis", "certification" ], "contexts": [ "classroom assessment", "high stakes", "automated scoring" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Specified construct, population, use, and decision rule", "Representative tasks, raters, and respondents" ], "constraints": [ "A reliable score can still be invalid", "Local precision near thresholds may differ from aggregate reliability" ], "risks": [ "Treating a test as universally valid", "Using one point score without uncertainty", "Repurposing formative data for unsupported high-stakes decisions" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Supported interpretation with quantified uncertainty", "measure": "Validity evidence, scoring consistency, standard error or interval, subgroup checks, and decision consistency", "timing": "Before use and throughout deployment", "caveat": "No single coefficient establishes validity" } ], "evidence": { "status": "normative-standard", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Professional testing standards and National Academies assessment consensus.", "directness": "normative", "generalizability": "All assessment uses; required evidence depends on purpose and stakes.", "sourceIds": [ "source:testing-standards", "source:assessment-nrc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Require proportional evidence and uncertainty for any inference that changes learner treatment." }, "tags": [ "assessment", "validity", "reliability", "high-stakes" ], "classification": { "layer": "constraint", "traditions": [ "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "assess" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:attention-and-media-multitasking", "label": "Divided attention and media multitasking", "aliases": [ "multitasking during study", "task switching cost" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Concurrent media use during learning degrades performance through switching costs, and heavy media multitaskers show poorer filtering of irrelevant information.", "mechanism": "Attention is a bottleneck: switching incurs reconfiguration costs and divided encoding produces weaker, less integrated traces.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "neuroscience" ], "domains": [ "general", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate", "climate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "study environment design", "device policy", "lecture attention" ], "contexts": [ "study strategies", "classroom", "home learning", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Awareness of the switching cost", "Environment control the learner actually has" ], "constraints": [ "Much of the evidence is correlational or laboratory-based", "Individual-difference claims are less settled than the switching-cost claim", "Blanket device bans have accessibility costs" ], "risks": [ "Blanket bans that remove assistive technology", "Blaming learners for environments they cannot control", "Overclaiming permanent cognitive damage from media use" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Performance and time under single versus divided attention", "measure": "Comparable tasks with and without concurrent media plus completion time", "timing": "During study sessions", "caveat": "Learners consistently underestimate their own switching cost" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Well-established switching-cost findings plus influential but debated evidence on heavy media multitaskers' filtering ability.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Laboratory and self-report studies dominate.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ophir-multitasking", "source:kirschner-digital-native", "source:cognitive-load" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Teach and design for single-task study blocks; avoid device bans that remove access supports." }, "tags": [ "construct", "attention", "digital", "self-regulation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:belonging-intervention", "label": "Social-belonging intervention", "aliases": [ "belonging uncertainty", "brief social psychological intervention" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Brief exercises that normalize early difficulty as common and temporary can improve persistence and achievement for students facing belonging uncertainty, under specific conditions.", "mechanism": "Reattributing early adversity from 'I do not belong' to 'this is normal and improves' interrupts a recursive process rather than teaching anything.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "climate", "motivate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "disputed" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "transition support", "persistence of underrepresented students" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "school transitions" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A context where belonging uncertainty is actually present", "An environment that can support the reframed belief", "Careful non-stigmatizing delivery" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are heterogeneous and context-dependent, with weaker results at scale", "It cannot substitute for changing an unwelcoming environment", "Poor delivery can be stigmatizing" ], "risks": [ "Replacing structural change with a message", "Implying the problem is the learner's mindset", "Overclaiming from early small studies" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Persistence and achievement in the targeted group", "measure": "Retention, GPA, and belonging measures for the target and comparison groups", "timing": "Over terms and years", "caveat": "Effects are moderated by whether the environment actually supports belonging" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Influential randomized experiments with long-term effects, followed by heterogeneous replications at scale showing context dependence.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Demonstrated in specific transitions; not a general treatment.", "sourceIds": [ "source:walton-cohen-belonging", "source:cohen-values-affirmation", "source:yeager-national-mindset" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "experimental-only", "rationale": "Deploy only with local evaluation and alongside environmental change; never as an alternative to it." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "belonging", "equity", "contested" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:blended-online-learning", "label": "Blended and online learning designs", "aliases": [ "distance education", "hybrid courses", "e-learning" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Medium alone does not determine outcomes; blended designs tend to outperform both pure online and pure classroom, and interaction design explains most of the variance.", "mechanism": "Learning depends on the instructional method, interaction, and support that the medium carries, not on delivery mode itself.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "digital-environments", "general", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "collaborate", "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "course delivery design", "programme scaling", "remote instruction" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "workplace learning", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Designed interaction with content, peers, and instructor", "Reliable access and technical support", "Self-regulation support for asynchronous work" ], "constraints": [ "Average effects are near zero with huge heterogeneity", "Comparisons are confounded by learner selection and added time", "Completion and equity outcomes often diverge from learning outcomes" ], "risks": [ "Attributing gains to a platform rather than a design", "Ignoring the access and self-regulation demands placed on learners", "Reading low completion as low learner ability" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Learning and completion by design feature", "measure": "Common assessment plus interaction-type and completion analytics disaggregated by subgroup", "timing": "Across the course", "caveat": "Selection effects dominate naive online-versus-classroom comparisons" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Large meta-analyses show negligible medium effects overall, with blended advantage and interaction treatment as the reliable moderators.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad but heterogeneous; strongest evidence at postsecondary level.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bernard-distance", "source:postsecondary-tech-wwc", "source:garrison-coi" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Design for interaction and support; never claim a benefit from the delivery mode itself." }, "tags": [ "method", "digital", "access", "design" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:blooms-revised-taxonomy", "label": "Revised Bloom's taxonomy of objectives", "aliases": [ "Anderson and Krathwohl taxonomy", "cognitive process dimension" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "A two-dimensional classification of objectives by knowledge type and cognitive process, used to align objectives, instruction, and assessment.", "mechanism": "Making the knowledge type and the intended cognitive process explicit exposes mismatches between what is taught and what is tested.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "general", "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "assess" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "objective writing", "assessment blueprinting", "curriculum alignment" ], "contexts": [ "curriculum design", "assessment design", "instructional materials" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Stated objectives", "Assessment items to align against" ], "constraints": [ "It is a classification, not a learning theory or a difficulty ordering", "The levels are not a required teaching sequence", "Verb lists do not determine the cognitive process a learner actually uses" ], "risks": [ "Treating 'higher-order' as always better regardless of prerequisites", "Assuming a verb in the objective guarantees the process in the learner", "Using it to justify skipping foundational knowledge" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Objective-assessment alignment", "measure": "Blueprint mapping of items to knowledge type and process, checked by learner think-alouds", "timing": "At design and review time", "caveat": "The same item can be recall for one learner and analysis for another" } ], "evidence": { "status": "normative-standard", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A widely adopted classification convention for objectives and alignment; it is not an intervention with effect evidence.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Used across systems; interpretation varies widely.", "sourceIds": [ "source:krathwohl-taxonomy", "source:assessment-nrc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use for alignment auditing; do not treat level as difficulty or as a required order." }, "tags": [ "framework", "assessment", "curriculum", "standard" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:brain-training-transfer", "label": "Commercial brain training for academic gains", "aliases": [ "working memory training products", "cognitive training far transfer" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Brain-training and working-memory-training programmes improve performance on trained and closely similar tasks but do not produce far transfer to academic achievement or everyday cognition.", "mechanism": "Gains reflect task-specific strategy and familiarity rather than an increase in general capacity, so nothing carries to structurally different tasks.", "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "neuroscience" ], "domains": [ "general", "special-education", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "practice" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "deprecated" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "intervention selection", "product evaluation", "claims review" ], "contexts": [ "school systems", "clinical settings", "consumer products" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; this is a screening criterion" ], "constraints": [ "Near transfer to similar tasks is real and is often marketed as if it were far transfer", "Study quality drives apparent effects; active-control designs shrink them", "Absence of far transfer does not mean the underlying construct is unimportant" ], "risks": [ "Diverting intervention budget from instruction", "Raising family expectations on marketing claims", "Time displaced from academic learning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Far transfer with an active control", "measure": "Untrained structurally different outcome measures against an active control group", "timing": "Post-training and at delay", "caveat": "Improvement on the trained task is expected and proves nothing" } ], "evidence": { "status": "refuted", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Convergent meta-analyses and a comprehensive consensus review find no reliable far transfer to academic or everyday outcomes.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and products.", "sourceIds": [ "source:melby-lervag-wm-training", "source:simons-brain-training", "source:sala-gobet-music" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Do not purchase or recommend for academic outcomes; spend the time on the domain content instead." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "refuted", "transfer", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:checking-for-understanding", "label": "Systematic checking for understanding", "aliases": [ "hinge questions", "all-student response", "responsive questioning" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Frequent questions answered by every learner, used to decide the next instructional move, catch misunderstanding before it is practised.", "mechanism": "Sampling every learner's current state converts teaching from broadcast into a control loop with an actual measurement.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "feedback", "assess" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "lesson-level monitoring", "misconception detection", "pacing decisions" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "live online", "tutoring", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Questions whose wrong answers are diagnostic", "A response channel for every learner", "A planned action for each likely result" ], "constraints": [ "Only formative if it changes the next action", "Hands-up sampling systematically misses those who need it", "Question design determines the diagnostic value" ], "risks": [ "Asking 'any questions?' and calling it a check", "Collecting responses without acting on them", "Public exposure of struggling learners" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Detection rate and responsive action", "measure": "Proportion of learners sampled, error patterns detected, and documented change in the next move", "timing": "Every few minutes of instruction", "caveat": "A high correct rate may mean the question was too easy" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Convergent support from expert-teacher process research, practice-guide recommendations, and the formative assessment literature.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad; the diagnostic quality of the questions is the limiting factor.", "sourceIds": [ "source:rosenshine-principles", "source:wiliam-assessment", "source:formative-review" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Default instructional control loop; require diagnostic distractors and a pre-planned response." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "diagnostic", "feedback", "assessment" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:classroom-climate", "label": "Classroom and school climate", "aliases": [ "learning environment quality", "academic and social climate" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Climate dimensions covering safety, relationships, teaching quality, and institutional environment are associated with achievement and wellbeing, with relational quality mattering most for at-risk learners.", "mechanism": "A predictable, safe, and supportive environment allows attention and risk-taking; conflictual environments consume attention and drive avoidance.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "climate", "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "school improvement", "wellbeing", "behaviour support" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "school systems" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Multi-informant measurement", "Stability over time to be meaningful" ], "constraints": [ "Largely correlational evidence with selection confounds", "Composite climate scores obscure which dimension matters", "Perceptions differ sharply across student groups" ], "risks": [ "Averaging away the experience of marginalized groups", "Treating climate surveys as an intervention", "Attributing achievement solely to climate" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Dimension-level climate with subgroup breakdown", "measure": "Validated multi-dimensional climate measures disaggregated by group, alongside achievement", "timing": "Annually or termly", "caveat": "A good average climate can coexist with a hostile experience for a subgroup" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Systematic review of climate dimensions plus meta-analytic evidence that affective teacher-student relationships matter most for at-risk learners.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Primary and secondary schooling; mostly correlational.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wang-degol-climate", "source:roorda-relationships" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Report climate by dimension and subgroup; treat it as a condition for learning, not a substitute for instruction." }, "tags": [ "construct", "climate", "equity", "belonging" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:classroom-management", "label": "Classroom management strategies", "aliases": [ "behaviour support", "proactive management" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Proactive management focused on relationships, clear expectations, and structured routines has small-to-moderate positive effects on behaviour, motivation, and achievement.", "mechanism": "Predictable structure and pre-corrected expectations reduce the frequency of disruption, preserving instructional time and attention.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "behavioral", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "climate", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "reducing disruption", "protecting instructional time", "behaviour support" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicitly taught expectations and routines", "Consistency across adults", "Functional understanding of the behaviour" ], "constraints": [ "Reactive punishment approaches perform worse than proactive ones", "Exclusionary discipline has well-documented disparate impact", "Strategy effects vary by outcome type" ], "risks": [ "Compliance systems that penalize disability-related behaviour", "Disparate application across groups", "Managing behaviour while ignoring an inaccessible task" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Instructional time and behaviour, checked for disparity", "measure": "Time-on-instruction, disruption rate, and discipline actions disaggregated by group", "timing": "Continuously", "caveat": "Falling incident counts can reflect under-reporting or exclusion" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis of classroom management programmes plus an evidence-rated practice guide, both showing small-to-moderate effects with relationship-focused and proactive strategies favoured.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Primary and secondary classrooms.", "sourceIds": [ "source:korpershoek-classroom-management", "source:behavior-wwc", "source:roorda-relationships" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Prefer proactive relational strategies; audit discipline outcomes for disparate impact as a standing requirement." }, "tags": [ "method", "climate", "equity", "behavior" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:cognitive-aging-and-learning", "label": "Cognitive aging and learning in later life", "aliases": [ "fluid and crystallized ability", "older adult learning" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Processing speed and fluid reasoning decline with age while knowledge-based ability is preserved or grows, so older adults learn well with pacing, support, and knowledge-linked material.", "mechanism": "Age-related slowing and working-memory reduction raise the cost of novel unstructured material, while preserved crystallized knowledge provides scaffolding when material connects to it.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "developmental", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "health", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "older-adult", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "access", "sequence", "practice" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "older-adult", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "later-life learning", "workforce retraining", "health education" ], "contexts": [ "continuing education", "workplace learning", "clinical education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "older-adult", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Pacing under the learner's control", "Material linked to existing knowledge", "Sensory and interface accessibility" ], "constraints": [ "Between-person variability increases with age; averages mislead badly", "Cross-sectional estimates overstate decline", "Engagement effects on cognition are not proven causal" ], "risks": [ "Age-based assumptions about individual capability", "Fast-paced unmodifiable interfaces", "Selling cognitive-decline prevention claims" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Learning under self-paced supported conditions", "measure": "Same content under learner-controlled versus fixed pacing plus knowledge-linked framing", "timing": "Across sessions", "caveat": "A fixed-pace result underestimates what the learner can do" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Extensive lifespan cognition research on differential trajectories of fluid and crystallized abilities, with reviews of enrichment effects noting weaker causal evidence.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad in cognitive aging research; individual variability is very large.", "sourceIds": [ "source:salthouse-aging", "source:hertzog-enrichment", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Give pacing control and knowledge links; never infer an individual's capability from age." }, "tags": [ "construct", "lifespan", "adult", "accessibility" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-design", "label": "Cognitive-load-aware design", "aliases": [ "cognitive load management", "working-memory load" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Reduce avoidable processing in complex novel tasks while preserving effort that serves the learning goal.", "mechanism": "Limited working memory constrains the number of interacting unfamiliar elements that can be processed; prior schemas reduce effective demand.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "novel procedure", "complex explanation", "multimedia learning" ], "contexts": [ "instructional materials", "interfaces", "demonstrations" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Estimate prior knowledge and element interactivity", "Identify which processing is necessary for the target" ], "constraints": [ "Do not equate all difficulty with harmful load", "Triangulate load rather than infer it from errors alone" ], "risks": [ "Oversimplifying away the learning goal", "Treating disputed load subtypes or self-reports as direct mental measurements", "Encoding capacity as a stable learner trait" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Lower avoidable effort with equal or better delayed learning", "measure": "Errors, time, mental-effort rating, assistance, retention, and transfer", "timing": "During task and on delayed independent checks", "caveat": "Fluent performance can reflect shallow processing; a single effort rating is insufficient" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "The limited-working-memory premise and several design effects are well supported; mechanisms, measurement, and boundary conditions remain debated.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Strongest for novices learning high-element-interactivity material.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cognitive-load", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use as a design lens tied to prior knowledge and outcomes, not as a universal difficulty minimizer." }, "tags": [ "general", "working-memory", "design", "novice" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-theory", "label": "Cognitive load theory", "aliases": [ "CLT", "Sweller's cognitive load theory" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Learning is limited by a narrow working memory operating on an effectively unlimited long-term store, so instruction should manage what working memory must hold.", "mechanism": "Novel information is processed in a capacity-limited working memory; schemas retrieved from long-term memory act as single chunks, so building and retrieving schemas is what raises effective capacity.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "novel concept learning", "problem solving", "instructional material design" ], "contexts": [ "instructional materials", "interfaces", "initial instruction" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "An identified novel element-interactivity load", "Knowledge of learner prior schemas" ], "constraints": [ "Load categories are inferred, not directly observed", "Element interactivity, not topic difficulty, drives intrinsic load", "Measures of load and of learning must be collected separately" ], "risks": [ "Using the theory to justify removing all challenge", "Treating self-reported effort as a load measurement", "Assuming a design that helps novices helps experts" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Load-sensitive performance change", "measure": "Delayed post-test plus a secondary-task or subjective load measure", "timing": "During practice and after a delay", "caveat": "Low reported effort can mean disengagement rather than efficiency" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A long-standing theory with many supported instructional effects, but core constructs remain hard to measure independently and some subclaims are contested.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Strongest for novel, high element-interactivity material with novice learners.", "sourceIds": [ "source:sweller-1988", "source:cognitive-load", "source:paas-vanmerrienboer-2020" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use as a design lens for novel material; do not use its vocabulary as evidence that a given design worked." }, "tags": [ "theory", "working-memory", "design" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:computational-thinking-transfer", "label": "Transfer from programming to other thinking skills", "aliases": [ "computational thinking transfer", "does coding teach thinking" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Programming instruction transfers moderately to near cognitive skills such as creative and mathematical thinking, and much less to distant ones such as general literacy.", "mechanism": "Overlap in required representations and reasoning explains near transfer; distant skills share too little structure for transfer to occur.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "computing", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "transfer" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "curriculum justification", "outcome claims for coding programmes" ], "contexts": [ "computing classroom", "policy", "programme evaluation" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Pre-specified transfer distance and measures" ], "constraints": [ "Transfer decreases sharply with distance", "Published claims frequently exceed the evidence", "Study quality varies widely" ], "risks": [ "Justifying coding curricula by general thinking gains", "Measuring transfer with near-identical tasks", "Displacing subjects on an unsupported transfer promise" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Transfer by pre-specified distance", "measure": "Separate near and far measures specified before the study", "timing": "Post-programme and at delay", "caveat": "Undeclared transfer distance makes a result uninterpretable" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis finds a moderate overall transfer effect that declines markedly with transfer distance.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Programming interventions across school ages.", "sourceIds": [ "source:scherer-computational-thinking", "source:transfer-taxonomy", "source:cs-framework" ], "effect": { "metric": "g", "value": 0.49, "note": "Overall transfer estimate; substantially smaller for far transfer such as literacy." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Justify computing on its own merits; state transfer distance explicitly whenever transfer is claimed." }, "tags": [ "construct", "computing", "transfer", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:computing-practices", "label": "Computational practices: decompose, abstract, test, refine, communicate", "aliases": [ "computational thinking practices", "debugging cycle" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Have learners recognize and decompose problems, develop abstractions and artifacts, test and refine them, and communicate design decisions and impacts.", "mechanism": "Executable or inspectable artifacts make algorithms and representations testable; debugging supplies feedback for iterative model revision.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult novice" ], "taskTypes": [ "programming", "data", "systems", "computational problem solving" ], "contexts": [ "K-12 computing", "maker activity", "introductory coding" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Accessible tools", "Examples and domain concepts", "Explicit testing and debugging norms", "Equitable participation structures" ], "constraints": [ "Assess reasoning and revision, not artifact completion alone", "Include sociotechnical impacts and accessibility" ], "risks": [ "Code production masking misconceptions", "Nominal group work masking unequal participation", "Treating a curricular framework as a causal intervention" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Traceable computational reasoning and refinement", "measure": "Decomposition, abstraction, test cases, bug localization, revision, explanation, participation, and impact analysis", "timing": "Across artifact iterations and on a new problem", "caveat": "A working artifact can be copied or produced without conceptual understanding" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Authoritative multi-organization curricular framework; intervention effectiveness depends on pedagogy and implementation.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "K-12 computer science; adapt evidence for adult computing contexts.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cs-framework", "source:worked-examples-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use the practices to elicit inspectable reasoning, with examples, debugging feedback, accessibility, and individual evidence." }, "tags": [ "computing", "debugging", "artifact", "collaboration" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "constructivist" ], "domains": [ "computing" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:concept-mapping", "label": "Concept mapping and graphic organizers", "aliases": [ "knowledge maps", "graphic organizers" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Constructing or studying node-link maps of relationships modestly improves learning relative to reading, but is weaker than retrieval practice for retention.", "mechanism": "Explicit relational structure supports organization and retrieval cues; making relations visible exposes missing links.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "constructivist" ], "domains": [ "general", "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "consolidate", "explain" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "relational understanding", "review", "knowledge organization" ], "contexts": [ "study strategies", "classroom", "note-taking" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Content with genuine relational structure", "Some training in map conventions" ], "constraints": [ "Effect is modest and depends on map quality", "Map-making time competes with retrieval practice", "A tidy map can be copied without understanding" ], "risks": [ "Substituting map aesthetics for reasoning", "Choosing mapping over retrieval when retention is the goal", "Assuming the map represents the learner's actual model" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Relational accuracy and later performance", "measure": "Map scoring against an expert structure plus delayed comprehension or transfer items", "timing": "After construction and at delay", "caveat": "Map completeness overstates understanding" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis shows small-to-moderate advantages over reading or lecture; a direct comparison found retrieval practice superior for retention.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and subjects for relational content.", "sourceIds": [ "source:nesbit-concept-mapping", "source:karpicke-blunt" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.35, "note": "Versus reading or attending lectures; smaller versus other constructive activities." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Good for making structure explicit; do not use it in place of retrieval practice for retention goals." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "representation", "knowledge", "consolidation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:conceptual-change", "label": "Conceptual change and misconception refinement", "aliases": [ "prior conceptions", "knowledge in pieces", "restructuring" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Learners arrive with existing explanatory ideas that are productive resources as often as obstacles, and instruction must engage them rather than overwrite them.", "mechanism": "New conceptions are adopted when learners find the existing one inadequate and the new one intelligible, plausible, and fruitful; fine-grained intuitive resources are reorganized rather than deleted.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "science", "mathematics", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "explain", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "science concept learning", "misconception diagnosis", "explanation building" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "tutoring", "adaptive software", "diagnostic assessment" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Elicitation of the learner's current explanation", "A discrepant case or evidence the current idea cannot handle", "Time for reorganization" ], "constraints": [ "Persistent conceptions rarely change in one lesson", "Correct answers can coexist with the old model", "Treating intuitions as pure error discards usable resources" ], "risks": [ "Publicly labelling a learner's idea as wrong", "Assuming a single refutation lesson settles it", "Confusing terminology adoption with model change" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Explanation change under new cases", "measure": "Pre/post explanation coding, discrepant-case prediction, and transfer to unfamiliar contexts", "timing": "Across a unit and after a delay", "caveat": "Learners often revert on unfamiliar surface contexts" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A large theoretical and empirical literature with competing accounts of what changes; instructional payoff depends on elicitation and follow-through.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Best evidenced in physical science and mathematics topics with well-documented conceptions.", "sourceIds": [ "source:posner-conceptual-change", "source:vosniadou-conceptual-change", "source:smith-misconceptions", "source:science-framework" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Elicit before correcting, treat intuitions as resources, and measure explanation change rather than answer change." }, "tags": [ "theory", "science", "misconception", "diagnostic" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:conceptual-procedural-iteration", "label": "Iterative development of conceptual and procedural knowledge", "aliases": [ "concepts and procedures", "bidirectional development" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Conceptual understanding and procedural skill develop iteratively and reinforce each other; neither reliably comes first.", "mechanism": "Gains in concepts improve procedure selection and adaptation, while practising procedures creates material for conceptual reflection.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "arithmetic and algebra learning", "curriculum sequencing", "diagnosis of shallow procedures" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "adaptive software", "intervention" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Separate measurement of conceptual and procedural knowledge" ], "constraints": [ "Neither ordering is universally correct", "Procedural fluency without concepts produces brittle, unadaptable performance", "Measures of the two are hard to fully separate" ], "risks": [ "Concepts-first or procedures-first dogma", "Reading fluent procedures as understanding", "Teaching procedures with no conceptual anchoring" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Both knowledge types tracked over time", "measure": "Separate conceptual and procedural measures administered repeatedly", "timing": "Across a unit and beyond", "caveat": "Correct answers can come from unadapted memorized procedures" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Longitudinal and experimental studies establishing bidirectional relations, consistent with national mathematics-learning syntheses.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Best evidenced in arithmetic, fractions, and equation solving.", "sourceIds": [ "source:rittle-johnson-iterative", "source:adding-it-up", "source:math-intervention-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Interleave concept and procedure work and measure both; do not sequence on ideology." }, "tags": [ "principle", "mathematics", "sequence", "diagnostic" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:concrete-abstract-linking", "label": "Concrete-to-abstract representation linking", "aliases": [ "multiple representations", "manipulative-symbol linking" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Explicitly connect concrete, visual, verbal, and symbolic representations of the same concept and explain what each preserves or hides.", "mechanism": "Mapping across forms can ground abstract relations and later make structure available without dependence on one surface form.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "primary", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "mathematics", "science models", "concept formation" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "interactive artifact" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Representations that encode the same target relation", "Explicit comparison or mapping" ], "constraints": [ "Limit simultaneous representations", "Fade perceptual detail when it distracts from structure" ], "risks": [ "Treating manipulatives as self-explanatory", "Switching among unrelated models", "Learners attend to surface features" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Bidirectional mapping and structure preservation", "measure": "Explain correspondence, translate among forms, and solve a new-form task", "timing": "During comparison and after representation change", "caveat": "Correct manipulation without symbolic or conceptual mapping is insufficient" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Institutional practice guides rate connected concrete-abstract representations positively, while design and learner knowledge moderate outcomes.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Best established in mathematics and structured concepts.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ies-study", "source:math-intervention-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Retrieve only with an explicit mapping task and a plan to test transfer across forms." }, "tags": [ "representation", "mathematics", "concept", "transfer" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:contextual-interference", "label": "Contextual interference in motor skill practice", "aliases": [ "random versus blocked practice", "motor interleaving" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Random practice ordering depresses performance during acquisition but produces better retention and transfer than blocked practice.", "mechanism": "Switching between tasks forces reconstruction of the movement plan on each trial rather than reusing the one already in working memory.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "physical-motor", "music", "health", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "motor skill acquisition", "clinical procedure training", "instrument practice" ], "contexts": [ "training", "clinical simulation", "sports practice", "music practice" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Multiple related skills to interleave", "Enough initial competence to attempt each" ], "constraints": [ "It reliably worsens acquisition-phase performance", "Effects are smaller for very novice learners and complex skills", "Requires delayed retention measurement to detect the benefit" ], "risks": [ "Abandoning it because practice looks worse", "Applying it before any skill is minimally established", "Judging training by session performance" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Acquisition versus retention divergence", "measure": "Practice-phase performance compared against delayed retention and transfer tests", "timing": "During practice and after days", "caveat": "The better practice condition looks worse during practice" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A classic and widely replicated motor-learning effect, and one of the clearest demonstrations of the learning-performance distinction.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Motor domains broadly; smaller with very complex skills or complete novices.", "sourceIds": [ "source:shea-morgan-contextual", "source:soderstrom-bjork", "source:interleaving-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use once minimal competence exists, and evaluate only on delayed retention." }, "tags": [ "principle", "physical-motor", "practice", "retention" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:contingent-scaffolding", "label": "Contingent scaffolding with fading", "aliases": [ "scaffolding", "gradual release" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Provide support contingent on current evidence, reduce it as competence grows, and transfer responsibility to the learner.", "mechanism": "Temporary prompts, models, representations, or task simplifications keep the target operation possible while preserving a path to independent performance.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "novel complex task", "strategy acquisition", "guided practice" ], "contexts": [ "one-to-one", "small group", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A diagnosis of the current bottleneck", "A support hierarchy and an independent target performance" ], "constraints": [ "Support must be contingent, faded, and responsibility-transferring", "Check unassisted performance" ], "risks": [ "Permanent prompting and learned dependence", "Giving answers while preserving only superficial activity" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Declining assistance with stable or improving performance", "measure": "Hint level, independent completion, explanation, and transfer task", "timing": "Across attempts and after support removal", "caveat": "Success while a scaffold is visible is not evidence of independent learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Systematic review identifies contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility as defining features; enactment quality varies.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad across instruction, but the scaffold must fit the domain and current evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:scaffolding-review", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Useful when an observed bottleneck can be supported without replacing the target cognitive work." }, "tags": [ "general", "support", "adaptive", "independence" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:contrasting-cases-invention", "label": "Contrasting cases and invention before instruction", "aliases": [ "inventing to prepare for future learning", "preparation for future learning" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Having learners invent an account of carefully contrasted cases before being told the canonical solution prepares them to learn from the subsequent explanation.", "mechanism": "Attempting invention differentiates the features that matter, so the later explanation lands on a prepared discrimination rather than on undifferentiated novelty.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "science", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "practice", "explain" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "quantitative concept introduction", "deep-feature discrimination", "transfer preparation" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "tutoring", "instructional materials" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Case sets engineered to contrast on the target feature", "A guaranteed consolidation phase afterwards", "Tolerance for initial failure" ], "constraints": [ "The invention phase must be followed by explicit instruction", "Effects appear on transfer measures more than on routine ones", "Requires careful case engineering; arbitrary examples do not work" ], "risks": [ "Omitting the consolidation and leaving inventions unresolved", "Judging the phase by the quality of the invention", "Using it with learners lacking the needed prerequisites" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Preparation for future learning", "measure": "Transfer and learning-from-resource measures, not just routine post-tests", "timing": "After consolidation and at delay", "caveat": "Routine post-tests often show no advantage even when transfer does" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Controlled studies plus the productive-failure meta-analysis support a generate-then-consolidate sequence for conceptual and transfer outcomes.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Mathematics and science concepts with engineered contrasting cases.", "sourceIds": [ "source:schwartz-martin-invention", "source:productive-failure-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use where transfer is the goal and consolidation is guaranteed; the contrasting-case design is the active ingredient." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "transfer", "generation", "comparison" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:cooperative-structures", "label": "Structured cooperative learning designs", "aliases": [ "jigsaw", "positive interdependence", "STAD", "team-based learning" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Cooperative designs that build positive interdependence and individual accountability outperform competitive and individualistic structures on achievement and relationships.", "mechanism": "Interdependence makes each member's contribution necessary while individual accountability prevents free-riding, so explanation and coordination actually occur.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general", "science", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "collaborate", "practice", "climate" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "group problem solving", "concept discussion", "project division" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "small group", "laboratory" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A task that genuinely needs multiple contributors", "Individual accountability mechanism", "Explicit cooperative skills instruction" ], "constraints": [ "Group work without interdependence and accountability is not cooperative learning", "Status and language differences shape who participates", "Group products conceal individual understanding" ], "risks": [ "Free-riding and status-based exclusion", "Grading the group and inferring individual mastery", "Assuming collaboration suits every task" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Equitable participation with individual learning", "measure": "Individual post-tests plus participation and talk-time distribution", "timing": "During and after the unit", "caveat": "A polished group product can hide non-participation" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large meta-analytic literature across ages showing cooperative structures outperform competitive and individualistic ones when the defining conditions are present.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Robust across ages and subjects when interdependence and accountability are implemented.", "sourceIds": [ "source:johnson-cooperative", "source:roseth-cooperative", "source:springer-small-group", "source:collaboration-meta" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.5, "note": "Adolescent achievement estimates around 0.46; STEM small-group estimates around 0.5." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use when the task needs multiple contributors; enforce interdependence, accountability, and individual assessment." }, "tags": [ "method", "collaboration", "equity", "accountability" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:curriculum-based-measurement", "label": "Curriculum-based measurement and progress monitoring", "aliases": [ "CBM", "progress monitoring probes" ], "kind": "measure", "summary": "Brief, standardized, repeatable probes of curriculum-relevant performance provide a sensitive growth signal that supports instructional decisions.", "mechanism": "Short equivalent-form probes administered frequently produce a growth slope, which is more decision-useful than isolated test scores.", "classification": { "layer": "measure", "traditions": [ "psychometric", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement", "literacy", "mathematics", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "assess", "diagnose", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "intervention monitoring", "instructional decisions", "eligibility decisions" ], "contexts": [ "intervention", "classroom", "special education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Equivalent alternate forms", "Frequent administration", "Decision rules tied to the slope" ], "constraints": [ "Individual slope estimates need many data points to be stable", "Probes index general outcome, not the specific skill taught", "Decision rules are often applied with too few points" ], "risks": [ "Changing instruction on noise", "Teaching to the probe format", "Using slope for high-stakes classification without adequate data" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Growth slope with adequate data density", "measure": "Repeated equivalent probes with slope confidence, plus separate mastery measures", "timing": "Weekly or biweekly", "caveat": "Short data series produce unstable and misleading slopes" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A long-established measurement approach with substantial technical-adequacy research; the sources cited here are foundational and standards documents rather than an effect synthesis.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Primary and middle grades, especially reading and mathematics.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deno-cbm", "source:fuchs-rti", "source:testing-standards" ], "notes": "Technical adequacy is well studied; this record does not yet cite that synthesis literature, so the grade is held at context-dependent." }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use for growth decisions with enough data points to make a slope meaningful; keep it separate from mastery measurement." }, "tags": [ "measure", "assessment", "intervention", "measurement" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:deeper-learning-competencies", "label": "Deeper learning and transferable competencies", "aliases": [ "21st century competencies", "cognitive, intrapersonal, interpersonal domains" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Valued competencies cluster into cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal domains, and they develop through deep domain learning rather than as free-standing generic skills.", "mechanism": "Transferable competence emerges when domain knowledge is learned with explicit attention to conditions of use, not from decontextualized skills training.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "competency framework design", "graduate outcome definition", "transfer planning" ], "contexts": [ "curriculum design", "program evaluation", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A domain in which the competency is actually exercised", "Assessment of the competency in use" ], "constraints": [ "Generic-skill instruction detached from content transfers poorly", "Competency labels are not measurement", "Interpersonal and intrapersonal constructs are harder to assess validly" ], "risks": [ "Selling generic 'critical thinking' courses as transfer", "Assessing competencies by self-report only", "Displacing domain knowledge that transfer depends on" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Competency demonstrated in a new domain task", "measure": "Performance assessment in an untaught context with rubric agreement checks", "timing": "End of unit and after a delay", "caveat": "Rubric scores can drift toward writing quality" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A national consensus synthesis; supports domain-embedded development of competencies while cautioning that generic-skill transfer evidence is weak.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Framework-level guidance; specific programs need their own evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:education-life-work", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Adopt the domain-embedded stance and the three-domain vocabulary; require in-use assessment before claiming a competency." }, "tags": [ "framework", "transfer", "competency", "curriculum" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:delayed-transfer-assessment", "label": "Delayed, varied, and transfer-oriented assessment", "aliases": [ "retention check", "maintenance assessment" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Assess after delay, with changed surface features or context, and report near, far, cued, and uncued outcomes separately.", "mechanism": "Delay reveals forgetting; variation tests whether knowledge is accessible beyond the practiced representation; uncued tasks test spontaneous recognition.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "retention", "generalization", "workplace transfer" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "training", "evaluation" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Pre-specified retention horizon and transfer distance", "Construct-aligned tasks", "Comparable access conditions" ], "constraints": [ "Do not collapse near and far transfer", "Report assistance and cueing", "Use multiple observations for consequential claims" ], "risks": [ "Equating immediate performance with learning", "Claiming far transfer from isomorphic items", "Ignoring maintenance and context support" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Durable independent use", "measure": "Delayed retention, near/far task, representation change, uncued application, and maintenance", "timing": "At meaningful delayed intervals and in a new context", "caveat": "Transfer distance is multidimensional and must be described, not merely labeled" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Learning and transfer syntheses establish delay, cueing, similarity, and context as material dimensions of the outcome.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Across domains; valid task design remains domain-specific.", "sourceIds": [ "source:transfer-taxonomy", "source:spacing-meta", "source:assessment-nrc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use as the default verification complement to immediate performance when retention or transfer is claimed." }, "tags": [ "assessment", "retention", "transfer", "measurement" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "psychometric", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "assess", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:deliberate-practice-bounds", "label": "Deliberate practice with bounded claims", "aliases": [ "focused practice", "expert practice" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Use specific stretch goals, focused repetitions, informative feedback, and error correction for stable decomposable skills—without claiming practice alone explains expertise.", "mechanism": "Repeated attention to a well-defined weakness plus valid feedback supports error reduction and refinement.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "stable decomposable skill", "performance refinement" ], "contexts": [ "coaching", "professional training", "music", "sport", "technical skill" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Valid performance standard", "Reliable feedback or coaching", "Manageable subskill", "Recovery and motivation plan" ], "constraints": [ "Distinguish focused practice from rote repetition", "Report access and opportunity differences" ], "risks": [ "Burnout", "Inequitable access to coaching", "Overclaiming practice as the dominant cause of expertise", "Narrow optimization harming transfer" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Targeted objective performance improvement", "measure": "Error reduction, criterion performance, retention, transfer, and assistance needed over sessions", "timing": "Across spaced sessions and delayed check", "caveat": "Hours practiced are not equivalent to deliberate practice quality" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis supports practice as one contributor with sharply varying explained variance across domains, not a dominant universal account.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Most plausible in stable domains with objective standards and coaching.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deliberate-practice-meta", "source:feedback-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Use the tactic where feedback and decomposition are valid; do not convert it into an expertise or merit narrative." }, "tags": [ "adult", "practice", "expertise", "contested" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "music", "physical-motor", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "disputed" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:deliberate-practice-theory", "label": "Deliberate practice theory of expertise", "aliases": [ "Ericsson's deliberate practice", "expert performance framework" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Expert performance is claimed to arise from extended, effortful, feedback-rich practice designed to improve specific weaknesses rather than from experience alone.", "mechanism": "Practice aimed at a specific deficiency, with immediate feedback and repetition, refines representations that ordinary experience leaves unchanged.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "music", "physical-motor", "professional-workplace", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "disputed" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "skill development", "expertise programmes", "coaching design" ], "contexts": [ "music practice", "sports coaching", "professional education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A coach or standard defining the specific deficiency", "Immediate informative feedback", "Sustained effortful repetition" ], "constraints": [ "Accumulated practice explains a minority of performance variance across domains", "The strict definition is rarely met by what is labelled deliberate practice", "Domains with stable structure fit far better than ill-structured ones" ], "risks": [ "Attributing failure to insufficient practice hours", "Meritocratic misuse to dismiss access and opportunity", "Labelling ordinary repetition as deliberate practice" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Practice quality against the definition", "measure": "Records of targeted deficiency, feedback received, and performance change, not hours logged", "timing": "Across a training programme", "caveat": "Hours accumulated is the weakest possible measure" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "high", "basis": "The original framework is influential, but meta-analysis shows accumulated deliberate practice accounts for a modest share of performance variance and varies sharply by domain.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Best fit in music, chess, and sports; weak in ill-structured professions.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ericsson-deliberate-practice", "source:deliberate-practice-meta" ], "effect": { "metric": "R-squared", "note": "Roughly 20-25% of variance in music and games, far less in education and professions." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Use its design features (specific target, feedback, repetition) and reject the hours-explain-expertise claim." }, "tags": [ "theory", "expertise", "practice", "contested" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:desirable-difficulties", "label": "Desirable difficulties", "aliases": [ "conditions that slow acquisition but aid retention" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Certain conditions that make practice feel harder and slow immediate performance produce better long-term retention and transfer.", "mechanism": "Effortful retrieval, varied contexts, and spacing induce reconstruction and richer encoding rather than fluent re-reading of already-available information.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "retention", "skill maintenance", "transfer preparation" ], "contexts": [ "practice systems", "curriculum scheduling", "study strategies" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Enough prior knowledge for the difficulty to be surmountable", "Feedback and time to recover from errors" ], "constraints": [ "Difficulty is only desirable if the learner can still succeed with effort", "It reliably depresses in-session performance", "Undesirable difficulties (unclear wording, poor access) look identical from the outside" ], "risks": [ "Justifying confusing instruction as productive difficulty", "Applying it to struggling learners without support", "Judging the design by practice-session performance" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Divergence of practice and retention curves", "measure": "Practice accuracy versus delayed and transfer performance", "timing": "Practice session plus delayed test", "caveat": "A design that looks worse during practice may be better; the reverse also happens" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Convergent evidence across spacing, interleaving, retrieval, and variation studies, plus explicit reviews of the learning-versus-performance distinction.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Robust for retention outcomes; the specific difficulty must match the learner's competence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bjork-self-regulated", "source:soderstrom-bjork", "source:dunlosky-techniques" ], "effect": { "metric": "varies by manipulation", "note": "See spacing, interleaving, and retrieval entries for their own estimates." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Design for delayed performance, and never read in-session fluency as evidence of learning." }, "tags": [ "principle", "retention", "practice", "transfer" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:developmental-context-calibration", "label": "Developmental and cultural calibration without fixed stages", "aliases": [ "developmental fit", "age calibration" ], "kind": "constraint", "summary": "Adapt challenge, pacing, language, and support using repeated task evidence within the learner's developmental, cultural, and historical context—not a rigid age-stage gate.", "mechanism": "Development and learning interact across biological, cognitive, social, and cultural systems; broadly patterned trajectories still vary substantially.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "infancy", "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult", "older-adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "all learning tasks" ], "contexts": [ "all learning environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Repeated observations", "Context and access information", "Task-relevant prior-knowledge evidence" ], "constraints": [ "Keep hypotheses revisable and task-scoped", "Separate chronological age from demonstrated readiness" ], "risks": [ "Fixed developmental-stage routing", "Brain-based determinism", "Stereotyping groups", "Inferring stable traits from one session" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Improved fit under adjusted support", "measure": "Response to hints, pace, strategy, explanation, affect, and transfer across repeated episodes", "timing": "Across episodes and contexts", "caveat": "Observed group averages do not license individual capability claims" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "National Academies consensus treats development, culture, context, and individual variability as central to learning.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Cross-lifespan principle; specific adaptations require local evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:adolescent-nasem" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Make age and development contextual priors at most; route on current task evidence and revise." }, "tags": [ "development", "culture", "lifespan", "anti-stereotyping" ], "classification": { "layer": "constraint", "traditions": [ "developmental", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:dialogic-shared-reading", "label": "Dialogic shared book reading", "aliases": [ "dialogic reading", "interactive book reading", "PEER and CROWD prompts" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Shifting shared reading so the child becomes the storyteller through prompts, evaluation, expansion, and repetition improves expressive oral language in young children.", "mechanism": "Prompted production plus adult expansion gives the child repeated opportunities to use and extend language rather than only to listen.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "developmental", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "multilingual" ], "lifespanStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback", "explain" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool" ], "taskTypes": [ "oral language development", "vocabulary growth", "early literacy" ], "contexts": [ "home partnership", "preschool", "childcare", "one-to-one" ], "lifespanStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Adult trained in the prompting sequence", "Books at an appropriate level", "Repeated sessions" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are largest for younger children and for expressive language", "Benefits diminish for older preschoolers and for receptive vocabulary", "Adult training quality drives the effect" ], "risks": [ "Turning shared reading into interrogation", "Assuming effects extend to later reading comprehension", "Reducing quality to number of words spoken" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Child talk and expressive language growth", "measure": "Child utterance length and turns during reading plus standardized expressive language measures", "timing": "Across weeks of sessions", "caveat": "Adult talk volume is not the outcome" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Original randomized studies plus meta-analysis showing consistent expressive-language effects, moderated by child age.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Strongest for children under about four; smaller for older preschoolers.", "sourceIds": [ "source:whitehurst-dialogic", "source:mol-dialogic-meta", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.4, "note": "Expressive language effects; smaller for receptive vocabulary and older children." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "High-value, low-cost move for early oral language when the adult is trained in the prompting sequence." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "early-childhood", "language", "literacy" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:differentiated-instruction", "label": "Differentiated instruction (within-class)", "aliases": [ "within-class differentiation", "tiered tasks" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Adapting task, pace, or support to assessed within-class differences shows small positive effects, with data-driven and homogeneous-subgroup forms best evidenced.", "mechanism": "Matching task demand to assessed current performance keeps more learners in a productive range than a single whole-class task.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "general", "mathematics", "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "sequence", "access" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "mixed-attainment classes", "targeted practice", "within-class grouping" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "small group", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Current assessment data at task grain", "Genuinely different tasks, not just more or fewer items", "Teacher time and materials" ], "constraints": [ "Evidence base is thin and definitions vary enormously", "Differentiation by fixed learner label is not supported", "Curriculum entitlement must not be reduced for lower groups" ], "risks": [ "Permanently lowering expectations for a subgroup", "Differentiating by supposed learning style or ability label", "Unsustainable teacher workload leading to token differentiation" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Growth across all attainment bands", "measure": "Band-disaggregated growth on common outcomes plus curriculum-coverage audit", "timing": "Across a term", "caveat": "Overall gains can hide losses for the lowest band" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "low", "basis": "Meta-analytic review finds small positive effects for specific data-driven forms, with weak and inconsistent evidence for differentiation as a general practice.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Primary and lower-secondary; heavily dependent on how differentiation is operationalized.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deunk-differentiation", "source:steenbergen-grouping" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Differentiate on current task evidence with equal curriculum entitlement; never on a stable learner label." }, "tags": [ "method", "adaptive", "equity", "diagnostic" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:digital-natives-myth", "label": "Digital natives and effective multitasking", "aliases": [ "net generation", "young people multitask effectively" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "There is no generation with innate digital competence, and no evidence that anyone multitasks without cost; both beliefs lead to withdrawn instruction.", "mechanism": "Familiarity with devices is mistaken for information and learning competence; switching costs apply to everyone regardless of age.", "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "digital-environments", "general", "teacher-development" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "explain" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "deprecated" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "digital literacy planning", "device policy", "technology instruction" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "higher education", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; this is a screening criterion" ], "constraints": [ "Device familiarity is real and is not the same as information competence", "The critique does not argue against technology use, only against assumed competence" ], "risks": [ "Skipping digital and information literacy instruction", "Designing on the assumption learners can self-teach the tools", "Permitting divided attention on the multitasking myth" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Measured digital and information competence", "measure": "Direct assessment of search, evaluation, and tool competence rather than assumption", "timing": "Before designing on it", "caveat": "Confidence with devices does not indicate evaluation skill" } ], "evidence": { "status": "refuted", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Review of the evidence finds no support for either the digital native or the effective-multitasker claim.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Documented across school and higher education populations.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kirschner-digital-native", "source:ophir-multitasking", "source:kirschner-urban-legends" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Teach digital and information competence explicitly; never assume it from age." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "refuted", "digital", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:disciplinary-literacy", "label": "Disciplinary literacy", "aliases": [ "reading like a historian, scientist, mathematician", "advanced literacy" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Beyond general comprehension strategies, each discipline has distinct ways of reading, evaluating, and writing that must be taught explicitly at higher levels.", "mechanism": "Historians source and corroborate, scientists interrogate method and data, mathematicians read for precision; these are discipline-specific practices, not general strategies.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "history-social-studies", "science", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "content-area reading", "source evaluation", "disciplinary writing" ], "contexts": [ "secondary classroom", "higher education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Teacher disciplinary expertise", "Authentic disciplinary texts", "Adequate general reading competence" ], "constraints": [ "It supplements rather than replaces foundational literacy", "Teacher disciplinary knowledge is the limiting factor", "Evidence base is stronger for history than for other disciplines" ], "risks": [ "Applying it before basic comprehension is in place", "Generic strategies rebranded as disciplinary", "Assuming subject teachers can teach it without support" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Discipline-specific reading moves", "measure": "Think-aloud or annotation analysis on authentic disciplinary texts", "timing": "Across a unit", "caveat": "General strategy use is not disciplinary practice" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A well-argued framework with supporting studies, particularly in history; causal evidence across disciplines is uneven.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Secondary and higher education; history is best evidenced.", "sourceIds": [ "source:shanahan-disciplinary", "source:wineburg-historical", "source:reisman-document-based" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Layer onto adequate general literacy in subjects where the disciplinary practices are well characterized." }, "tags": [ "framework", "literacy", "history", "transfer" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:dual-coding", "label": "Dual coding theory", "aliases": [ "verbal and imagery codes" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Verbal and imaginal representations are distinct but connected systems, and information encoded in both is more retrievable than information encoded in one.", "mechanism": "Referential connections between a verbal code and an image code create additional retrieval routes and support mental modelling.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "concept explanation", "vocabulary learning", "diagram use" ], "contexts": [ "instructional materials", "note-taking", "study strategies" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Content that is genuinely depictable", "A diagram that maps to the verbal claim" ], "constraints": [ "It is about representation codes, not about learner 'visual' or 'verbal' types", "Arbitrary or decorative images add nothing", "Redundant on-screen text plus narration can hurt" ], "risks": [ "Being used to justify learning-styles matching", "Adding pictures that carry no structural information", "Assuming any dual presentation is better" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Recall and mental-model quality", "measure": "Cued recall, diagram completion, and explanation of the depicted relation", "timing": "After a delay", "caveat": "Picture recognition can outrun understanding" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Well-established memory theory whose instructional payoff depends on whether the image encodes the target structure.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad for depictable content; not a general rule for all material.", "sourceIds": [ "source:clark-paivio", "source:mayer-multimedia-2017" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Pair words with a structurally meaningful representation; never convert it into a learner-type policy." }, "tags": [ "theory", "representation", "memory" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:early-intentional-practice", "label": "Intentional and engaging early-childhood practice", "aliases": [ "school-readiness practice" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Embed explicit goals for social-emotional, language, literacy, mathematics, and executive-function skills in engaging routines, games, conversation, and shared activity.", "mechanism": "Repeated, responsive, developmentally suitable practice builds specific skills while observation lets adults adjust challenge and language.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood" ], "taskTypes": [ "language development", "early literacy", "early mathematics", "social-emotional practice" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "childcare", "home partnership" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A specific target skill", "Developmentally suitable materials", "Responsive adult interaction" ], "constraints": [ "Integrate with play and relationships", "Interpret progressions flexibly" ], "risks": [ "Worksheet-heavy schoolification", "Assuming far transfer from generic executive-function games", "Deficit labeling" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Target skill in authentic activity", "measure": "Language use, social interaction, math reasoning, letter-sound knowledge, and strategy change", "timing": "Repeated observations across routines", "caveat": "A category-level guide does not validate every branded program" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "WWC practice guide rates several specific early language, literacy, mathematics, and social-emotional recommendations strong; others moderate.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Pre-K and school-readiness contexts; evidence strength varies by specific practice.", "sourceIds": [ "source:early-childhood-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use specific evidence-rated practices while protecting play, relationship, and developmental fit." }, "tags": [ "early-childhood", "development", "language", "mathematics" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "developmental", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool" ], "functions": [ "practice", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:early-math-progression", "label": "Early mathematics through flexible developmental progressions", "aliases": [ "learning progression", "early number progression" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Sequence tasks from informal quantity knowledge toward counting, cardinality, operations, geometry, patterns, measurement, and data while building on observation.", "mechanism": "A progression connects new mathematical language and representations to current strategies and increasingly general relations.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "early-primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "number", "operations", "shape", "pattern", "measurement" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "kindergarten", "playful routine" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Diagnostic observation", "Mathematically meaningful conversation", "Developmentally suitable tasks and representations" ], "constraints": [ "Progressions are models, not rigid age stages", "Integrate mathematics throughout the day without replacing play" ], "risks": [ "Acceleration without conceptual grounding", "Age-based gating", "Counting routines without cardinal meaning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Strategy progression and mathematical language", "measure": "Quantity comparison, counting/cardinality, decomposition, operations, explanation, and transfer to a new representation", "timing": "Across repeated authentic tasks", "caveat": "Chronological age does not determine a single pathway" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "high", "basis": "IES/WWC rates number-and-operations progression moderate; other areas and progress monitoring have more limited direct evidence.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Preschool through kindergarten; evidence strength differs by strand.", "sourceIds": [ "source:early-math-wwc", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use progressions as revisable task maps informed by current strategies, not fixed learner stages." }, "tags": [ "mathematics", "early-childhood", "progression", "development" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "developmental" ], "domains": [ "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:early-number-magnitude", "label": "Number magnitude and the mental number line", "aliases": [ "numerical magnitude representation", "linear number board games", "number line estimation" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Accuracy of numerical magnitude representation predicts and causally supports arithmetic learning, and linear board games improve it in young children.", "mechanism": "A linear rather than compressed representation of magnitude supports estimation, comparison, and the encoding of arithmetic problems and their answers.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "practice", "explain" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "taskTypes": [ "early number sense", "arithmetic readiness", "fraction magnitude" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "classroom", "intervention", "home partnership" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Counting and number identification", "A linear representation in the materials" ], "constraints": [ "Linear formats matter: circular board games do not produce the same effect", "Estimation practice must connect to symbolic number", "Effects on later fractions require separate evidence" ], "risks": [ "Assuming any number game helps", "Treating estimation as a substitute for arithmetic instruction", "Using magnitude tasks as a general ability label" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Magnitude estimation accuracy and arithmetic gain", "measure": "Number line estimation error plus arithmetic learning measures", "timing": "Before and after intervention", "caveat": "Improvement on the trained format may not extend to unfamiliar ranges" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Randomized experiments with linear board games plus evidence that magnitude representation predicts arithmetic learning, endorsed in national early-mathematics syntheses.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Early number in several countries; strongest for young and low-income children.", "sourceIds": [ "source:siegler-ramani-games", "source:booth-siegler", "source:early-math-nrc", "source:early-math-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use linear magnitude activities early and diagnose magnitude representation before attributing arithmetic failure to fact recall." }, "tags": [ "principle", "mathematics", "early-childhood", "diagnostic" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:early-science-engineering", "label": "Science and engineering in preschool and elementary grades", "aliases": [ "early STEM", "young children as investigators" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Young children can engage in meaningful science and engineering practices, and early instruction supports both science learning and language and mathematics development.", "mechanism": "Investigating phenomena provides motivated occasions for language, measurement, argument, and representation alongside science content.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "developmental", "constructivist" ], "domains": [ "science", "engineering-design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice", "collaborate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "early science instruction", "integrated language and science", "engineering design tasks" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "primary classroom" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Phenomena children can investigate directly", "Teacher science knowledge and confidence", "Sustained time in the schedule" ], "constraints": [ "Elementary science time is heavily squeezed by literacy and mathematics", "Teacher preparation is a major limiting factor", "Consensus guidance is not an intervention effect estimate" ], "risks": [ "Activity without conceptual progression", "Assuming integration replaces dedicated science time", "Underestimating young children's reasoning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Science practice and concept development", "measure": "Investigation artifacts, explanation quality, and concept measures", "timing": "Across units", "caveat": "Enjoyable activities can carry no conceptual progression" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "National consensus report synthesizing evidence that young children can and should engage in science and engineering practices.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Preschool and elementary; consensus-level guidance.", "sourceIds": [ "source:preschool-science-nasem", "source:science-framework", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Protect dedicated science time with conceptual progression; treat the framework as design guidance, not effect evidence." }, "tags": [ "framework", "science", "early-childhood", "inquiry" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:early-vocabulary-instruction", "label": "Explicit early vocabulary instruction", "aliases": [ "word learning instruction", "rich vocabulary teaching" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Explicitly taught vocabulary produces large gains on the taught words and much smaller gains on standardized vocabulary or comprehension measures.", "mechanism": "Repeated, varied, meaningful encounters with definitions plus contexts build depth of word knowledge that incidental exposure delivers too slowly.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "multilingual" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "word learning", "language development", "comprehension preparation" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "classroom", "intervention", "shared reading" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Careful word selection for utility", "Multiple varied exposures", "Opportunities to use the words" ], "constraints": [ "Effects on taught words far exceed effects on standardized measures", "The number of words teachable directly is limited", "Word depth, not just breadth, is the target" ], "risks": [ "Word lists without meaningful use", "Expecting standardized comprehension gains from a short programme", "Choosing rare words with low utility" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Taught-word depth and use", "measure": "Researcher-designed measures of the taught words plus observed spontaneous use, reported separately from standardized measures", "timing": "During and after the unit", "caveat": "Standardized measures will understate the taught-word effect and should not be conflated" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analysis shows large effects on researcher-developed measures of taught words and much smaller effects on standardized measures.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Preschool and early primary, including multilingual learners.", "sourceIds": [ "source:marulis-vocabulary", "source:elleman-vocabulary", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.88, "note": "Researcher-developed measures; roughly 0.29 on standardized measures." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Teach high-utility words explicitly, and report taught-word and standardized outcomes separately so the effect is not overstated." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "literacy", "language", "early-childhood" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:elaborative-interrogation", "label": "Elaborative interrogation", "aliases": [ "why questions", "elaborative questioning" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Prompt the learner to explain why a stated fact is true, linking it to what they already know.", "mechanism": "Generating a reason integrates the new fact with existing knowledge and exposes gaps that passive reading leaves hidden.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "factual learning with underlying reasons", "text study", "concept consolidation" ], "contexts": [ "study strategies", "classroom questioning", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Some relevant prior knowledge to elaborate from", "Facts that actually have explanations" ], "constraints": [ "Benefits shrink when prior knowledge is very low", "Not applicable to arbitrary associations", "Learner-generated explanations may be wrong and need checking" ], "risks": [ "Accepting fluent but incorrect explanations", "Using it for arbitrary facts where no reason exists", "Adding time without checking the elaboration's accuracy" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Accuracy of generated reasons", "measure": "Coding of explanation correctness plus delayed factual and inference tests", "timing": "During study and at delay", "caveat": "Verbose explanations are not better explanations" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Rated moderate utility in a comprehensive evidence review; benefits established mainly for factual material with existing prior knowledge.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Mostly laboratory and short classroom studies with factual content.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-techniques", "source:chi-self-explanation" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Cheap addition for explainable facts; verify the generated explanation rather than assuming it." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "elaboration", "explanation", "memory" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:engagement-construct", "label": "Engagement: behavioural, emotional, and cognitive", "aliases": [ "student engagement", "on-task behaviour" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Engagement is a multidimensional construct, and behavioural on-task appearance is the weakest of its three dimensions as evidence of learning.", "mechanism": "Behaviour, affect, and cognitive investment vary independently, so a compliant learner can be cognitively disengaged and vice versa.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "general", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "climate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "early warning systems", "dropout prevention", "product analytics" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "adaptive software", "school systems" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Measures that distinguish the three dimensions" ], "constraints": [ "Behavioural proxies dominate available data and are the least informative", "Definitions vary widely across studies", "Engagement metrics are easy to optimize without learning" ], "risks": [ "Optimizing time-in-app as an educational outcome", "Reading compliance as cognitive engagement", "Penalizing learners for disengagement caused by the design" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Cognitive engagement distinguished from compliance", "measure": "Explanation quality and self-regulated strategy use alongside behavioural logs", "timing": "Continuously", "caveat": "Click and time metrics measure the product, not the learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A widely adopted three-dimensional synthesis; the constituent measures vary substantially in quality.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad conceptual adoption; measurement quality is the weak point.", "sourceIds": [ "source:fredricks-engagement", "source:icap" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Never report a single engagement number; separate the dimensions and treat behavioural data as the weakest signal." }, "tags": [ "construct", "engagement", "measurement", "digital" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:errorful-learning", "label": "Errorful learning and the hypercorrection effect", "aliases": [ "learning from errors", "hypercorrection", "productive error" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Errors made with feedback support learning, and confidently held errors are especially likely to be corrected and stay corrected.", "mechanism": "An error creates a discrepancy that draws attention to the feedback; high-confidence errors produce surprise, which enhances encoding of the correction.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "feedback", "practice", "climate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "misconception correction", "quiz feedback", "skill practice" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "adaptive software", "tutoring", "low-stakes quiz" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Feedback that actually follows the error", "Psychological safety to be wrong", "Attention to the corrective information" ], "constraints": [ "Without feedback, errors can persist", "The benefit is about learning, not about arranging failure for its own sake", "Public error exposure carries social cost" ], "risks": [ "Designing for failure without guaranteeing correction", "Exposing errors publicly in unsafe climates", "Assuming error rate itself is a goal" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Correction durability by pre-error confidence", "measure": "Track error, confidence, feedback, and later retention of the correction", "timing": "Immediately and at delay", "caveat": "Uncorrected errors are consolidated by the same mechanism" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A well-replicated body of experiments, reviewed comprehensively, showing errors followed by feedback benefit learning and that high-confidence errors are corrected most readily.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and materials where feedback is provided.", "sourceIds": [ "source:metcalfe-errors", "source:feedback-meta", "source:hattie-timperley-feedback" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Design for errors plus guaranteed correction and safety; never for errors alone." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "feedback", "error", "climate" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:executive-function-curricula", "label": "Executive-function curricula and training programmes", "aliases": [ "Tools of the Mind", "self-regulation curricula" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Curricula designed to build self-regulation show mixed results: some trials report meaningful gains, others null effects, and far transfer to achievement is not reliable.", "mechanism": "Structured play and regulation routines are intended to give repeated practice at inhibition and planning within classroom activity.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "developmental", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "disputed" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "school readiness programmes", "self-regulation support" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "classroom" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "High implementation fidelity and coaching", "Sustained duration" ], "constraints": [ "Results vary sharply across trials and sites", "Effects are largest where baseline regulation support was weakest", "Implementation fidelity explains much of the variance" ], "risks": [ "Adopting a branded curriculum on early promising results", "Assuming EF gains produce achievement gains", "Displacing language and content learning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Regulation and academic outcomes reported separately", "measure": "Direct EF measures plus independent academic measures with fidelity data", "timing": "Across a programme year and after", "caveat": "Positive EF results do not imply academic results" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Randomized trials of the best-known curriculum show inconsistent results across sites, and the broader review finds transfer is narrow.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Preschool and early primary; site-dependent.", "sourceIds": [ "source:blair-raver-tools", "source:diamond-ling" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "experimental-only", "rationale": "Treat as a local experiment with fidelity monitoring and separate reporting of regulation and academic outcomes." }, "tags": [ "method", "early-childhood", "contested", "self-regulation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:executive-function-development", "label": "Executive function development", "aliases": [ "inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility", "self-regulation capacity" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility develop through childhood, predict school outcomes, and are supported by repeated challenge in meaningful activity.", "mechanism": "These capacities improve with sustained practice at the edge of current ability, embedded in activities the child cares about and with adult support for emotional and physical state.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "developmental", "neuroscience" ], "domains": [ "general", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "self-regulate", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "taskTypes": [ "school readiness", "self-regulation support", "task design for young children" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "classroom", "home partnership" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Activities that repeatedly stress the target capacity", "Emotional and physical wellbeing supports", "Progressive increase in challenge" ], "constraints": [ "Transfer is narrow: gains appear on trained and near skills", "Stress, sleep, and physical state substantially affect performance", "Age norms describe groups, not individuals" ], "risks": [ "Buying commercial EF training expecting academic gains", "Diagnosing individuals from age norms", "Treating dysregulation as defiance" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Regulation in authentic demanding activity", "measure": "Direct EF tasks plus observation in real classroom demands", "timing": "Repeatedly across a year", "caveat": "Laboratory task gains rarely generalize to classroom behaviour" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Comprehensive reviews establish the construct, its developmental course, and the narrowness of transfer from training.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Well established for early and middle childhood.", "sourceIds": [ "source:diamond-executive-function", "source:diamond-ling", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Support executive function inside meaningful activity; expect narrow transfer and never diagnose from age norms." }, "tags": [ "construct", "early-childhood", "development", "self-regulation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:expectancy-value-theory", "label": "Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation", "aliases": [ "situated expectancy-value", "cost value expectancy" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Choice, persistence, and performance depend jointly on expectancy of success and on subjective task value, minus perceived cost.", "mechanism": "Learners act where they expect to succeed and where the task carries interest, utility, or identity value at acceptable cost; either term at zero collapses engagement.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "course and subject choice", "persistence", "effort allocation" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "advising", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A measurable expectancy and value profile", "A task the learner can actually choose to engage or not" ], "constraints": [ "Cost is often the neglected and decisive term", "Values are situated and change with context and identity", "Self-report measures dominate the evidence" ], "risks": [ "Treating low effort as low ability when it is low value or high cost", "Raising expectancy with false reassurance", "Ignoring opportunity cost for working adults" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Expectancy, value, and cost profile", "measure": "Validated scales plus observed choice and persistence", "timing": "Before and during a unit", "caveat": "Stated value can shift quickly with early success or failure" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Decades of longitudinal and experimental work consolidated in a major theoretical review; the cited evidence is a theory synthesis plus intervention studies rather than a pooled effect synthesis.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and domains; measurement is self-report heavy.", "sourceIds": [ "source:eccles-wigfield-2020", "source:hulleman-utility-value" ], "notes": "Graded context-dependent under the 0.2.0 rule that a strong grade must rest on a synthesis-grade source; the theory is well supported, the cited base is not a synthesis of effects." }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Diagnose disengagement by separating expectancy, value, and cost before attributing it to effort." }, "tags": [ "theory", "motivation", "diagnostic", "agency" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:expertise-reversal", "label": "Expertise reversal effect", "aliases": [ "guidance fading requirement", "instructional method by prior knowledge interaction" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Instructional support that helps novices becomes redundant and then harmful as learners gain knowledge, so guidance must be faded against measured expertise.", "mechanism": "Once a learner holds the relevant schema, external guidance must be reconciled with internal knowledge, adding processing that serves no purpose.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "practice" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "worked example sequencing", "scaffolding design", "adaptive support" ], "contexts": [ "adaptive software", "tutoring", "instructional materials", "classroom" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A measure of current domain-specific prior knowledge", "The ability to change support level" ], "constraints": [ "Expertise is knowledge-component specific, not a global learner level", "Requires ongoing measurement, not a one-time placement", "Reversal points differ by task and by learner" ], "risks": [ "Freezing support at the novice setting for a whole course", "Using a global 'level' label instead of task-specific evidence", "Fading support faster than competence grows" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Interaction of support level with prior knowledge", "measure": "Compare supported and unsupported conditions across prior-knowledge bands", "timing": "Repeatedly as knowledge develops", "caveat": "An average effect hides the interaction that matters" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A replicated interaction documented across many instructional-design experiments and syntheses.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Well evidenced in well-structured domains; the reversal point is task-specific.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal", "source:cognitive-load", "source:worked-examples-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "The single most important boundary condition on scaffolding, worked examples, and multimedia guidance; enforce it as a fading rule." }, "tags": [ "principle", "adaptive", "novice", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "label": "Explicit instruction (principles of instruction)", "aliases": [ "direct instruction", "Rosenshine's principles", "explicit teaching" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Present new material in small steps with modelling, guided practice, high-frequency questioning, checks for understanding, and independent practice.", "mechanism": "Small steps and frequent checks keep working-memory demand manageable and surface errors before they are practised, while modelling makes expert processes visible.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "literacy", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "new skill acquisition", "well-structured procedures", "foundational knowledge" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention", "tutoring", "training" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A decomposable skill or body of knowledge", "Prepared examples and checking questions", "Time for guided then independent practice" ], "constraints": [ "Explicit is not lecture: it requires high-frequency response and checking", "Guidance must fade as competence grows", "Weakest fit for open, ill-structured, or judgment-laden tasks" ], "risks": [ "Degenerating into uninterrupted teacher talk", "Holding guidance constant past the point of expertise reversal", "Over-fitting to the taught examples with no varied practice" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Independent accuracy on untaught items", "measure": "Check-for-understanding hit rate during the lesson plus unassisted delayed items", "timing": "Within lesson and after a delay", "caveat": "High choral response can mask individual non-understanding" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Synthesis of process-product research, cognitive-science findings, and expert-teacher studies converging on the same set of practices; strongest for foundational and well-structured content.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad for well-structured content and novice learners; weaker evidence for open-ended disciplinary work.", "sourceIds": [ "source:rosenshine-principles", "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance", "source:ies-study" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Sound default for novel well-structured content, provided checking is frequent and guidance fades." }, "tags": [ "method", "novice", "practice", "explanation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:external-attentional-focus", "label": "External focus of attention in motor learning", "aliases": [ "focus on the effect not the body", "attentional focus instructions" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Instructions that direct attention to the movement's external effect produce better motor performance and learning than instructions focused on body movements.", "mechanism": "An external focus permits automatic control processes to operate, while an internal focus induces conscious interference with them.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "physical-motor", "music", "health" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "motor skill instruction", "rehabilitation", "sports coaching" ], "contexts": [ "training", "clinical rehabilitation", "sports coaching", "music practice" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "An identifiable external effect to focus on", "Cue wording that is genuinely external" ], "constraints": [ "Effects vary by skill and expertise level", "Much of the evidence is short-term laboratory work", "Wording distinctions are subtle and often mis-implemented" ], "risks": [ "Cues that are labelled external but describe the body", "Assuming it applies to every skill and stage", "Overgeneralizing from single-session studies" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Performance and retention by cue type", "measure": "Matched tasks with internal versus external cue wording plus delayed retention", "timing": "During and after practice", "caveat": "Coaches routinely misclassify their own cues" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A substantial review reporting consistent advantages for external focus, though largely from short laboratory studies.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Motor tasks across ages; durability evidence is thinner.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wulf-attentional-focus", "source:shea-morgan-contextual" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Cheap cue-wording change worth adopting; verify cues are genuinely external and measure retention." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "physical-motor", "explanation", "practice" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:fact-fluency", "label": "Basic fact fluency and automaticity", "aliases": [ "arithmetic fact retrieval", "timed fluency practice" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Building efficient retrieval of basic facts frees working memory for multi-step reasoning, but fluency work must follow understanding and avoid anxiety-inducing formats.", "mechanism": "Automatic retrieval removes the working-memory cost of recomputing components inside a larger problem.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle" ], "taskTypes": [ "arithmetic fluency", "multi-step problem support", "intervention" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention", "adaptive software", "home practice" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Conceptual understanding of the operation first", "Short frequent distributed sessions", "Low-stakes format" ], "constraints": [ "Timed public drills are a documented anxiety source", "Fluency is a means to reasoning, not the goal", "Strategy-based fluency outperforms rote drill for many learners" ], "risks": [ "Timed tests entrenching mathematics anxiety", "Fluency work before understanding", "Confusing speed with mathematical competence" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Retrieval efficiency and downstream capacity", "measure": "Fluency probes plus performance on multi-step problems and an anxiety check", "timing": "Weekly", "caveat": "Faster facts alone do not indicate better mathematics" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Evidence-rated intervention guidance recommends fluency-building activities, while the anxiety literature constrains the format.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Primary and middle grades, especially learners with mathematics difficulty.", "sourceIds": [ "source:math-intervention-wwc", "source:barroso-math-anxiety", "source:spacing-meta" ], "sourceLocators": [ { "sourceId": "source:math-intervention-wwc", "locator": "Recommendation on building fluent retrieval of basic arithmetic facts" } ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Build fluency after understanding, in short distributed low-stakes sessions rather than timed public drills." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "mathematics", "practice", "spacing" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:feedback-design-levels", "label": "Feedback levels: task, process, self-regulation, and self", "aliases": [ "four levels of feedback", "feedback focus" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Feedback about the task, the process, and self-regulation supports learning, while feedback about the person is ineffective or harmful.", "mechanism": "Feedback works by reducing a gap between current and desired understanding; person-directed feedback carries no gap-closing information and diverts attention to the self.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general", "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "feedback" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "written feedback", "verbal correction", "automated feedback design" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "tutoring", "adaptive software", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A clear goal the learner understands", "Information about the gap", "An opportunity to act on it" ], "constraints": [ "A substantial minority of feedback interventions reduce performance", "Praise directed at the person does not improve learning", "Feedback without a chance to revise is inert" ], "risks": [ "Grades crowding out attention to comments", "Person praise creating contingent self-worth", "Overwhelming volume of correction" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Uptake and subsequent performance", "measure": "Evidence of the feedback being acted on plus performance on the next attempt", "timing": "Immediately after the revision opportunity", "caveat": "Reading feedback is not acting on it" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Convergent evidence from the classic feedback meta-analysis, the four-level synthesis, and later meta-analyses of feedback in education.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad; effect sign depends on level and on revision opportunity.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hattie-timperley-feedback", "source:feedback-meta", "source:wisniewski-feedback-meta", "source:shute-formative-feedback" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.48, "note": "Average positive effect with wide variance; over a third of interventions in the classic meta-analysis reduced performance." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Direct feedback at task, process, or self-regulation, and always provide the revision opportunity that makes it usable." }, "tags": [ "principle", "feedback", "revision", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:feedback-literacy", "label": "Feedback uptake and learner feedback literacy", "aliases": [ "feedback as a process", "sustainable feedback", "closing the loop" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Feedback only counts when the learner appreciates, judges, and acts on it, so systems must design for uptake rather than for delivery.", "mechanism": "Learners need the capability to evaluate quality, manage the affective response, and take action; without it, well-formed comments produce nothing.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "general", "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "feedback", "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "assignment feedback cycles", "peer review", "coaching conversations" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "workplace learning", "classroom" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A subsequent task where the feedback applies", "Exemplars and criteria the learner can use to judge quality", "Time allocated for uptake" ], "constraints": [ "Uptake capability must be developed deliberately", "Emotional response mediates use", "Evidence base is largely conceptual and higher-education-based" ], "risks": [ "Measuring feedback quality by volume produced", "Assuming uptake because comments were delivered", "Blaming learners for not using feedback they were never taught to use" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Documented action on feedback", "measure": "Comparison of successive drafts or attempts plus learner accounts of what they changed", "timing": "Across the feedback cycle", "caveat": "Satisfaction with feedback correlates weakly with using it" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "low", "basis": "A conceptual framework with growing but largely qualitative higher-education evidence; consistent with the finding that feedback needs a revision opportunity.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Mostly higher education; limited causal evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:carless-feedback-literacy", "source:nicol-macfarlane", "source:sadler-formative" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Design the uptake step explicitly and measure the change it produced, not the feedback delivered." }, "tags": [ "framework", "feedback", "self-regulation", "revision" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:flipped-classroom", "label": "Flipped classroom", "aliases": [ "inverted classroom", "pre-class video with in-class practice" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Moving first exposure before class and using class time for practice and feedback yields a small positive average effect on learning.", "mechanism": "Class time is reallocated from transmission to guided practice with feedback; the gain depends on what actually fills the reclaimed time.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "science", "mathematics", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "procedural practice", "concept application", "course redesign" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "secondary classroom", "blended programs" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Reliable pre-class access for every learner", "Accountability for pre-class work", "A designed in-class activity, not free time" ], "constraints": [ "The effect comes from the in-class redesign, not the video", "Adding pre-class work without removing anything increases total load", "Access inequities directly become learning inequities" ], "risks": [ "Assuming video watching happened", "Doubling workload rather than reallocating it", "Widening gaps for learners without home connectivity" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Learning versus the same course unflipped", "measure": "Common assessments plus pre-class completion and in-class activity records", "timing": "Across a term", "caveat": "Satisfaction ratings often drop even when learning rises" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis finds a small positive average effect on learning with no consistent satisfaction advantage; quizzing on pre-class material is a positive moderator.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Mostly higher education and secondary; heterogeneous designs.", "sourceIds": [ "source:vanalten-flipped", "source:bernard-distance" ], "effect": { "metric": "g", "value": 0.36, "note": "Small positive effect on learning outcomes; near-zero on student satisfaction." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Worthwhile only if the reclaimed class time is redesigned for practice and feedback and access is guaranteed." }, "tags": [ "method", "digital", "practice", "sequence" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:formative-assessment-cycle", "label": "Formative assessment as an adaptive cycle", "aliases": [ "assessment for learning", "short-cycle formative assessment" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Elicit evidence, interpret it against a learning goal, and change the next learner or instructional action.", "mechanism": "A valid short-cycle signal reduces uncertainty about the current gap and makes feedback, regrouping, reteaching, or learner revision responsive.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "ongoing learning", "diagnosis", "revision" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "tutoring", "training" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Clear learning goal and success criteria", "An elicitation aligned to the construct", "Authority and time to respond" ], "constraints": [ "The cycle is formative only if evidence changes a next action", "Keep interpretations proportional to evidence" ], "risks": [ "Calling any quiz formative", "Collecting dashboards without adaptation", "Repeating broad effect-size claims across heterogeneous implementations" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Evidence-contingent next action and gap closure", "measure": "Documented regrouping, reteaching, feedback uptake, revision, and follow-up task", "timing": "Within the instructional cycle", "caveat": "The existence of a score or quiz is not evidence of formative use" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Influential positive review plus a critical review documenting definition, implementation, and magnitude problems.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad logic; effects depend heavily on domain, implementation, population, and follow-through.", "sourceIds": [ "source:formative-review", "source:formative-critique", "source:assessment-nrc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Retrieve the full evidence-to-action loop, not an assessment event in isolation." }, "tags": [ "assessment", "feedback", "adaptive", "measurement" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "psychometric", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "assess", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:formative-assessment-effect-caution", "label": "Formative assessment effect size caution", "aliases": [ "assessment for learning effect estimates" ], "kind": "constraint", "summary": "Formative assessment is widely endorsed, but rigorous meta-analytic estimates of its effect are much smaller than the figures commonly quoted, and vary by what was actually implemented.", "mechanism": "The label covers everything from a five-minute exit ticket to a whole-school system, so pooled estimates aggregate incomparable interventions.", "classification": { "layer": "constraint", "traditions": [ "psychometric", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "assess", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "programme claims", "policy justification", "evaluation design" ], "contexts": [ "school systems", "programme evaluation", "product claims" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A specific described practice rather than the umbrella label" ], "constraints": [ "Widely cited large effect figures are not supported by later rigorous syntheses", "Effects vary by subject, format, and implementation", "Publication and implementation quality vary widely" ], "risks": [ "Marketing an inflated effect size", "Treating any quizzing as formative assessment", "Abandoning the practice because the headline number shrank" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Specified practice with its own evidence", "measure": "Describe the exact practice and cite evidence for that practice, not the umbrella term", "timing": "At the point of any claim", "caveat": "Umbrella-label effect sizes are uninterpretable" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A rigorous meta-analysis produced substantially smaller estimates than the widely quoted earlier figures, and a critical review documented conceptual imprecision in the construct.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "The caution applies wherever the umbrella term is used.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kingston-nash-formative", "source:formative-critique", "source:formative-review" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.2, "note": "Approximate meta-analytic estimate, well below the often-quoted 0.4 to 0.7 range." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Name the specific practice and cite its own evidence; never quote an umbrella formative-assessment effect size." }, "tags": [ "constraint", "assessment", "contested", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:game-based-learning", "label": "Serious games and game-based learning", "aliases": [ "educational games", "digital game-based learning" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Well-designed instructional games can improve learning modestly relative to conventional instruction, especially when supplemented with other instruction and played over multiple sessions.", "mechanism": "Games provide continuous responding, immediate consequence feedback, and goal structures, but only the instructionally aligned parts produce learning.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "digital-environments", "science", "mathematics", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "motivate", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "procedural practice", "system understanding", "simulation of consequences" ], "contexts": [ "adaptive software", "classroom", "home learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Alignment of game mechanics with the target knowledge", "Supplementary instruction and debriefing", "Multiple sessions" ], "constraints": [ "Effects depend on design, not on being a game", "Motivation gains do not reliably follow", "Off-task play consumes time invisibly" ], "risks": [ "Assuming engagement equals learning", "Mechanics that reward speed over reasoning", "Buying a game and skipping the surrounding instruction" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Learning outside the game", "measure": "Transfer assessment outside the game environment plus time-on-task logs", "timing": "After multiple sessions", "caveat": "In-game scores mostly measure game skill" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analyses find small-to-moderate learning advantages over conventional instruction, moderated by supplementary instruction and number of sessions; motivation effects are not consistent.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Heterogeneous across genres, ages, and subjects.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wouters-serious-games", "source:clark-digital-games" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.29, "note": "Learning advantage over conventional instruction; motivation effects not reliably positive." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Judge the instructional design, not the format; require an out-of-game transfer measure." }, "tags": [ "method", "digital", "engagement", "practice" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:gamification-reward-layers", "label": "Gamification of non-game learning activities", "aliases": [ "points, badges, leaderboards", "PBL mechanics" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Adding game elements such as points, badges, and leaderboards to ordinary activities produces small positive effects on cognitive and behavioural outcomes and is highly design-dependent.", "mechanism": "Game elements can add goal clarity and progress feedback; competitive elements can also crowd out interest and disadvantage lower performers.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "digital-environments", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "practice adherence", "habit formation", "progress visibility" ], "contexts": [ "adaptive software", "training platforms", "classroom systems" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "An activity that is worth doing repeatedly", "Progress signals tied to real learning, not clicks" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are small and vary by element type", "Public leaderboards can harm lower-performing learners", "Extrinsic rewards can undermine existing intrinsic interest" ], "risks": [ "Optimizing streaks and points over understanding", "Ranking learners publicly", "Manufacturing compliance and calling it motivation" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Learning and voluntary persistence", "measure": "Learning outcomes plus voluntary return after rewards stop, disaggregated by performance band", "timing": "During and after removal of the mechanics", "caveat": "Engagement metrics rise most for those already succeeding" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis finds small positive average effects on cognitive, motivational, and behavioural outcomes with strong dependence on which elements are used.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad but element-specific; competitive elements are the riskiest.", "sourceIds": [ "source:sailer-gamification", "source:ryan-deci-sdt" ], "effect": { "metric": "g", "value": 0.49, "note": "Cognitive outcomes; motivational and behavioural effects smaller." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Prefer progress and mastery signals over competition; check effects for the lowest-performing band separately." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "motivation", "digital", "risk" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:generation-effect", "label": "Generation effect", "aliases": [ "generate rather than read", "productive generation" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Information a learner generates is remembered better than the same information read, provided generation succeeds or is corrected.", "mechanism": "Generating engages the retrieval and construction processes that later recall depends on, creating a stronger and more distinctive trace.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "vocabulary", "definitions", "procedure steps" ], "contexts": [ "study strategies", "adaptive software", "classroom questioning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Enough knowledge to attempt generation", "Immediate correction available" ], "constraints": [ "Fails without adequate prior knowledge or feedback", "Effect sizes are modest for complex material", "Time cost per item is higher than reading" ], "risks": [ "Uncorrected generation consolidating errors", "Applying it to material with no basis for generation", "Confusing it with unguided discovery of new concepts" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Recall for generated versus read items", "measure": "Within-subject item comparison at delay", "timing": "After a delay", "caveat": "Generation is slower per item; compare per unit time as well" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A classic and widely replicated memory effect, with modern reviews clarifying that errorful generation also helps when feedback follows.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Robust for verbal material; smaller and more conditional for complex content.", "sourceIds": [ "source:slamecka-generation", "source:metcalfe-errors", "source:dunlosky-techniques" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Prefer generation over presentation whenever feedback can immediately follow." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "generation", "memory", "practice" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:gesture-and-embodiment", "label": "Gesture and embodied representation", "aliases": [ "instructional gesture", "producing gestures while explaining" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Producing and observing task-relevant gestures supports learning of spatial and relational content and can make emerging understanding visible.", "mechanism": "Gesture externalizes spatial and relational structure, offloads working memory, and expresses knowledge a learner cannot yet verbalize.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "developmental", "neuroscience" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "science", "world-language" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "spatial reasoning", "equation structure", "concept explanation" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "tutoring", "video instruction" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Content with spatial or relational structure", "A gesture that maps to that structure" ], "constraints": [ "Arbitrary gestures do not help", "Evidence is strongest for children and spatial or mathematical content", "Accessibility alternatives are needed for learners who cannot see or produce gestures" ], "risks": [ "Adding decorative movement", "Requiring gesture in ways that exclude some learners", "Reading gesture as proficiency" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Gesture-speech mismatch and learning readiness", "measure": "Coded gesture during explanation plus post-instruction performance", "timing": "During explanation and after instruction", "caveat": "Mismatch signals readiness, not mastery" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Experimental work shows gesture production causally aids learning of mathematical and spatial content and reveals transitional knowledge.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Strongest for children learning spatial or mathematical relations.", "sourceIds": [ "source:goldin-meadow-gesture", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use structurally meaningful gesture for spatial and relational content, with accessible alternatives available." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "representation", "mathematics", "diagnostic" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:goal-setting-and-implementation-intentions", "label": "Specific goals and implementation intentions", "aliases": [ "SMART goals", "if-then planning", "goal specificity" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Specific, difficult, accepted goals outperform vague ones, and if-then plans that specify when and where to act close much of the intention-action gap.", "mechanism": "Specific goals direct attention and effort and permit self-monitoring; if-then plans delegate initiation to a situational cue rather than to willpower.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "general", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate", "motivate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "study planning", "practice adherence", "behaviour change" ], "contexts": [ "coaching", "study strategies", "workplace learning", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Goal acceptance and commitment", "The skill to actually perform the action", "Feedback on progress" ], "constraints": [ "Specific difficult goals harm performance on tasks still being learned", "Goals without feedback do little", "They can narrow attention and encourage gaming the metric" ], "risks": [ "Setting outcome goals for skills not yet acquired", "Metric fixation and neglect of unmeasured goals", "Demoralization when goals are imposed rather than accepted" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Goal-linked behaviour change", "measure": "Rate of intended action performed plus progress on the target skill", "timing": "Weekly", "caveat": "Goal attainment can be met by lowering the standard" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "One of the most replicated findings in organizational psychology, with a large separate literature on implementation intentions.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Robust for performance of acquired skills; weaker or negative during acquisition.", "sourceIds": [ "source:locke-latham-goals", "source:zimmerman-srl" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.6, "note": "Implementation-intention effects on goal attainment are typically medium-to-large." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use learning goals during acquisition and performance goals after; always pair with progress feedback." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "self-regulation", "motivation", "adult" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:grit-construct", "label": "Grit as a predictor", "aliases": [ "perseverance and passion for long-term goals" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Grit adds little predictive power beyond conscientiousness, and its perseverance facet does nearly all the work.", "mechanism": "The measure largely re-describes conscientiousness; the passion-for-consistency facet contributes minimally to prediction.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "deprecated" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "persistence prediction", "selection decisions" ], "contexts": [ "admissions", "programme evaluation", "coaching" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; the construct is being assessed rather than applied" ], "constraints": [ "Incremental validity over conscientiousness is small", "Correlations with performance are modest", "There is no evidence base for durable grit training" ], "risks": [ "Using grit scores in selection or placement", "Attributing structural barriers to insufficient perseverance", "Selling grit curricula as evidence-based" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Incremental prediction over conscientiousness", "measure": "Hierarchical regression including conscientiousness, not grit alone", "timing": "At selection or evaluation", "caveat": "Zero-order correlations look far more impressive than incremental ones" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analysis finds grit is strongly correlated with conscientiousness, weakly predictive of performance, and largely reducible to its perseverance facet.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad; the critique is measurement-level.", "sourceIds": [ "source:crede-grit-meta", "source:duckworth-grit" ], "effect": { "metric": "r", "value": 0.18, "note": "Approximate meta-analytic correlation with academic performance; minimal incremental validity over conscientiousness." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Do not use as a selection variable or as a target of instruction; treat persistence as situational and supportable." }, "tags": [ "construct", "contested", "motivation", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:growth-mindset-warning", "label": "Growth-mindset intervention warning", "aliases": [ "malleability messaging" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Do not treat brief growth-mindset messaging as a general achievement intervention or replacement for strategy, instruction, feedback, and opportunity.", "mechanism": "The proposed path from malleability belief to challenge seeking and effort is plausible, but changing a belief does not itself supply knowledge, effective strategy, or resources.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "motivation support" ], "contexts": [ "advising", "classroom climate" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "If used, pair with effective strategies and structural support", "Pre-register objective outcomes and manipulation checks" ], "constraints": [ "Separate belief change from achievement effects" ], "risks": [ "Praising effort without effective strategy", "Blaming learners", "Replacing instruction or resources with slogans" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Behavior and achievement beyond self-reported belief", "measure": "Challenge choice, strategy change, persistence, and long-term objective outcome", "timing": "After sufficient follow-up", "caveat": "A successful mindset manipulation is not an achievement effect" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large critical meta-analysis found tiny overall effects and nonsignificant effects in higher-quality or bias-adjusted subsets.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Does not support a general achievement intervention claim.", "sourceIds": [ "source:growth-mindset-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "At most a small contextual component; never a substitute for substantive teaching and opportunity." }, "tags": [ "motivation", "warning", "contested", "equity" ], "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "motivate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "disputed" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:guided-inquiry", "label": "Guided inquiry and guided discovery", "aliases": [ "enhanced discovery", "structured inquiry", "guided scientific investigation" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Inquiry works when it is guided: unassisted discovery underperforms, while inquiry with explicit guidance, feedback, and worked support outperforms both.", "mechanism": "Guidance keeps search within a productive space so learners test ideas rather than exhaust working memory on unconstrained exploration.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "science", "mathematics", "computing" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "investigation design", "concept discovery", "scientific practice" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "laboratory", "simulation" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A constrained investigation space", "Explicit guidance, prompts, or worked support", "Consolidation after exploration" ], "constraints": [ "The amount of guidance, not the inquiry label, drives the effect", "Younger and lower-prior-knowledge learners need more guidance", "Teacher-led inquiry activities show larger effects than pure student-led ones" ], "risks": [ "Equating inquiry with minimal guidance", "Confirming misconceptions through unguided exploration", "Assessing enthusiasm instead of understanding" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Concept and epistemic gains under specified guidance", "measure": "Concept measures plus records of what guidance was actually provided", "timing": "During and after the investigation", "caveat": "Guidance level is often unreported, making results uninterpretable" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analyses consistently show unassisted discovery underperforms explicit instruction while guided discovery outperforms both; guidance is the decisive moderator.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Robust across ages and science topics.", "sourceIds": [ "source:alfieri-discovery", "source:furtak-inquiry", "source:lazonder-harmsen", "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.5, "note": "Enhanced/guided discovery versus other conditions; unassisted discovery is negative relative to explicit instruction." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Adopt inquiry only with specified guidance; record the guidance level as part of the design." }, "tags": [ "method", "science", "inquiry", "scaffolding" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:guided-play", "label": "Guided play", "aliases": [ "playful learning with guidance" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Combine genuine child choice and meaningful play with a clear learning goal and responsive adult questions, hints, modeling, or environment design.", "mechanism": "Agency and exploration sustain engagement while contingent guidance focuses attention on relevant relations.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "early-primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "early mathematics", "spatial concepts", "some task switching" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "museum", "home", "classroom center" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Genuine choice", "A specific learning goal", "Responsive rather than rigid guidance" ], "constraints": [ "Evidence is narrow and heterogeneous", "Preserve the distinction from free play and scripted direct instruction" ], "risks": [ "Calling any playful-looking worksheet guided play", "Assuming superiority for all literacy, social-emotional, or executive-function outcomes" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Child-led exploration focused by adaptive guidance", "measure": "Choice, prompt contingency, persistence, explanation, and target-domain outcome", "timing": "During play and on a separate target check", "caveat": "Enjoyment alone does not show concept learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Systematic review found benefits for some early math, shape, and switching outcomes, often from few studies, and nulls elsewhere.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Mainly ages one to eight; strongest for selected early mathematics and spatial outcomes.", "sourceIds": [ "source:guided-play-review", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Retrieve with an explicit target, real child agency, responsive guidance, and domain-specific measurement." }, "tags": [ "early-childhood", "play", "agency", "scaffolding" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "developmental", "constructivist" ], "domains": [ "general", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "practice" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:historical-thinking-sourcing", "label": "Historical thinking: sourcing, contextualizing, corroborating", "aliases": [ "document-based history instruction", "reading like a historian" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Teaching learners to source, contextualize, and corroborate documents improves historical reasoning and can also improve general reading comprehension.", "mechanism": "Attending to who produced a text, when, and why converts reading from information extraction into evidence evaluation.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "history-social-studies", "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "transfer", "assess" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "document analysis", "argumentation from evidence", "media evaluation" ], "contexts": [ "secondary classroom", "higher education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Curated document sets with real interpretive tension", "Background knowledge of the period", "Explicit modelling of the heuristics" ], "constraints": [ "Requires substantial background knowledge to contextualize", "Expert heuristics do not appear spontaneously in novices", "Curriculum time cost is significant" ], "risks": [ "Document activities without background knowledge", "Reducing history to generic critical thinking", "Assuming digital source evaluation transfers automatically" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Use of sourcing heuristics on new documents", "measure": "Coded think-aloud or written analysis of unfamiliar documents", "timing": "After the unit and at delay", "caveat": "Naming the heuristic is not using it" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Classic expert-novice studies plus classroom intervention evidence showing gains in historical thinking and some transfer to general comprehension.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Secondary history classrooms, mostly United States studies.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wineburg-historical", "source:reisman-document-based", "source:shanahan-disciplinary" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Strong fit for evidence-based reasoning goals; guarantee the background knowledge the contextualizing step requires." }, "tags": [ "method", "history", "reasoning", "literacy" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:home-learning-environment", "label": "Home learning environment and family practices", "aliases": [ "parent involvement", "home literacy environment", "informal versus formal home teaching" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Informal exposure to literacy and formal teaching of skills at home predict different outcomes: shared reading predicts vocabulary, direct teaching predicts early decoding.", "mechanism": "Different home activities provide different inputs; meaning-focused exposure builds language while explicit teaching builds code skills.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "developmental", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "mathematics", "multilingual" ], "lifespanStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "access", "practice", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool", "primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "family partnership", "early literacy planning", "readiness support" ], "contexts": [ "home partnership", "preschool", "community programs" ], "lifespanStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Materials and time available in the home", "Guidance in the home's own language" ], "constraints": [ "Largely correlational with substantial confounding", "Home practices vary by culture and resources, and difference is not deficit", "Effects are activity-specific, not a general involvement factor" ], "risks": [ "Deficit framing of families", "Assigning school-like homework to families as a fix", "Assuming one home activity improves all outcomes" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Activity-specific child outcomes", "measure": "Distinguish exposure and teaching activities and link each to matched child measures", "timing": "Across the preschool years", "caveat": "A global involvement score hides which activity did the work" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Longitudinal work distinguishing informal and formal home literacy experiences with differentiated outcome prediction; evidence is correlational.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Demonstrated across several languages; culturally situated.", "sourceIds": [ "source:senechal-lefevre", "source:early-childhood-wwc", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Support specific activities matched to specific goals, in the family's language, without deficit framing." }, "tags": [ "construct", "early-childhood", "literacy", "equity" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:homework-practice", "label": "Homework as distributed practice", "aliases": [ "out-of-class practice", "independent assignments" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Homework's association with achievement is near zero in primary school and grows with age; the quality and purpose of the task matters more than the amount.", "mechanism": "Out-of-class work can provide spacing and retrieval, but only if the task is practicable independently and errors are corrected afterwards.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "behavioral", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "retention practice", "prerequisite maintenance", "preparation" ], "contexts": [ "home learning", "classroom systems" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "The learner can do it without help", "Feedback on it afterwards", "Home conditions that permit it" ], "constraints": [ "Age moderates the association strongly", "Correlational evidence dominates; causal claims are weak", "Home resource inequality is directly transmitted into outcomes" ], "risks": [ "Assigning new material as homework", "Amplifying inequity between home environments", "Uncorrected practice consolidating errors" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Independent completion and later retention", "measure": "Completion without assistance plus delayed in-class retrieval performance", "timing": "Following assignment and later", "caveat": "Completion rate says nothing about who did it" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Synthesis of largely correlational studies showing a strong age gradient and dependence on task design.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Association near zero for young children, moderate for secondary.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cooper-homework", "source:ies-study" ], "effect": { "metric": "r", "note": "Effectively zero in elementary grades; increasing through secondary school." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Justify each assignment by spacing or retrieval purpose; never assign unlearned material, and check equity of home conditions." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "practice", "equity", "spacing" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:icap-engagement-hypothesis", "label": "ICAP cognitive-engagement ordering", "aliases": [ "interactive constructive active passive" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Classify overt engagement as passive, active, constructive, or interactive and predict deeper learning when learners generate beyond given information or co-construct reasoning.", "mechanism": "Generative activity creates new inferences; substantive dialogue can expose and jointly repair gaps beyond each participant's initial contribution.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "note taking", "concept mapping", "self-explanation", "discussion" ], "contexts": [ "classroom design", "activity audit" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A target cognitive product", "Observable learner output", "Interaction that is substantively co-constructive" ], "constraints": [ "Overt activity is only a proxy for cognitive engagement", "The predicted ordering has caveats and depends on activity quality" ], "risks": [ "Calling clicks active learning", "Assuming any group work is interactive", "Maximizing activity at the expense of knowledge or clarity" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Learner-generated inference or co-construction", "measure": "Quality and novelty of notes, explanations, maps, dialogue uptake, and delayed learning", "timing": "During activity and on independent follow-up", "caveat": "Behavioral category alone does not establish mechanism or learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "hypothesis", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Theory article integrates laboratory and classroom evidence but states an ordering hypothesis with limitations, not a universal causal law.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Useful as an activity-audit lens; effects depend on domain, prompt, and interaction quality.", "sourceIds": [ "source:icap" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "experimental-only", "rationale": "Use to formulate observable design predictions and compare outcomes, not to rank every activity mechanically." }, "tags": [ "general", "engagement", "generation", "hypothesis" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "collaborate" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "emerging" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:instructed-second-language-acquisition", "label": "Explicit instruction in second language acquisition", "aliases": [ "focus on form", "explicit versus implicit L2 instruction" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Explicit second-language instruction outperforms purely implicit exposure, and effects are durable, though measurement type strongly shapes apparent size.", "mechanism": "Explicit attention to form helps learners notice features that comprehensible input alone leaves unnoticed, especially for non-salient structures.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "world-language", "multilingual" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "grammar acquisition", "language accuracy", "language programme design" ], "contexts": [ "language classroom", "self-study", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Meaningful input and output opportunities alongside form focus", "Targets that benefit from explicit attention" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are inflated by constrained response measures over free production", "Explicit instruction complements rather than replaces meaningful use", "Durability evidence is limited to available delayed post-tests" ], "risks": [ "Grammar teaching with no communicative use", "Judging success only on discrete-point tests", "Assuming exposure alone suffices" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Free production accuracy", "measure": "Free constructed response alongside constrained measures", "timing": "Immediately and at delay", "caveat": "Constrained measures overstate the effect substantially" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Landmark meta-analysis of instructed second-language acquisition showing large explicit-instruction advantages, moderated heavily by outcome measure type.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across languages and ages studied.", "sourceIds": [ "source:norris-ortega", "source:cefr" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 1, "note": "Large average effects for explicit over implicit instruction, substantially smaller on free-response measures." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Combine explicit form focus with meaningful use, and always report free-production outcomes." }, "tags": [ "principle", "world-language", "explanation", "practice" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:instructional-coaching", "label": "Instructional coaching for practitioners", "aliases": [ "teacher coaching", "job-embedded professional development" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Individualized, sustained coaching improves practice and, more modestly, learner outcomes; effects shrink substantially as programmes scale.", "mechanism": "Observation plus individualized feedback on real practice closes the gap that workshop-based training leaves between knowing and doing.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "teacher-development", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "feedback", "practice", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "practice improvement", "professional development", "implementation support" ], "contexts": [ "schools", "workplace learning", "professional development" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Trained coaches with subject expertise", "Regular observation cycles", "Protected time and trust" ], "constraints": [ "Effects on learner outcomes are much smaller than on practice", "Larger programmes show markedly smaller effects", "Coach quality is the binding constraint at scale" ], "risks": [ "Scaling and expecting pilot-sized effects", "Coaching used as evaluation, which destroys trust", "One-off workshops labelled as coaching" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Practice change and learner outcomes, separately", "measure": "Observation-rubric change plus independent learner achievement, with programme size reported", "timing": "Across a year", "caveat": "Effects at pilot scale do not survive scaling" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analysis of teacher coaching finds large effects on instructional practice and smaller effects on achievement, with a clear scale-down pattern.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Teacher development; the scaling caution is well documented.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kraft-coaching", "source:aero" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.49, "note": "Effect on instructional practice; about 0.18 on student achievement, and smaller in larger programmes." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Best-evidenced professional learning model; plan explicitly for the effect decay that comes with scale." }, "tags": [ "method", "teacher-development", "feedback", "adult" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:intelligent-tutoring-systems", "label": "Intelligent tutoring systems", "aliases": [ "ITS", "step-based tutoring", "cognitive tutors" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Software that tracks a learner model at step granularity and gives step-level guidance performs close to human tutoring and well above untutored practice.", "mechanism": "Step-level feedback and hints operate at the granularity where the learner's error actually occurs, giving frequent interaction opportunities that answer-level systems miss.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "computing", "science", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "procedural skill practice", "problem solving with steps", "self-paced remediation" ], "contexts": [ "adaptive software", "classroom", "homework systems" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A domain decomposable into steps and knowledge components", "A learner model and validated hint content", "Classroom integration and teacher use of the data" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are strongest in well-structured domains", "Interaction granularity matters more than the underlying AI technique", "Implementation and teacher use explain much of the variance" ], "risks": [ "Optimizing for in-session correctness rather than delayed learning", "Hint abuse and gaming the system", "Assuming a chat interface delivers step-level tutoring without a learner model" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Learning relative to conventional practice", "measure": "Randomized or matched comparison on delayed independent assessment, plus hint-use and gaming detectors", "timing": "Across a unit", "caveat": "In-system mastery flags routinely overstate durable learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Convergent meta-analyses find ITS substantially better than no tutoring and roughly comparable to human tutoring, with step granularity as the key moderator.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Well-structured domains, mostly mathematics, physics, and programming.", "sourceIds": [ "source:vanlehn-tutoring", "source:kulik-fletcher-its", "source:ma-its-meta" ], "effect": { "metric": "g", "value": 0.66, "note": "Meta-analytic estimates versus conventional instruction commonly fall between 0.4 and 0.8." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "The most directly relevant precedent for an agentic tutoring runtime; the evidence is about step-level interaction, not about the technology label." }, "tags": [ "method", "adaptive", "digital", "feedback" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:interest-development", "label": "Four-phase interest development", "aliases": [ "situational and individual interest", "interest triggering and maintenance" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Interest develops from triggered situational interest through maintained situational interest into emerging and then well-developed individual interest, each phase needing different support.", "mechanism": "Early phases depend on external triggers and meaningfulness; later phases are self-sustained by stored knowledge and value, so support must shift as interest deepens.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "engaging reluctant learners", "sustaining long-term study", "subject choice" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "informal learning", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A trigger with genuine content connection", "Follow-up opportunities to deepen" ], "constraints": [ "Triggering is easy; maintaining is the hard part", "Novelty triggers fade and can distract from content", "Phase assignment is inferential" ], "risks": [ "Using seductive details that trigger interest but harm learning", "Assuming a triggered response indicates durable interest", "Abandoning support once initial enthusiasm appears" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Voluntary re-engagement", "measure": "Voluntary return, self-initiated questions, and knowledge growth over time", "timing": "Across weeks and months", "caveat": "One enthusiastic lesson is not interest development" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A well-articulated developmental model supported by correlational and design studies rather than by controlled phase-transition experiments.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad conceptual use; causal evidence is limited.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hidi-renninger", "source:eccles-wigfield-2020" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Match support to phase and measure voluntary re-engagement; do not count a trigger as an outcome." }, "tags": [ "theory", "motivation", "engagement", "development" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:interleaving-discrimination", "label": "Interleaving for discrimination", "aliases": [ "mixed practice", "category interleaving" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Mix confusable categories or problem types so learners repeatedly choose the relevant concept or procedure.", "mechanism": "Juxtaposition highlights discriminating features and practices strategy selection; part of the benefit may come from spacing.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "upper-primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "category induction", "problem-type selection", "visual discrimination" ], "contexts": [ "practice set", "review" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Some initial knowledge of each category", "Items whose comparison exposes a consequential distinction" ], "constraints": [ "Material type and similarity moderate outcomes", "Blocked acquisition may precede mixed selection practice" ], "risks": [ "Universalizing from math or visual categories to prose or vocabulary", "Mistaking lower practice performance for lower learning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Correct discrimination and strategy selection", "measure": "Delayed classification, selected method, justification, and transfer", "timing": "After mixed practice and delay", "caveat": "Measure selection, not only execution after the category is named" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analysis finds a positive average with large material moderators, including null or reversed domains.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Best supported for visual categories and mathematics; not general for expository text or word learning.", "sourceIds": [ "source:interleaving-meta", "source:ies-study" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use when the target is discrimination among confusable types and learners have initial footholds." }, "tags": [ "general", "practice", "discrimination", "transfer" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:knowledge-and-comprehension", "label": "Background knowledge as a driver of comprehension", "aliases": [ "knowledge effects on reading", "domain knowledge and text understanding" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Topic knowledge substantially determines what a reader understands and remembers, and can outweigh general reading skill on knowledge-dependent texts.", "mechanism": "Existing schemas fill inferential gaps that texts always leave, so a knowledgeable weak decoder can outperform a knowledge-poor strong decoder on that topic.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "history-social-studies", "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "diagnose", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "comprehension instruction", "curriculum sequencing", "assessment interpretation" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "curriculum design", "assessment" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Coherent knowledge-building curriculum", "Texts that build on prior units" ], "constraints": [ "Comprehension is not a generic transferable skill", "Standardized comprehension scores partly measure topic familiarity", "Knowledge takes sustained curricular time to build" ], "risks": [ "Endless generic strategy practice in place of knowledge", "Interpreting a comprehension score as a fixed reading ability", "Assuming a topic-specific result generalizes" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Comprehension by topic familiarity", "measure": "Same-format comprehension on familiar and unfamiliar topics", "timing": "Across texts", "caveat": "A comprehension score is partly a knowledge score" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Classic experimental demonstration plus consistent findings in evidence-rated comprehension guidance emphasizing knowledge alongside strategies.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad; the size of the knowledge advantage depends on how knowledge-dependent the text is.", "sourceIds": [ "source:recht-leslie", "source:reading-comprehension-wwc", "source:castles-reading-wars" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Build knowledge deliberately, and interpret comprehension scores as partly topic-dependent." }, "tags": [ "principle", "literacy", "knowledge", "comprehension" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:knowledge-component-model", "label": "Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (knowledge component) framework", "aliases": [ "KLI framework", "knowledge components", "learner modeling granularity" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Decompose a domain into knowledge components, then match each component's type to the learning process and instructional method that actually serves it.", "mechanism": "Different component types (facts, rules, principles) are acquired by different processes (memory and fluency, induction and refinement, sense-making), so instruction should be chosen per component rather than per topic.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "diagnose", "practice" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "curriculum decomposition", "learner modeling", "adaptive practice design" ], "contexts": [ "adaptive software", "intelligent tutoring", "curriculum design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A decomposable domain", "Item-level performance data", "A way to attribute items to components" ], "constraints": [ "Component granularity is a modeling choice that changes conclusions", "Poorly specified components produce confidently wrong learner models", "Not every valued outcome decomposes cleanly" ], "risks": [ "Fragmenting a coherent practice into meaningless atoms", "Treating a fitted model as the learner's actual mind", "Optimizing component mastery while losing the whole task" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Component-level learning curves", "measure": "Error rate by opportunity count per component, plus model fit comparison", "timing": "Across repeated opportunities", "caveat": "A good curve fit does not validate the component definition" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A well-specified framework with substantial supporting work in tutoring systems; it organizes evidence rather than being a single intervention effect.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Best evidenced in well-structured domains such as mathematics and programming.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kli-framework", "source:kulik-fletcher-its" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "The natural bridge from a knowledge rack to a working graph; adopt the decomposition discipline, and keep component definitions revisable." }, "tags": [ "framework", "knowledge", "adaptive", "modeling" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:l2-corrective-feedback", "label": "Corrective feedback in second-language learning", "aliases": [ "error correction in L2", "recasts and prompts" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Corrective feedback benefits second-language accuracy, with explicit feedback showing larger immediate effects and implicit feedback holding up better over time.", "mechanism": "Feedback marks a gap between output and target form; explicitness determines whether the learner notices it, while depth of processing affects durability.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "world-language", "multilingual" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "feedback", "practice" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "accuracy development", "speaking practice", "writing correction" ], "contexts": [ "language classroom", "tutoring", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Output the learner actually produces", "An opportunity to reformulate" ], "constraints": [ "Explicit and implicit forms show different time courses", "Overcorrection can suppress production", "Most studies are short-term with laboratory-like tasks" ], "risks": [ "Correcting every error and reducing willingness to speak", "Judging by immediate post-test only", "Ignoring learner affect in public correction" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Uptake and durable accuracy", "measure": "Reformulation rate plus delayed accuracy in free production", "timing": "Immediately and after weeks", "caveat": "Immediate uptake does not predict durable change" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis finds a medium overall effect for corrective feedback with a differential time course for explicit versus implicit types.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Instructed second-language settings; mostly short interventions.", "sourceIds": [ "source:li-corrective-feedback", "source:hattie-timperley-feedback" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.6, "note": "Medium overall effect; explicit types larger immediately, implicit types more durable." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Select feedback explicitness by target and stage, protect willingness to communicate, and measure at delay." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "world-language", "feedback", "practice" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:learner-knows-best", "label": "Assuming learners are the best judges of their own instruction", "aliases": [ "learner preference as design evidence", "student satisfaction as learning evidence" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Learners' preferences and self-assessments are poor guides to what will produce learning, because the conditions that feel best often produce the least durable results.", "mechanism": "Preference tracks fluency and comfort, and the manipulations that improve long-term retention reliably reduce both during learning.", "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "assess", "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "course evaluation", "product design decisions", "study strategy choice" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "product design", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; this is a screening criterion" ], "constraints": [ "Learner voice matters for legitimacy, access, and equity even where it is a poor guide to method effectiveness", "The point concerns judgments of instructional effectiveness, not learners' rights or preferences generally" ], "risks": [ "Optimizing a product for satisfaction and losing learning", "Dropping effective methods because ratings fell", "Dismissing learner concerns about access and fairness by citing this finding" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Satisfaction and learning measured separately", "measure": "Course or product satisfaction alongside delayed independent learning measures", "timing": "Each cycle", "caveat": "The two can and do move in opposite directions" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Direct experimental demonstration that perceived learning diverges from measured learning, plus reviews of learner misjudgment of study effectiveness.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Demonstrated in higher education and laboratory settings.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deslauriers-feeling", "source:kirschner-urban-legends", "source:soderstrom-bjork" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Never use satisfaction as a learning metric; do continue to take learner voice seriously on access, fairness, and workload." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "measurement", "warning", "metacognition" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:learning-strategy-model", "label": "Strategy selection by phase of learning", "aliases": [ "surface to deep to transfer", "strategy-phase matching" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "The effectiveness of a learning strategy depends on whether the learner is acquiring surface knowledge, consolidating deep relations, or attempting transfer.", "mechanism": "Strategies that build initial representations differ from those that relate ideas or that cue application, so a strategy's average effect hides a phase interaction.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "practice", "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "emerging" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "study strategy recommendation", "instructional sequencing" ], "contexts": [ "study strategies", "adaptive software", "classroom", "coaching" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A judgment of the learner's current phase for this content", "More than one strategy available" ], "constraints": [ "Phase is content-specific, not a learner trait", "Phase boundaries are fuzzy and rarely measured directly", "The synthesis draws on meta-analytic averages with heterogeneous quality" ], "risks": [ "Assigning a learner a permanent 'surface learner' label", "Recommending transfer strategies before any knowledge exists", "Treating the model as validated causal sequencing" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Strategy-phase fit", "measure": "Compare strategy effectiveness against a current-knowledge diagnostic", "timing": "Before and after strategy change", "caveat": "An ineffective strategy may reflect wrong phase, not a bad strategy" } ], "evidence": { "status": "hypothesis", "confidence": "low", "basis": "A synthesizing model over strategy meta-analyses; the phase interaction is plausible and useful but not established as a causal sequencing rule.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Proposed as general; evidence is indirect.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hattie-donoghue-model", "source:dunlosky-techniques" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "experimental-only", "rationale": "Good hypothesis generator for what to recommend next; must be tested against learner evidence, not assumed." }, "tags": [ "framework", "strategy", "sequence", "hypothesis" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:learning-styles-matching", "label": "Learning-styles matching", "aliases": [ "visual auditory kinesthetic matching", "meshing hypothesis" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Do not classify learners into modality styles and match instruction to the preferred mode as a learning policy.", "mechanism": "Preferences are real, but the claimed aptitude-by-treatment interaction needed to justify matching has not been demonstrated.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "instructional design" ], "contexts": [ "all learning environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; select representation by content, goal, and accessibility instead" ], "constraints": [ "Learner preferences can inform comfort or choice but not causal learning claims" ], "risks": [ "Stable labeling", "Narrowing opportunities", "Confusing accessibility needs with preferences", "Misallocating design effort" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Required style-by-method crossover interaction", "measure": "Randomized comparison of matched and mismatched instruction with objective learning outcomes", "timing": "After instruction and delay", "caveat": "Preference surveys or main effects of one format do not test the meshing hypothesis" } ], "evidence": { "status": "refuted", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Authoritative review found virtually no evidence meeting the required interaction standard and some contradictory results.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "The common meshing claim is unsupported across educational settings.", "sourceIds": [ "source:learning-styles" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Route by content affordance, current evidence, and accessibility—not a learner-style label." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "representation", "learner-traits", "refuted" ], "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "deprecated" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:learning-trajectories", "label": "Learning trajectories", "aliases": [ "developmental progressions", "hypothetical learning trajectory" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "A learning trajectory pairs a goal with an empirically grounded developmental progression and matched instructional tasks for each level.", "mechanism": "Knowing the typical next level lets an adult select a task just beyond the observed level rather than at an assumed grade level.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "developmental", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "taskTypes": [ "curriculum sequencing", "formative routing", "task selection" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "preschool", "adaptive software", "curriculum design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "An empirically derived progression for the topic", "Observation of the learner's current level", "Tasks matched to each level" ], "constraints": [ "Progressions are typical paths, not required or universal ones", "They exist for relatively few topics", "Levels are inferred from behaviour, not measured directly" ], "risks": [ "Converting a trajectory into a fixed developmental gate", "Treating an off-path learner as deficient", "Assuming a trajectory validated in one population holds everywhere" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Movement along the progression", "measure": "Level-diagnostic tasks administered repeatedly with error analysis", "timing": "Every few weeks", "caveat": "Level assignment is an inference and should be revisited" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Extensively developed and evaluated in early mathematics, and endorsed in evidence-rated early-mathematics guidance; coverage outside mathematics is thin.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Strongest in early mathematics.", "sourceIds": [ "source:clements-trajectories", "source:early-math-wwc", "source:early-math-nrc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Navigate from observed level rather than age, and keep the progression revisable rather than gating on it." }, "tags": [ "framework", "mathematics", "sequence", "progression" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:learning-vs-performance", "label": "Learning versus performance distinction", "aliases": [ "performance is not learning" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Performance during instruction is a poor and sometimes inverted proxy for durable learning, so evaluation must be delayed and transfer-oriented.", "mechanism": "Current performance reflects momentary retrieval support and cueing; durable learning is a relatively permanent change observable when that support is withdrawn.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "assess", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "instructional evaluation", "practice design", "learner self-monitoring" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "adaptive software", "workplace learning", "product analytics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A delayed or transfer measure", "A defined retention horizon" ], "constraints": [ "Requires deferred measurement, which costs time", "Learners and instructors both misread fluency as mastery" ], "risks": [ "Optimizing a tutoring product for in-session success metrics", "Declaring mastery from immediate post-tests", "Removing effective practice because it looks inefficient" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Retention and transfer after support is removed", "measure": "Delayed unassisted assessment and transfer items", "timing": "Days to weeks after instruction", "caveat": "Immediate gains can vanish or reverse at delay" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Explicit review of decades of experiments showing dissociations between acquisition performance and retention or transfer.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across cognitive and motor domains.", "sourceIds": [ "source:soderstrom-bjork", "source:bjork-self-regulated" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Treat as a measurement rule for any adaptive system: never let an in-session signal alone certify learning." }, "tags": [ "principle", "measurement", "retention", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:literacy-phoneme-grapheme", "label": "Explicit phoneme-grapheme mapping", "aliases": [ "phonological awareness with letters", "alphabetic decoding foundation" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Explicitly connect speech segments to letters and practice blending, segmenting, decoding, and encoding.", "mechanism": "Stable mappings between phonemes and graphemes support accurate decoding of unfamiliar words and spelling rather than contextual guessing.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "primary", "older struggling reader" ], "taskTypes": [ "beginning reading", "word reading", "spelling" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention", "multilingual literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Access to oral language in a known language", "Explicit cumulative sequence", "Practice connected to print" ], "constraints": [ "Pair code instruction with oral language, knowledge, fluency, and comprehension", "Adapt for language and disability access" ], "risks": [ "Isolating oral phoneme drills indefinitely from print", "Treating decoding as complete reading instruction", "Guessing from pictures or context as a decoding substitute" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Accurate mapping and transfer to unfamiliar print", "measure": "Segmentation, blending, letter-sound accuracy, pseudoword or unfamiliar-word reading, spelling, and error-type shift", "timing": "Across cumulative lessons and on novel words", "caveat": "Memorized word lists can mask weak decoding" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "IES/WWC evidence-rated foundational-reading practice guide.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Beginning readers and older learners with decoding gaps; language system and learner needs matter.", "sourceIds": [ "source:literacy-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use explicit cumulative mapping when diagnostic evidence indicates an alphabetic decoding need." }, "tags": [ "literacy", "reading", "decoding", "early-primary" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:mastery-learning", "label": "Mastery learning", "aliases": [ "Bloom's mastery learning", "learning for mastery", "competency-based progression" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Hold the criterion constant and let time vary: learners receive formative checks, corrective instruction, and re-assessment until a defined standard is met before moving on.", "mechanism": "Frequent criterion checks plus targeted correctives prevent unremediated gaps from compounding into later failure.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "behavioral", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "mathematics", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "feedback", "assess" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "hierarchical skill sequences", "certification", "prerequisite-heavy content" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "adaptive software", "competency-based programs", "clinical training" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A defensible mastery criterion", "Genuinely different corrective instruction, not just repetition", "Flexible time and alternative assessment forms" ], "constraints": [ "Requires slack time, which fixed-pace systems rarely have", "Effects shrink when correctives are only re-presentation", "Criterion setting is a validity judgment, not a technical default" ], "risks": [ "Endless re-testing that becomes attrition by another name", "Gaming the criterion with near-identical retest items", "Fragmenting a subject into checkbox micro-objectives" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Criterion attainment with transfer retained", "measure": "Mastery rate, attempts to mastery, and delayed transfer performance", "timing": "Per unit and cumulatively", "caveat": "Rising mastery rates can reflect easier retests" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analytic evidence of positive average effects, with strong dependence on corrective quality, criterion setting, and implementation.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Strongest in hierarchical domains and in mastery-based professional training.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kulik-mastery", "source:mcgaghie-simulation", "source:bloom-two-sigma" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.5, "note": "Meta-analytic averages vary widely by implementation; treat as a range, not a constant." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Strong fit for prerequisite-heavy content when correctives genuinely differ and the criterion is defensible." }, "tags": [ "method", "sequence", "assessment", "adaptive" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:math-and-test-anxiety", "label": "Mathematics and test anxiety", "aliases": [ "math anxiety", "evaluative anxiety" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Anxiety consumes working memory during performance and produces avoidance over time; it is reciprocally related to achievement rather than simply caused by it.", "mechanism": "Intrusive worry occupies the same limited working memory that the task needs, and avoidance reduces the practice that would build competence.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "assessment-measurement", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "climate", "assess" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "mathematics performance", "timed testing", "avoidance patterns" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "assessment", "tutoring", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Measurement distinguishing anxiety from low competence" ], "constraints": [ "The relation is bidirectional; correcting only one side is insufficient", "Effects are strongest for working-memory-intensive problems", "Timed high-stakes formats amplify it" ], "risks": [ "Reading anxious underperformance as missing knowledge", "Timed drills that entrench avoidance", "Adults transmitting their own anxiety to learners" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Performance gap between anxious and low-pressure conditions", "measure": "Same-content performance under timed and untimed conditions plus validated anxiety measures", "timing": "Across conditions", "caveat": "A single low score cannot distinguish anxiety from missing knowledge" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Consistent experimental evidence on working-memory interference plus a large meta-analysis establishing a robust negative association across ages.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad, established from primary school through adulthood.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ashcraft-krause", "source:barroso-math-anxiety" ], "effect": { "metric": "r", "value": -0.28, "note": "Meta-analytic association between math anxiety and math achievement." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Always consider anxiety as an alternative explanation for underperformance before inferring a knowledge gap." }, "tags": [ "construct", "mathematics", "assessment", "learner-evidence" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:math-strategy-comparison", "label": "Mathematical strategy and error comparison", "aliases": [ "multiple strategies", "solved-problem analysis" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Compare correct, incomplete, or incorrect solutions and alternative strategies to make structural decisions and errors explicit.", "mechanism": "Side-by-side comparison directs attention to when and why a method works and can build procedural flexibility and diagnostic reasoning.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "upper-primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "algebra", "problem solving", "error diagnosis" ], "contexts": [ "worked-example discussion", "small group", "practice set" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Enough baseline knowledge to understand candidate strategies", "Prompts requiring explanation", "Subsequent independent solving" ], "constraints": [ "Use active comparison rather than passive inspection", "Match complexity to prior knowledge" ], "risks": [ "Mixed or negative effects for learners without baseline knowledge", "Confusing exposure to an error with understanding it", "Overloading novices with too many methods" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Flexible, justified method choice and error repair", "measure": "Detect and correct error, generate another solution, select an efficient first step, justify choice, and transfer", "timing": "After comparison and on a new problem", "caveat": "Gains may appear in flexibility without uniform concept or procedure gains" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "IES algebra guide rates multiple-strategy comparison moderate; solved-problem analysis evidence is minimal and mixed.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Best after initial procedural footholds in algebra and related mathematics.", "sourceIds": [ "source:algebra-wwc", "source:worked-examples-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Retrieve after diagnosing sufficient baseline knowledge and require explanation plus independent transfer." }, "tags": [ "mathematics", "comparison", "error", "flexibility" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "explain" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:math-systematic-representations", "label": "Systematic mathematical language and representation", "aliases": [ "concrete-semi-concrete-abstract", "mathematics intervention" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Use explicit cumulative instruction to link precise mathematical language, quantities, selected visual or concrete models, and symbols.", "mechanism": "Stable mappings among language, quantity, diagrams, and notation reduce ambiguity and build both conceptual and procedural access.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "arithmetic", "fractions", "word problems", "algebra readiness" ], "contexts": [ "core instruction", "targeted intervention" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Diagnosis of the current mathematical bottleneck", "A coherent limited representation set", "Modeled and guided practice" ], "constraints": [ "Explain how each representation maps to the abstraction", "Fade models when independent reasoning is ready" ], "risks": [ "Too many competing models", "Manipulatives becoming procedures without meaning", "Language demands hiding mathematical knowledge" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Conceptual and procedural mapping across forms", "measure": "Explanation, translation among representations, procedural accuracy, and generalization", "timing": "During intervention and on a novel representation", "caveat": "Successful manipulation without explaining the mathematical relation is insufficient" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "IES/WWC rates systematic instruction, mathematical language, and selected representations strongly for elementary intervention.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Elementary learners struggling with mathematics; adapt model and language to content.", "sourceIds": [ "source:math-intervention-wwc", "source:ies-study" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use a coherent representation system tied explicitly to language, symbols, and independent reasoning." }, "tags": [ "mathematics", "representation", "intervention", "language" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:mathematical-proficiency-strands", "label": "Five strands of mathematical proficiency", "aliases": [ "conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, productive disposition" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Mathematical proficiency is an interwoven set of five strands, so a curriculum that develops only fluency or only understanding is incomplete by definition.", "mechanism": "The strands are mutually dependent: strategic competence needs fluency to be feasible and understanding to be selective, and disposition governs whether either is exercised.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "assess" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "curriculum evaluation", "assessment blueprinting", "goal setting" ], "contexts": [ "curriculum design", "assessment design", "teacher education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Assessment that can reach more than one strand" ], "constraints": [ "It is a consensus framework, not an intervention with an effect size", "Strands are hard to assess separately", "Productive disposition is rarely measured at all" ], "risks": [ "Claiming curricular quality from framework alignment", "Assessing only the two easiest strands", "Using it as a slogan rather than an audit tool" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Coverage across strands", "measure": "Assessment blueprint mapped to all five strands with evidence for each", "timing": "At curriculum review", "caveat": "Alignment to a framework is not evidence of learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "normative-standard", "confidence": "high", "basis": "National Research Council consensus synthesis of mathematics learning; a definitional framework rather than a causal claim.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Widely adopted in mathematics education policy and curriculum.", "sourceIds": [ "source:adding-it-up", "source:early-math-nrc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use as a coverage audit for mathematics goals and assessments, not as evidence of effectiveness." }, "tags": [ "framework", "mathematics", "curriculum", "assessment" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:metacognitive-calibration", "label": "Metacognitive calibration and self-regulation", "aliases": [ "self-regulated learning", "judgments of learning" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Teach learners to plan, monitor against evidence, select or change strategies, and evaluate outcomes.", "mechanism": "More accurate monitoring supports better allocation of effort, strategy choice, and help seeking across a learning cycle.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "upper-primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "independent study", "complex problem solving", "long projects" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "online learning", "workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Concrete domain strategies", "Models and guided practice before independent regulation", "External performance evidence" ], "constraints": [ "Use delayed or performance-grounded judgments", "Fade generic prompts when learners internalize the cycle" ], "risks": [ "Equating confidence with calibration", "Generic reflection that adds load", "Assuming novices can self-direct without knowledge" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Monitoring accuracy and adaptive control", "measure": "Predicted-versus-actual performance, logged strategy changes, help seeking, and delayed outcome", "timing": "Before, during, and after a task", "caveat": "Self-report alone does not establish regulation or learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analyses support explicit metacognitive strategy instruction, while transfer and prompt effects vary.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Across school and adult learning, contingent on domain knowledge and explicit strategy instruction.", "sourceIds": [ "source:metacognition-meta", "source:ies-study", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use concrete, domain-grounded cycles tied to objective evidence rather than free-form reflection." }, "tags": [ "general", "metacognition", "self-regulation", "adult" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:metacognitive-monitoring-accuracy", "label": "Monitoring accuracy and overconfidence", "aliases": [ "judgments of learning", "calibration", "illusion of knowing" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Learners are systematically overconfident about what they have learned, and the cues they use for judging learning are usually the wrong ones.", "mechanism": "Judgments rely on processing fluency, which is inflated by rereading and by the presence of the material, so easy processing is misread as durable knowledge.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "study decisions", "self-assessment", "restudy allocation" ], "contexts": [ "study strategies", "adaptive software", "coaching" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "An external performance measure to calibrate against", "Delayed rather than immediate judgments" ], "constraints": [ "Immediate judgments are strongly inflated; delayed judgments are far better", "Learners resist strategies that feel harder despite better outcomes", "Confidence ratings alone are not a learning measure" ], "risks": [ "Letting learners choose study strategies on felt fluency", "Using self-rated understanding as a mastery signal", "Reinforcing overconfidence with easy in-session success" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Calibration gap", "measure": "Confidence judgments paired with delayed performance, reported as calibration error", "timing": "After a delay", "caveat": "A confident learner can be the least accurate one" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A large replicated literature on judgment-of-learning inaccuracy and fluency-based misattribution.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Robust across ages and materials studied.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-rawson-overconfidence", "source:bjork-self-regulated", "source:soderstrom-bjork" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Never let self-rated understanding gate progression; ground monitoring in delayed external performance." }, "tags": [ "construct", "metacognition", "measurement", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:minimal-guidance-instruction", "label": "Minimally guided instruction for novices", "aliases": [ "pure discovery learning", "unguided constructivist teaching" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Instruction that withholds guidance while novices search for solutions is less effective than guided instruction, and can leave misconceptions unchallenged.", "mechanism": "Novices lack the schemas that make search productive, so unguided problem solving consumes working memory on search rather than on learning.", "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "science", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "method selection for novices", "curriculum design" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "laboratory", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; this is a screening criterion" ], "constraints": [ "The critique targets minimal guidance, not inquiry or problem-based approaches that include guidance", "Learners with high prior knowledge can benefit from reduced guidance", "Deliberate short generation phases followed by instruction are a different and supported design" ], "risks": [ "Reading this as an argument against all inquiry", "Reading the counterargument as licence to withhold guidance", "Applying a single guidance level to all learners" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Guidance level recorded and matched to prior knowledge", "measure": "Record what guidance was provided and analyse outcomes by prior-knowledge band", "timing": "Per activity", "caveat": "Studies that do not report guidance level cannot settle this question" } ], "evidence": { "status": "refuted", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A major critique supported by discovery-learning meta-analysis showing unassisted discovery underperforms explicit instruction, while enhanced and guided discovery outperform both.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Robust for novices; the picture changes with expertise.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance", "source:alfieri-discovery", "source:lazonder-harmsen" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Never withhold guidance from novices; make guidance level an explicit, recorded, prior-knowledge-dependent design decision." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "refuted", "novice", "scaffolding" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:montessori-education", "label": "Montessori education", "aliases": [ "prepared environment", "Montessori method" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Classic Montessori shows some positive academic and social outcomes, but studies vary in quality and in how faithfully the method is implemented.", "mechanism": "Child-chosen work with self-correcting materials in mixed-age classrooms is intended to combine agency with structured progression.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "motivate", "practice" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "early years programme choice", "self-directed learning environments" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "primary school" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Fidelity to the classic materials and structure", "Trained teachers", "Mixed-age grouping" ], "constraints": [ "Implementation varies enormously under an unprotected name", "Selection effects are strong in non-randomized studies", "Supplemented versions show weaker results than classic implementations" ], "risks": [ "Generalizing from lottery-based studies in atypical settings", "Assuming the label guarantees the method", "Ignoring access and cost inequities" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Outcomes with fidelity documented", "measure": "Academic and social measures plus an implementation-fidelity audit", "timing": "Across programme years", "caveat": "Programme name alone tells you nothing about what happened" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "low", "basis": "A systematic review finds generally positive but heterogeneous evidence, with quality and fidelity limitations across studies.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Preschool and primary; heavily dependent on implementation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:lillard-montessori", "source:weisberg-guided-play" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Evaluate the specific implementation, not the label; require fidelity documentation before citing the evidence." }, "tags": [ "method", "early-childhood", "play", "agency" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:motivation-need-support", "label": "Motivation through autonomy, competence, belonging, and purpose", "aliases": [ "need-supportive instruction", "self-determination support" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Offer meaningful bounded choice, achievable challenge with structure, progress evidence, relational safety, and valued purpose.", "mechanism": "Support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can promote more autonomous regulation, engagement, and persistence.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "sustained learning", "challenge", "self-directed work" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "online", "workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Real rather than illusory choices", "Clear structure and competence-building support", "Emotionally safe climate" ], "constraints": [ "Measure motivation and achievement separately", "Attend to culture, identity, and context" ], "risks": [ "Equating autonomy with no guidance", "Forced choice", "Treating motivation as a fixed learner trait", "Assuming engagement guarantees learning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Autonomous engagement with learning progress", "measure": "Choice rationale, persistence, help seeking, need satisfaction, belonging, and objective performance", "timing": "Across a sequence, not one task", "caveat": "Self-reported enjoyment is a proximal outcome, not achievement" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Intervention meta-analysis and National Academies consensus support need-supportive design, with heterogeneous and sometimes nonsignificant outcomes.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Across ages, but effects and culturally meaningful enactments vary.", "sourceIds": [ "source:motivation-meta", "source:hpl2", "source:adolescent-nasem" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Combine choice with structure, feedback, belonging, and actual opportunities to build competence." }, "tags": [ "motivation", "belonging", "agency", "culture" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "climate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:multi-tiered-support", "label": "Responsive intervention tiers (RTI/MTSS)", "aliases": [ "response to intervention", "multi-tiered system of supports" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "A tiered framework where universal instruction, targeted support, and intensive intervention are allocated by response data rather than by category labels.", "mechanism": "Screening plus progress monitoring routes support by demonstrated need and response, allowing earlier intervention than referral-based models.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "psychometric", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "special-education", "literacy", "mathematics", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "sequence", "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "support allocation", "early intervention", "eligibility processes" ], "contexts": [ "school systems", "intervention" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Strong universal instruction at tier one", "Valid screening and progress monitoring", "Actual capacity to deliver intensive support" ], "constraints": [ "Weak tier-one instruction makes the whole system a referral pipeline", "Implementation quality varies enormously", "Using response data for disability identification remains technically contested" ], "risks": [ "Tiers used to delay evaluation and services", "Disproportionate placement by group", "Monitoring without changing instruction" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Response and equity of placement", "measure": "Progress-monitoring response rates plus tier placement disaggregated by group", "timing": "Termly", "caveat": "Tier movement without instructional change indicates a process, not a support system" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A widely adopted framework with a substantial measurement base and ongoing technical debate about identification use.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Mostly United States school systems.", "sourceIds": [ "source:fuchs-rti", "source:deno-cbm", "source:reading-intervention-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Only meaningful with strong universal instruction and real intervention capacity; audit placement for disproportionality." }, "tags": [ "framework", "intervention", "equity", "assessment" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:multilingual-programme-models", "label": "Programme models for multilingual learners", "aliases": [ "bilingual education models", "English learner programme design", "translanguaging" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Multilingual learners benefit when their home language is treated as an asset and when academic content is not delayed for language acquisition.", "mechanism": "Home-language knowledge transfers to the new language, and content learning and language learning develop together rather than sequentially.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "multilingual", "literacy", "science", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "access", "sequence", "explain" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "programme design", "content plus language integration", "assessment of multilingual learners" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "school systems", "assessment" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Home-language information for each learner", "Teachers prepared for integrated content and language work", "Assessment in a language the learner can access" ], "constraints": [ "Programme model comparisons are confounded by implementation and policy", "Language proficiency and content knowledge must be assessed separately", "Local policy often constrains available models" ], "risks": [ "Delaying grade-level content until language is 'ready'", "Misdiagnosing language barriers as learning disabilities", "Treating multilingualism as a deficit" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Content learning and language growth, separately", "measure": "Content assessment with language support plus separate language proficiency measures", "timing": "Across years", "caveat": "A single English-medium test confounds content knowledge with language proficiency" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "National consensus reports on multilingual learners plus evidence-rated practice guidance for teaching academic content and literacy to English learners.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Strongest evidence base is United States English-learner policy contexts.", "sourceIds": [ "source:english-learners-nasem", "source:el-stem-nasem", "source:ell-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Keep content at grade level with language support, and never let an English-medium score stand as a content measure." }, "tags": [ "framework", "multilingual", "equity", "access" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:multimedia-coherence", "label": "Coherent multimedia and integrated representations", "aliases": [ "multimedia learning", "split-attention reduction" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Combine words and relevant graphics when both serve the target relation, integrate references spatially or temporally, and remove seductive or redundant material.", "mechanism": "Complementary representations can support selection, organization, and integration while coherent layout reduces avoidable search and split attention.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "process explanation", "spatial relation", "system model" ], "contexts": [ "slides", "interactive media", "textbook", "simulation" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A target relation that benefits from depiction", "Accessible alternatives for visual and auditory content" ], "constraints": [ "Representation choice must follow content and access needs, not a learner-style label", "Signal relations explicitly" ], "risks": [ "Decorative media", "Narrating identical dense on-screen text", "Assuming more modalities always help" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Accurate integration across representations", "measure": "Explanation, diagram-text mapping, retention, transfer, and access-barrier report", "timing": "After learning and on a novel representation", "caveat": "Preference for a format is not evidence that it improves learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Evidence-rated institutional guidance supports graphics with verbal descriptions, with cognitive-load and accessibility boundary conditions.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Strongest when visuals depict relevant structure and are coherently integrated.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ies-study", "source:cognitive-load", "source:wcag22" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use content-appropriate, coherent, accessible representations rather than modality matching." }, "tags": [ "representation", "multimedia", "accessibility", "cognitive-load" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "access" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:multimedia-learning-theory", "label": "Cognitive theory of multimedia learning", "aliases": [ "CTML", "Mayer's multimedia principles" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Learners process words and pictures in separate limited channels and learn best when instruction helps them select, organize, and integrate both.", "mechanism": "Dual channels plus limited capacity plus active processing imply that extraneous material competes with the integration that produces understanding.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "access" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "explanatory media design", "animation and narration", "slide and text design" ], "contexts": [ "instructional materials", "video", "adaptive software", "interfaces" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Content with a spatial or causal structure worth depicting", "Learner access to both channels or an equivalent alternative" ], "constraints": [ "Most principles are established in short laboratory lessons with novices", "Several principles reverse with expertise", "Channel assumptions must never be applied to individual learners as styles" ], "risks": [ "Applying principles as universal rules regardless of content", "Stripping media that carried real meaning", "Confusing engagement ratings with learning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Comprehension and transfer from the material", "measure": "Retention plus transfer items keyed to the depicted structure", "timing": "Immediately and after a delay", "caveat": "Liking the media does not track learning from it" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Many replicated short-lesson experiments with meaningful boundary conditions and expertise reversals.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Strong for novice learners and brief explanatory materials; weaker for long authentic courses.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mayer-moreno-load", "source:mayer-multimedia-2017", "source:ginns-modality" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Apply per principle with a fit check on learner expertise and content, not as a global style guide." }, "tags": [ "theory", "multimedia", "representation", "design" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:multiple-intelligences-matching", "label": "Multiple intelligences as an instructional matching policy", "aliases": [ "MI theory in the classroom", "teaching to a learner's intelligence" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Multiple intelligences lacks the empirical support required to justify categorizing learners or matching instruction to a supposed dominant intelligence.", "mechanism": "The theory's proposed independent intelligences are not supported by the cognitive and psychometric evidence, so matching has no mechanism to operate through.", "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "deprecated" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "learner categorization", "instructional matching", "curriculum design claims" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "teacher education", "product evaluation" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; this is a screening criterion" ], "constraints": [ "Rejecting matching does not mean rejecting varied representations, which have their own separate rationale", "The theory remains popular and is often conflated with valuing diverse strengths" ], "risks": [ "Labelling learners by intelligence type", "Reduced curriculum access based on a label", "Time spent producing eight versions of every activity" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Justification independent of the label", "measure": "Require a content-based rationale for any representational choice", "timing": "At planning", "caveat": "Varying representations is fine; matching learners to types is not" } ], "evidence": { "status": "refuted", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Critical review finds the theory lacks supporting empirical evidence for independent intelligences or for instructional matching.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "The critique is theory-level.", "sourceIds": [ "source:waterhouse-mi-critique", "source:learning-styles", "source:willingham-learning-styles" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Never classify learners by intelligence type; choose representations by content and access instead." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "refuted", "learner-traits", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:music-chess-far-transfer", "label": "Music and chess training for general cognitive gains", "aliases": [ "Mozart effect", "music training makes you smarter", "chess improves mathematics" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Music training does not produce meaningful transfer to cognitive or academic skills once study quality is accounted for; the same pattern holds for chess.", "mechanism": "Apparent effects come from selection, expectancy, and low-quality designs; there is no general cognitive faculty for such training to strengthen.", "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "music", "arts", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "transfer" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "deprecated" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "arts programme justification", "curriculum advocacy", "claims review" ], "contexts": [ "school systems", "policy", "enrichment programmes" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; this is a screening criterion" ], "constraints": [ "The refutation concerns transfer claims, not the value of music or arts education itself", "Effects approach zero as design quality rises", "Correlational studies remain heavily confounded by family background" ], "risks": [ "Defending arts education on a false transfer premise, which collapses when challenged", "Cutting arts when the transfer claim fails", "Marketing enrichment programmes on cognitive gains" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Transfer under high-quality design", "measure": "Randomized active-control designs with independent cognitive measures", "timing": "Post-programme", "caveat": "Effect size declines toward zero as design quality increases" } ], "evidence": { "status": "refuted", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Multilevel meta-analysis finds music training effects on cognitive and academic outcomes are negligible, with effect size inversely related to design quality.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Children and adolescents across many studies.", "sourceIds": [ "source:sala-gobet-music", "source:simons-brain-training" ], "effect": { "metric": "g", "value": 0, "note": "Approximately zero in high-quality designs." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Justify arts and music on their intrinsic and cultural merits; never on cognitive transfer." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "refuted", "arts", "transfer" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:neuromyths", "label": "Neuromyths in education", "aliases": [ "brain-based learning myths", "left-brain right-brain", "VAK" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Beliefs such as learning styles, left- versus right-brained learners, and VAK matching are widely held by educators and are not supported by neuroscience.", "mechanism": "Plausible-sounding neuroscience vocabulary attached to intuitive folk psychology spreads faster than the evidence that contradicts it.", "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "neuroscience", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "teacher-development" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "deprecated" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "professional development content", "product claims review", "curriculum vetting" ], "contexts": [ "teacher education", "product evaluation", "school systems" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; this is a screening criterion" ], "constraints": [ "Prevalence is high even among teachers with general neuroscience knowledge", "Debunking alone changes belief slowly", "Some myths contain a kernel of real findings misapplied" ], "risks": [ "Instructional time spent on ineffective matching", "Neuroscience language lending false authority to products", "Learners internalizing a false self-label" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Claim traceable to evidence", "measure": "Trace every brain-based claim to a primary source and check the inference", "timing": "At adoption review", "caveat": "Neuroscience vocabulary in marketing is a warning sign, not a credential" } ], "evidence": { "status": "refuted", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Surveys document high prevalence among teachers, and reviews establish that the core claims lack neuroscientific support.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Documented across many countries.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dekker-neuromyths", "source:howard-jones-neuromyths", "source:learning-styles" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Screen out at adoption; treat neuroscience framing in educational products as a claim to verify, not evidence." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "refuted", "warning", "teacher-development" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:note-taking", "label": "Note-taking format and generative processing", "aliases": [ "longhand versus laptop notes", "guided notes" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Notes help most when they require selection and paraphrase rather than verbatim capture; the specific claim that longhand beats typing has not replicated reliably.", "mechanism": "Selecting and rephrasing forces processing during encoding and produces a better external record for later retrieval practice.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "consolidate", "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "disputed" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "lecture learning", "reading study", "meeting and training capture" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "classroom", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Time to review the notes later", "Enough background to select what matters" ], "constraints": [ "Medium matters less than the processing it induces", "Original longhand-versus-laptop findings failed to replicate at scale", "Note quality depends on prior knowledge" ], "risks": [ "Banning devices on the strength of a non-replicated finding", "Creating a transcript that is never revisited", "Accessibility harm when handwriting is mandated" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Paraphrase rate and later retrieval", "measure": "Note coding for verbatim versus paraphrase plus delayed test performance", "timing": "During and after study", "caveat": "Longer notes are not better notes" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "The influential longhand-advantage experiment failed to replicate in a large direct replication; the general generative-processing account remains supported.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Higher education lecture settings dominate the evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mueller-oppenheimer", "source:morehead-replication", "source:dunlosky-techniques" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Recommend generative note-taking and later review; do not issue a handwriting-versus-typing mandate, which also raises accessibility problems." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "contested", "consolidation", "accessibility" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:one-to-one-tutoring", "label": "One-to-one and small-group tutoring", "aliases": [ "high-dosage tutoring", "individual tutoring" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Sustained tutoring by a trained tutor with a small ratio, aligned to the curriculum and scheduled during the day, is among the best-evidenced interventions available.", "mechanism": "A tutor can diagnose the specific gap, adapt within seconds, keep the learner responding continuously, and sustain a relationship that supports effort.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "general", "literacy", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "practice", "feedback", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "gap remediation", "foundational skills", "accelerated support" ], "contexts": [ "one-to-one", "small group", "school day", "intervention" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Trained tutors with materials", "Curriculum alignment", "Consistent scheduling and attendance" ], "constraints": [ "Effects depend heavily on dosage, ratio, tutor training, and alignment", "Volunteer, low-dosage, or after-school models perform substantially worse", "It is expensive and staffing-constrained" ], "risks": [ "Claiming programme-level effects from a thin implementation", "Displacing core instruction rather than supplementing it", "Assuming the classic two-sigma figure is a reproducible benchmark" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Accelerated growth relative to a comparison group", "measure": "Curriculum-aligned progress monitoring plus an independent outcome measure", "timing": "Every few weeks and at programme end", "caveat": "Tutor-administered measures can be optimistic" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Long-standing meta-analytic evidence for tutoring effects, with modern syntheses showing strong dependence on dosage and delivery model.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Consistently positive across ages and subjects when implementation conditions are met.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cohen-tutoring-meta", "source:bloom-two-sigma", "source:vanlehn-tutoring" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.4, "note": "Typical modern high-dosage estimates cluster around 0.2-0.6; the historical two-sigma claim is not a reproducible benchmark." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Best-evidenced intensive support model; specify dosage, ratio, training, and alignment before claiming its effects." }, "tags": [ "method", "intervention", "adaptive", "equity" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:pair-programming", "label": "Pair programming in computing education", "aliases": [ "driver and navigator pairing", "collaborative programming" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Pair programming modestly improves programming outcomes and retention while roughly halving individual code output cost, with pairing quality as the moderator.", "mechanism": "Continuous articulation and immediate review catch errors early and expose reasoning that solo programming leaves implicit.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "computing", "engineering-design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "collaborate", "practice", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "programming assignments", "debugging", "course retention" ], "contexts": [ "computing classroom", "laboratory", "workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicit role definition and rotation", "Compatible skill levels or scaffolded pairing", "Individual assessment as well" ], "constraints": [ "Effects depend on task complexity and pair expertise", "Time cost is real when measured in person-hours", "Individual competence must still be assessed separately" ], "risks": [ "One partner doing everything", "Assessing only the shared artifact", "Pairing without role structure" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Individual competence and pair process", "measure": "Individual programming assessments plus role-rotation and contribution records", "timing": "Across assignments", "caveat": "A working program does not show both partners learned" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analyses in software engineering and in computing education find small-to-moderate benefits moderated by expertise and task complexity.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Computing courses and professional settings.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hannay-pair-programming", "source:umapathy-pair-programming", "source:cs-framework" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "note": "Small positive effects on quality and course outcomes; effort cost roughly doubles in person-hours." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use with defined rotating roles and independent individual assessment." }, "tags": [ "method", "computing", "collaboration", "practice" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:peer-assessment", "label": "Peer assessment", "aliases": [ "peer review", "peer feedback" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Peer assessment improves learning relative to no assessment and, in many comparisons, is at least as effective as teacher assessment.", "mechanism": "Assessing others' work against criteria develops evaluative judgment, and the reviewer often gains more than the reviewee.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "general", "literacy", "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "feedback", "assess", "collaborate" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "writing feedback", "project review", "scaling feedback" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "higher education", "online platforms" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Clear criteria and exemplars", "Training in giving specific feedback", "Anonymity or trust as appropriate" ], "constraints": [ "Quality depends on criteria clarity and training", "Peer marks for grading purposes raise validity and fairness issues", "Social dynamics distort feedback in small cohorts" ], "risks": [ "Using peer marks in high-stakes grading", "Untrained vague feedback", "Reproducing status hierarchies in the feedback" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Learning for the reviewer and the reviewed", "measure": "Performance change for both roles plus feedback specificity coding", "timing": "Across cycles", "caveat": "Reviewer gains are often larger and are frequently unmeasured" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analysis finds peer assessment improves learning compared with no assessment and compares favourably with teacher assessment.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and subjects.", "sourceIds": [ "source:double-peer-assessment", "source:nicol-macfarlane" ], "effect": { "metric": "g", "value": 0.31, "note": "Versus no assessment; comparable to or better than teacher assessment in many comparisons." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Strong low-cost feedback multiplier for formative purposes; keep it out of high-stakes grading." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "assessment", "feedback", "collaboration" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:peer-tutoring", "label": "Peer and cross-age tutoring", "aliases": [ "peer-assisted learning", "cross-age tutoring", "dyadic peer practice" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Structured peer tutoring with defined roles, materials, and turn-taking benefits both tutee and tutor at low marginal cost.", "mechanism": "Tutees get more response opportunities and immediate correction; tutors consolidate through explanation and monitoring.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "mathematics", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback", "collaborate" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "fluency practice", "procedural rehearsal", "review" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "small group", "peer explanation" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicit role training and scripts", "Correct answer keys or scaffolds", "Teacher monitoring" ], "constraints": [ "Unstructured pairing produces little", "Tutor must have adequate content accuracy", "Status differences can undermine the weaker partner" ], "risks": [ "Reinforcing errors when tutors are wrong", "Exploiting stronger peers as unpaid teachers", "Social exposure of struggling learners" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Gains for both roles", "measure": "Pre-post on target skill for tutor and tutee, plus fidelity checks on the protocol", "timing": "Across several weeks", "caveat": "Protocol drift after the first weeks is common" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Classic meta-analytic evidence for structured tutoring programmes, with structure and training as key moderators.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Well evidenced for well-defined skills; weaker for open-ended work.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cohen-tutoring-meta", "source:johnson-cooperative" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use where the target skill has checkable answers and the protocol can be trained and monitored." }, "tags": [ "method", "collaboration", "practice", "equity" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:physical-activity-and-cognition", "label": "Physical activity and academic performance", "aliases": [ "exercise and cognition", "activity breaks" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Physical activity is positively associated with cognition and academic performance, and time given to activity does not harm academic outcomes.", "mechanism": "Activity affects attention, executive function, and mood; at minimum, reallocating time to activity does not reduce academic achievement.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "neuroscience", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "health", "general", "physical-motor" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "climate", "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "timetable design", "attention support", "wellbeing" ], "contexts": [ "school systems", "classroom" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Actual activity, not scheduled time alone" ], "constraints": [ "Much of the evidence is cross-sectional with modest effects", "Acute and chronic effects differ", "Effects on academic scores are smaller than effects on health" ], "risks": [ "Overclaiming academic gains from exercise programmes", "Cutting activity to add instructional time", "Ignoring accessibility for disabled learners" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Activity dose and cognitive or academic outcomes", "measure": "Objective activity measurement plus attention and achievement measures", "timing": "Across a term", "caveat": "Scheduled activity time is not measured activity" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A major position review concludes physical activity is positively related to cognition and academic performance and that adding activity time does not harm achievement.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "School-age children; evidence quality varies by outcome.", "sourceIds": [ "source:donnelly-physical-activity", "source:diamond-ling" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Protect activity time on health and non-harm grounds; do not sell it as an academic intervention." }, "tags": [ "construct", "health", "development", "wellbeing" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:playful-learning-continuum", "label": "Playful learning continuum: free play, guided play, games, and direct instruction", "aliases": [ "free play to guided play spectrum", "playful pedagogy" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Play forms differ in who sets the goal and who directs the activity, and guided play — child agency within an adult learning goal — is the segment with the clearest learning evidence.", "mechanism": "Child-directed exploration sustains agency and attention while the adult's goal and gentle steering keep the activity aimed at a learning target.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "developmental", "constructivist" ], "domains": [ "general", "mathematics", "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "practice", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "early concept learning", "vocabulary and spatial learning", "curriculum design for young children" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "childcare", "classroom", "home partnership" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A specific learning goal held by the adult", "Genuine child choice within the activity", "Adult observation and responsive extension" ], "constraints": [ "Evidence is strongest for selected mathematics, spatial, and vocabulary outcomes", "Free play alone does not reliably teach targeted content", "Adult direction that removes agency stops being guided play" ], "risks": [ "Labelling adult-directed activity as play", "Assuming play benefits every developmental domain equally", "Abandoning intentional goals in the name of play" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Target learning with agency preserved", "measure": "Domain-specific learning measures plus observation of who directs the activity", "timing": "Across sessions", "caveat": "Enjoyment is not evidence of the target learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A well-specified taxonomy plus meta-analytic evidence that guidance during play benefits specific outcomes, notably early mathematics and spatial skills.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Preschool and early primary; domain-specific results.", "sourceIds": [ "source:weisberg-guided-play", "source:guided-play-review", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use guided play for targeted early concepts, and be precise about which segment of the continuum is actually being used." }, "tags": [ "framework", "early-childhood", "play", "engagement" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:preschool-effects-and-convergence", "label": "Preschool programme effects and convergence", "aliases": [ "fade-out", "preschool impact persistence", "catch-up effects" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Preschool programmes produce meaningful short-term skill gains that typically converge with comparison groups in later grades, while some long-term life outcomes persist.", "mechanism": "Comparison children catch up as schooling supplies similar content, so short-term skill differences shrink even when non-academic long-term benefits remain.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "developmental", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "disputed" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ], "taskTypes": [ "early programme evaluation", "policy design", "expectation setting" ], "contexts": [ "preschool", "policy", "programme evaluation" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Long-term follow-up design", "Documented comparison-group experience" ], "constraints": [ "Convergence patterns differ by programme quality and by what follows in K-3", "One state-level trial reported negative later effects, others do not", "Long-run economic and life outcomes can persist despite test-score convergence" ], "risks": [ "Concluding early education does not work", "Concluding it always works from short-term gains", "Ignoring the quality of the subsequent grades" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Trajectory rather than one post-test", "measure": "Repeated measures through primary grades plus documentation of comparison-group experience", "timing": "Annually for several years", "caveat": "A short-term gain is not a durable effect, and convergence is not proof of no benefit" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A randomized state pre-K trial reporting negative later outcomes contrasts with long-run benefit evidence from intensive model programmes; the pattern is genuinely unsettled.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Findings differ sharply by programme intensity, era, and counterfactual.", "sourceIds": [ "source:durkin-tnvpk", "source:heckman-perry", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Present both the convergence evidence and the long-run benefit evidence; never cite either alone as settled." }, "tags": [ "construct", "early-childhood", "contested", "policy" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:pretesting", "label": "Pretesting and prequestioning", "aliases": [ "errorful pretesting", "prequestions", "the pretesting effect" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Attempting questions before instruction, even with wrong answers, improves later learning of the tested material.", "mechanism": "A failed retrieval attempt activates related knowledge and directs attention during subsequent study to the gap it exposed.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "practice" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "preparation for instruction", "reading preparation", "lecture priming" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "adaptive software", "study strategies" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Subsequent instruction or feedback that resolves the question", "Low stakes and explicit permission to be wrong" ], "constraints": [ "Benefits concentrate on the pretested material and may not spread to untested content", "Requires the follow-up study phase", "Errors must be corrected or they can persist" ], "risks": [ "Framing pretests as evaluation, which raises anxiety", "Leaving errors uncorrected", "Assuming a benefit for untested related material" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Post-instruction performance on pretested versus untested items", "measure": "Split-item design comparing pretested and non-pretested content", "timing": "After instruction and at delay", "caveat": "Benefit may not generalize beyond the pretested items" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Replicated experimental effect with clear boundary conditions around subsequent study and item specificity.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Mostly laboratory and classroom studies with verbal material.", "sourceIds": [ "source:richland-pretesting", "source:metcalfe-errors", "source:bjork-self-regulated" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Cheap and useful before instruction, provided errors are explicitly resolved afterwards and stakes are zero." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "diagnostic", "memory", "generation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-diagnostic", "label": "Prior-knowledge activation and diagnostic probing", "aliases": [ "prerequisite probe", "knowledge activation" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Elicit task-relevant prior knowledge before choosing support, because existing knowledge can enable integration or produce systematic interference.", "mechanism": "Existing schemas reduce processing demands and supply structures for inference; an observable probe lets instruction target the current task rather than a presumed learner type.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "concept learning", "problem solving", "transfer" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "tutoring", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A task-bounded construct map or prerequisite hypothesis", "A low-burden probe that does not reveal the target answer" ], "constraints": [ "Treat results as episode-specific evidence", "Re-probe when context or representation changes" ], "risks": [ "Inferring stable ability from one response", "Using chronological age or demographic group as a substitute for evidence" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Relevant knowledge and strategy use", "measure": "Explanation, worked response, error pattern, and response to a neutral hint", "timing": "Before selection and again after support", "caveat": "A failed probe can reflect language, access, affect, or task misunderstanding rather than absent knowledge" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "National consensus synthesis plus an evidence-rated practice guide and knowledge-component research; prior knowledge is the most consistently reported moderator of instructional effects.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad principle; the probe must be domain- and task-specific.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:ies-study", "source:kli-framework" ], "notes": "0.2.0 correction: 0.1.0 graded this strong on a single consensus report, which its own evidence scale did not license. Sources broadened rather than the grade lowered." }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Task-bounded evidence is safer than age-, label-, or preference-based routing." }, "tags": [ "general", "diagnostic", "development", "learner-evidence" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited-corrected" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-variable", "label": "Prior knowledge as the dominant moderator", "aliases": [ "entering knowledge", "knowledge-component state" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Prior knowledge is the single most powerful moderator of instructional effects, and it is specific to knowledge components rather than being a global learner level.", "mechanism": "Existing schemas determine what a learner can chunk, notice, and integrate, so the same instruction has opposite effects at different knowledge states.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "instructional adaptation", "placement", "learner modelling" ], "contexts": [ "adaptive software", "classroom", "tutoring", "diagnostic assessment" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Component-level rather than topic-level assessment", "Recent evidence rather than historical placement" ], "constraints": [ "It is component-specific and changes continuously", "A single global score conceals the pattern that matters", "Misdiagnosis can come from language or access rather than knowledge" ], "risks": [ "Assigning a durable learner level", "Using an initial placement all term", "Confusing fluency in one component with knowledge in a neighbour" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Component-level knowledge state", "measure": "Short diagnostics keyed to components plus error-pattern analysis", "timing": "Before and throughout instruction", "caveat": "Correct answers can be produced by unintended strategies" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Convergent evidence from consensus syntheses, the expertise reversal literature, and knowledge-component modelling.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad and repeatedly replicated.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal", "source:kli-framework", "source:ies-study" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Make component-level prior knowledge the primary routing variable, and re-measure rather than assuming persistence." }, "tags": [ "construct", "learner-evidence", "adaptive", "diagnostic" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:problem-based-learning", "label": "Problem-based learning", "aliases": [ "PBL", "case-based curriculum" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Learning is organized around authentic ill-structured problems tackled in facilitated groups before or instead of formal exposition.", "mechanism": "Working a problem first creates a need for knowledge and situates it with its conditions of use; the facilitator supplies process guidance rather than answers.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "health", "professional-workplace", "science", "engineering-design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "collaborate", "motivate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "disputed" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "applying knowledge to cases", "clinical reasoning", "ill-structured problems" ], "contexts": [ "professional education", "higher education", "small group" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Sufficient prior knowledge to engage the problem", "Trained facilitators", "Explicit consolidation after the problem" ], "constraints": [ "Outcome type decides the result: skill application favours PBL, knowledge coverage often favours conventional instruction", "Facilitation quality dominates outcomes", "Minimal-guidance versions are contested on cognitive-load grounds" ], "risks": [ "Leaving novices to flounder without guidance", "Skipping consolidation so misconceptions persist", "Assuming enjoyment implies learning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Application skill versus knowledge coverage", "measure": "Separate measures for knowledge and for application, plus consolidation checks", "timing": "End of unit and later", "caveat": "A single composite outcome hides the pattern" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analyses find advantages for skill application and near-zero or negative effects for knowledge outcomes; the guidance debate remains active.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Best evidenced in medical and professional education with strong facilitation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dochy-pbl-meta", "source:hmelo-silver-pbl", "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "note": "Positive for application of knowledge; approximately zero to slightly negative for knowledge acquisition." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Choose when application is the target outcome, prior knowledge exists, and facilitation plus consolidation are guaranteed." }, "tags": [ "method", "transfer", "collaboration", "contested" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:productive-failure", "label": "Productive failure sequence", "aliases": [ "problem solving before instruction", "generation before consolidation" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Let prepared learners generate multiple imperfect solutions to a rich problem, then explicitly compare and consolidate those attempts into canonical knowledge.", "mechanism": "Initial generation activates and differentiates prior knowledge, exposes gaps, and prepares attention for subsequent explanation.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "novel mathematics concept", "conceptual problem", "transfer preparation" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "workshop" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Sufficient prerequisite knowledge", "A problem allowing multiple representations", "Psychological safety", "Guaranteed explicit consolidation" ], "constraints": [ "Best evidence is for conceptual knowledge and transfer, not procedural fluency", "Monitor age/readiness and affect" ], "risks": [ "Relabeling unguided discovery as productive failure", "Withholding instruction indefinitely", "Public humiliation", "Using immediate correctness as the only outcome" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Diverse generation followed by conceptual reorganization", "measure": "Number and structure of attempts, comparison quality, conceptual explanation, delayed transfer, and separate procedural score", "timing": "Across generation, consolidation, and delayed assessment", "caveat": "Failure is productive only if the later instruction builds on it" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analysis supports bounded benefits for conceptual knowledge and transfer, with negative pooled estimates for younger grades and fidelity moderators.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Best supported in mathematics with older, prepared learners and high-fidelity consolidation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:productive-failure-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Retrieve only with readiness evidence, affect safeguards, and an explicit consolidation phase." }, "tags": [ "productive-struggle", "generation", "mathematics", "transfer" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "science", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "practice" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:productive-struggle", "label": "Productive struggle as a monitored design hypothesis", "aliases": [ "desirable challenge", "effortful sense-making" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Create calibrated challenge that preserves sense-making, then monitor whether struggle produces strategy change and progress rather than prolonged frustration.", "mechanism": "Challenge may prompt monitoring, persistence, adaptive help seeking, and deeper processing when prerequisites and support are adequate.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "upper-primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "mathematical reasoning", "problem solving", "revision" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "tutoring" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Clear goal", "Appropriately demanding task", "Psychological safety", "Real-time monitoring", "Hint and exit path" ], "constraints": [ "Operationalize both struggle and productivity", "Distinguish from the narrower productive-failure sequence" ], "risks": [ "Romanticizing frustration", "Inequitable withholding of support", "Blaming learners with grit narratives", "Using time-on-task as proof of learning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Struggle with measurable progress", "measure": "Strategy changes, explanation refinement, error recovery, calibrated help seeking, affect, and later conceptual gain", "timing": "During challenge and after support", "caveat": "Persistence without progress is not productive" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "low", "basis": "The broad construct is inconsistently operationalized and much literature is qualitative or professional guidance; narrower productive-failure evidence should not be generalized.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Most developed in mathematics; broad cross-domain claims are not established.", "sourceIds": [ "source:productive-failure-meta", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "experimental-only", "rationale": "Use only with observable progress criteria, equity safeguards, and a support escalation plan." }, "tags": [ "productive-struggle", "challenge", "risk", "hypothesis" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "constructivist" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "climate" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "disputed" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:project-based-learning", "label": "Project-based learning", "aliases": [ "PjBL", "extended project work" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Extended, driving-question projects producing public artifacts can improve academic outcomes modestly and affective outcomes more, when scaffolded and assessed carefully.", "mechanism": "A sustained authentic goal organizes knowledge use over time and supports motivation, provided instruction is embedded rather than assumed.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "science", "engineering-design", "computing" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "motivate", "collaborate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "integrative application", "design tasks", "authentic products" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "makerspace", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Embedded direct instruction on required knowledge", "Milestones and formative checkpoints", "Individual as well as group assessment" ], "constraints": [ "Artifact quality is not evidence of individual learning", "Effects are modest and heterogeneous, with weak implementation fidelity reporting", "Project time competes with content coverage" ], "risks": [ "Craft activity displacing conceptual learning", "Grading the poster rather than the understanding", "Unequal division of labour hiding non-learners" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Individual conceptual gain alongside the artifact", "measure": "Individual assessment of target concepts plus milestone checks", "timing": "Across the project and after", "caveat": "Group artifacts systematically overstate individual learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis finds moderate positive average effects with substantial heterogeneity and mixed implementation quality.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Varies widely by discipline, duration, and scaffolding.", "sourceIds": [ "source:chen-pbl-meta", "source:education-life-work" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use for integrative application with embedded instruction and individual assessment; do not expect coverage gains." }, "tags": [ "method", "transfer", "engagement", "artifact" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:reading-comprehension-knowledge", "label": "Reading comprehension through strategy, structure, language, and knowledge", "aliases": [ "comprehension strategy instruction", "text-structure instruction" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Teach a small set of comprehension strategies and text structures while building vocabulary, oral language, and topic knowledge through purposeful texts and discussion.", "mechanism": "Strategies direct monitoring and inference; structure supports organization and recall; vocabulary and knowledge supply meanings needed to build a situation model.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult literacy" ], "taskTypes": [ "reading to learn", "narrative comprehension", "informational text" ], "contexts": [ "literacy block", "content area", "intervention" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Text accessible enough for the learner", "Relevant language and decoding support", "Purposeful strategy selection" ], "constraints": [ "Do not replace rich knowledge building with generic strategy worksheets", "Measure comprehension on unfamiliar texts" ], "risks": [ "Strategy overload", "Conflating word-reading errors with comprehension", "Using culturally narrow background assumptions as ability evidence" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Coherent text meaning and monitored understanding", "measure": "Retell or explanation, text-structure use, inference, vocabulary in context, and comprehension on a new text", "timing": "During guided reading and on independent transfer", "caveat": "Answering rehearsed questions on one passage is a narrow measure" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "IES/WWC rates comprehension strategy instruction strong and text-structure instruction moderate, with additional contextual recommendations.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Early reading comprehension; extend with age- and discipline-appropriate evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:reading-comprehension-wwc", "source:ell-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Integrate strategy, language, knowledge, text structure, and authentic meaning-making." }, "tags": [ "literacy", "reading", "comprehension", "knowledge" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:reading-fluency-repeated-reading", "label": "Repeated reading for fluency", "aliases": [ "repeated oral reading", "fluency practice with feedback" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Repeated reading of text with feedback improves reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension, especially for learners with reading difficulties.", "mechanism": "Automaticity in word recognition frees attention for comprehension; repetition with correction builds that automaticity on real text.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "behavioral", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "reading fluency", "decoding consolidation", "comprehension support" ], "contexts": [ "intervention", "classroom", "tutoring", "one-to-one" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Basic decoding in place", "Text at an appropriate difficulty", "Corrective feedback and a performance criterion" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are larger with corrective feedback and a set criterion", "Gains on practised passages exceed gains on new text", "It does not substitute for decoding instruction or knowledge building" ], "risks": [ "Rate becoming the goal instead of meaning", "Practising text the learner cannot decode", "Reading speed used as a proxy for comprehension" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Transfer to unpractised text", "measure": "Rate and accuracy on new passages plus comprehension questions", "timing": "After the intervention", "caveat": "Gains on the practised passage overstate the effect" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis of repeated reading finds substantial effects, with larger effects on practised than transfer passages and moderation by feedback and criterion.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Strongest for learners with reading difficulty in primary and middle grades.", "sourceIds": [ "source:therrien-repeated-reading", "source:reading-intervention-wwc", "source:nrp" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "note": "Large on practised passages; moderate on transfer passages and comprehension." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use when decoding is adequate but reading is laboured; always evaluate on unpractised text." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "literacy", "reading", "intervention" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:reciprocal-teaching", "label": "Reciprocal teaching", "aliases": [ "predicting, questioning, clarifying, summarizing" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Comprehension strategies are taught through structured dialogue in which learners progressively take over the teacher's role in predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing.", "mechanism": "Strategy use is modelled and then transferred through guided dialogue, so the comprehension monitoring becomes internal rather than teacher-supplied.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "collaborate", "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "reading comprehension", "text monitoring", "content-area reading" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "small group", "intervention" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Adequate decoding for the text", "Explicit modelling before role transfer", "Texts worth discussing" ], "constraints": [ "Requires extended sessions, not a single lesson", "Effects are larger on experimenter-designed than on standardized measures", "Strategy overload can displace content learning" ], "risks": [ "Turning the four strategies into a ritual", "Using it with texts learners cannot decode", "Assuming standardized-test gains from short implementations" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Independent comprehension monitoring", "measure": "Unfamiliar-text comprehension plus observed strategy use without prompting", "timing": "After several weeks and at delay", "caveat": "Strategy naming is not strategy use" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Original controlled studies plus meta-analysis showing consistent benefits, with much larger effects on experimenter-developed than standardized measures.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Best evidenced for learners with adequate decoding but weak comprehension.", "sourceIds": [ "source:palincsar-brown", "source:rosenshine-reciprocal", "source:reading-comprehension-wwc" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.32, "note": "Standardized-measure estimate is markedly smaller than experimenter-measure estimates." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Strong option for comprehension when decoding is adequate; expect smaller effects on standardized outcomes." }, "tags": [ "method", "literacy", "comprehension", "collaboration" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:reduced-feedback-frequency", "label": "Reduced feedback frequency in motor learning", "aliases": [ "guidance hypothesis", "faded knowledge of results" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Frequent feedback improves performance while it is present but can degrade learning; reduced or faded feedback produces better retention.", "mechanism": "Constant feedback becomes a crutch that replaces the learner's own error detection, which is what must be developed for unassisted performance.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "behavioral", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "physical-motor", "health", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "feedback", "practice" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "motor skill training", "procedural skill training" ], "contexts": [ "training", "clinical simulation", "sports coaching" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A skill with intrinsic feedback the learner can eventually use", "A retention test without feedback" ], "constraints": [ "Applies where intrinsic feedback exists to be developed", "Too little feedback early can prevent acquisition", "Requires no-feedback retention testing to detect" ], "risks": [ "Reading in-session improvement as learning", "Removing feedback before the skill can be self-detected", "Automated systems giving constant correction by default" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "No-feedback retention performance", "measure": "Retention and transfer tests with feedback withdrawn", "timing": "After a delay", "caveat": "Performance with feedback present overstates learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Classic experiments establishing the guidance effect, consistent with the broader learning-versus-performance literature.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Motor learning; the principle informs feedback design more broadly.", "sourceIds": [ "source:winstein-schmidt", "source:soderstrom-bjork", "source:feedback-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Fade feedback deliberately and evaluate without it; directly relevant to any system that gives automatic hints." }, "tags": [ "principle", "physical-motor", "feedback", "independence" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:rereading-and-highlighting", "label": "Rereading and highlighting as primary study strategies", "aliases": [ "passive review", "highlighting as studying" ], "kind": "anti-pattern", "summary": "Rereading and highlighting are the most common study strategies and among the least effective, while producing a strong illusion of learning.", "mechanism": "Both increase processing fluency without requiring retrieval, so they raise confidence far more than retention.", "classification": { "layer": "anti-pattern", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "consolidate", "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "deprecated" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "study strategy guidance", "study coaching" ], "contexts": [ "study strategies", "coaching", "higher education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "None; this is a screening criterion" ], "constraints": [ "Rereading is not harmful, only inefficient relative to alternatives", "Highlighting can support later retrieval practice if the highlights are then used as prompts", "Learners resist better strategies because these feel easier" ], "risks": [ "Learners equating time spent with learning achieved", "Confidence rising while retention does not", "Study advice that stops at 'review your notes'" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Confidence versus delayed performance", "measure": "Compare confidence ratings with delayed test results under each strategy", "timing": "After a delay", "caveat": "The gap between confidence and performance is the whole point" } ], "evidence": { "status": "refuted", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Comprehensive review rates both strategies low utility relative to practice testing and distributed practice.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and materials studied.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-techniques", "source:dunlosky-rawson-overconfidence", "source:bjork-self-regulated" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "avoid", "rationale": "Redirect to retrieval and spacing, and warn explicitly that the better strategies will feel worse." }, "tags": [ "anti-pattern", "refuted", "study-strategy", "metacognition" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:responsive-language-interaction", "label": "Responsive language interaction and shared reading", "aliases": [ "serve and return", "dialogic shared reading" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Respond contingently to children's verbal and nonverbal bids and use shared books to build language, print knowledge, and world knowledge through conversation.", "mechanism": "Joint attention and conversational turns create production practice, responsive feedback, vocabulary encounters, and links between text and experience.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "infancy", "early-childhood" ], "taskTypes": [ "oral language", "vocabulary", "print awareness", "knowledge building" ], "contexts": [ "home", "childcare", "preschool" ], "lifespanStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Adult attention to the child's communication", "Culturally and linguistically relevant interaction", "Accessible books or media" ], "constraints": [ "Follow the child's cues while extending language", "Value multiple communication styles and home languages" ], "risks": [ "Reducing quality to word counts", "Blaming families", "Conflating English proficiency with content knowledge" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Reciprocal communication and language growth", "measure": "Turn contingency, child initiations, vocabulary use, print-feature knowledge, and world-knowledge explanation", "timing": "Across repeated interactions", "caveat": "Conversational-turn associations do not alone establish causality" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "WWC rates planned vocabulary, letter-sound, and shared-reading recommendations strong; broader interaction mechanisms also have institutional support.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Early childhood; implementation must be culturally and linguistically responsive.", "sourceIds": [ "source:early-childhood-wwc", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use responsive, dialogic interaction with explicit language goals and respect for home language and culture." }, "tags": [ "early-childhood", "language", "reading", "culture" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "developmental", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "multilingual" ], "lifespanStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool" ], "functions": [ "explain", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "label": "Retrieval practice / active recall", "aliases": [ "practice testing", "test-enhanced learning" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Prompt learners to recall target knowledge from memory instead of only re-exposing them to it.", "mechanism": "Effortful retrieval strengthens future accessibility and reveals gaps; corrective feedback repairs unsuccessful or erroneous recall.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "fact retention", "concept recall", "application preparation" ], "contexts": [ "low-stakes quiz", "flashcards", "free recall", "classroom questioning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Enough initial encoding to attempt retrieval", "Corrective feedback for errors or omissions" ], "constraints": [ "Keep stakes low", "Vary prompts when transfer matters", "Separate retrieval success from final learning" ], "risks": [ "Using high-stakes testing as pedagogy", "Reinforcing errors without feedback", "Overfitting to item wording" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Durable accessible knowledge", "measure": "Delayed free/cued recall plus application or inference items", "timing": "After a meaningful delay", "caveat": "Immediate quiz accuracy overstates durable learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large classroom meta-analysis and evidence syntheses support a moderate average benefit with meaningful moderators.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and content, but outcome match, feedback, repetitions, and delay matter.", "sourceIds": [ "source:retrieval-meta", "source:ies-study", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Prefer low-stakes, feedback-supported retrieval with delayed measurement." }, "tags": [ "general", "memory", "practice", "assessment" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:rubrics-and-exemplars", "label": "Rubrics and exemplars", "aliases": [ "scoring rubrics", "analytic rubrics", "worked exemplars of quality" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Rubrics can improve scoring consistency and, when shared with learners alongside exemplars, make quality criteria usable rather than merely stated.", "mechanism": "Explicit criteria and concrete exemplars convert tacit quality standards into something a learner can compare their own work against.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "psychometric", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "assessment-measurement", "literacy", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "assess", "feedback", "explain" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "performance assessment", "criteria communication", "scoring consistency" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "higher education", "professional assessment" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Criteria that describe quality rather than compliance", "Exemplars at different levels", "Scorer training for consistency" ], "constraints": [ "Reliability requires topic-specific rubrics and training, not generic ones", "Rubrics can drive formulaic work if criteria are procedural", "Validity is not established by reliability" ], "risks": [ "Checklist-style criteria producing checklist-style work", "Assuming shared rubrics are understood without exemplars", "High reliability on an invalid construct" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Scoring agreement and learner use", "measure": "Inter-rater agreement plus evidence learners used criteria during revision", "timing": "At scoring and during revision", "caveat": "Consistent scoring of the wrong construct is still wrong" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Systematic review shows rubrics can improve scoring reliability, with topic-specific rubrics and training as the key conditions; validity evidence is weaker.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Performance assessment across levels.", "sourceIds": [ "source:jonsson-rubrics", "source:testing-standards", "source:panadero-self-assessment" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Pair rubrics with exemplars, keep criteria about quality not compliance, and treat reliability as necessary but not sufficient." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "assessment", "feedback", "validity" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:schema-based-word-problems", "label": "Schema-based instruction for word problems", "aliases": [ "problem schema instruction", "additive and multiplicative schemas" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Teaching learners to recognize the underlying problem structure of word problems, rather than keyword cues, improves solution accuracy and transfer.", "mechanism": "Mapping a problem onto a schema makes the quantitative relations explicit, replacing surface keyword strategies that fail on novel wording.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle" ], "taskTypes": [ "word problem solving", "proportional reasoning", "intervention for struggling learners" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention", "tutoring" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicit schema diagrams or representations", "Practice across varied surface wording", "Adequate computation skill or support" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are best evidenced for specific schema families", "Schema diagrams must be linked to quantity, not used as decoration", "Keyword strategies must be actively unlearned" ], "risks": [ "Diagram completion becoming the task", "Teaching too many schemas at once", "Keyword shortcuts persisting under time pressure" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Structure recognition on novel wording", "measure": "Problems with unfamiliar surface features and misleading keywords", "timing": "After instruction and at delay", "caveat": "Success on practised wording says nothing about schema recognition" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Randomized classroom studies plus evidence-rated practice-guide recommendations on systematic instruction and representations.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Primary and middle grades, including learners with mathematics difficulties.", "sourceIds": [ "source:jitendra-schema", "source:math-intervention-wwc", "source:adding-it-up" ], "sourceLocators": [ { "sourceId": "source:math-intervention-wwc", "locator": "Recommendations on systematic instruction and on using visual representations (strong and moderate evidence respectively)" } ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Strong option for word problems; test with misleading keywords to verify structure recognition." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "mathematics", "transfer", "intervention" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:schema-knowledge-organization", "label": "Schema and knowledge organization", "aliases": [ "knowledge structures", "expert-novice differences" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Expertise is largely organized domain knowledge; experts perceive problems by deep structure while novices perceive surface features.", "mechanism": "Repeated meaningful encounters build connected structures that chunk information, guide attention to relevant features, and free working memory for reasoning.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "transfer", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "problem categorization", "concept learning", "expertise development" ], "contexts": [ "curriculum design", "diagnostic assessment", "instructional materials" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A domain with recurring deep structure", "Multiple varied encounters" ], "constraints": [ "Knowledge organization is domain-specific and does not generalize as a skill", "Building structure takes extended time", "Fluent recall is not the same as organized understanding" ], "risks": [ "Teaching 'thinking skills' detached from content", "Assuming a learner expert in one topic is expert nearby", "Grading surface fluency as structural understanding" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Deep-structure sorting", "measure": "Category sorting tasks, explanation quality, and novel-problem success", "timing": "After sustained instruction", "caveat": "Sorting can be trained superficially without understanding" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Convergent classic and consensus evidence on expert-novice knowledge organization synthesized in national consensus reports.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Robust across domains studied; the content of the structure is domain-specific.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl1", "source:hpl2", "source:kli-framework" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Design for organized knowledge, and diagnose by deep structure rather than by answer correctness alone." }, "tags": [ "theory", "knowledge", "expertise", "transfer" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:science-argumentation", "label": "Argumentation in science instruction", "aliases": [ "evidence-based argument", "claim, evidence, reasoning" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Structured argumentation from evidence develops both science content understanding and epistemic practice, but requires explicit teaching of argument structure.", "mechanism": "Making claims, evidence, and reasoning explicit forces learners to coordinate theory and data rather than to report results.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "collaborate", "assess" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "scientific reasoning", "data interpretation", "discussion" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "laboratory", "small group" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicit instruction in argument structure", "Data or phenomena with genuine interpretive space", "Norms permitting disagreement" ], "constraints": [ "Argumentation does not emerge spontaneously from group work", "Teacher facilitation skill is the limiting factor", "It takes substantial time that content coverage competes for" ], "risks": [ "Debate without evidence discipline", "Louder learners dominating", "Assessing participation instead of argument quality" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Argument quality", "measure": "Coded written or oral arguments for claim, evidence, and reasoning quality", "timing": "Across the unit", "caveat": "Talk quantity is not argument quality" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Classroom intervention research plus alignment with national science framework practices; effects depend heavily on teacher preparation.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Science classrooms; teacher-professional-development dependent.", "sourceIds": [ "source:osborne-argumentation", "source:science-framework", "source:furtak-inquiry" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Teach argument structure explicitly and assess argument quality, not participation." }, "tags": [ "method", "science", "argumentation", "reasoning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:science-three-dimensional", "label": "Three-dimensional science learning", "aliases": [ "science practices crosscutting concepts core ideas" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Integrate disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and scientific or engineering practices around phenomena and problems.", "mechanism": "Using ideas in modeling, investigation, data analysis, explanation, and argument makes scientific knowledge coherent, revisable, and connected across contexts.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "scientific explanation", "modeling", "investigation", "engineering design" ], "contexts": [ "K-12 science curriculum", "assessment", "informal science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Coherent grade-band progression", "Sufficient core knowledge", "Access to phenomena or data", "Norms for evidence and critique" ], "constraints": [ "Depth over disconnected breadth", "Integrate practices with concepts rather than activity alone" ], "risks": [ "Unguided discovery", "Activity-only inquiry", "Polished model accepted without evidence or revision trace", "Treating a consensus framework as one causal intervention" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Evidence-based model or explanation revision", "measure": "Model adequacy, data interpretation, claim-evidence-reasoning, argument response, and cross-context application", "timing": "Across investigation and after anomalous evidence", "caveat": "Framework alignment is not itself proof of effectiveness" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Authoritative National Research Council consensus framework grounded in learning research; enactment effects vary.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "K-12 science and engineering; this is a normative curricular framework, not an effect estimate.", "sourceIds": [ "source:science-framework", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use as a domain design framework with explicit knowledge scaffolds and evidence-producing practices." }, "tags": [ "science", "inquiry", "modeling", "argumentation" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "explain" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:screen-media-young-children", "label": "Screen media exposure in early childhood", "aliases": [ "screen time", "digital media exposure" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Higher screen time in early childhood is associated with poorer performance on developmental screening measures; content, co-viewing, and displaced activities matter more than raw hours.", "mechanism": "Screen time can displace interaction, language exposure, sleep, and physical activity; effects depend on what it replaces and on whether an adult participates.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "developmental" ], "domains": [ "general", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool" ], "functions": [ "access", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool" ], "taskTypes": [ "family guidance", "product design for young children", "screening interpretation" ], "contexts": [ "home partnership", "childcare", "product design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "infancy-toddler", "preschool" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Distinguishing content type and co-viewing from total duration" ], "constraints": [ "Evidence is observational with residual confounding", "Effect sizes are small and directionality is debated", "Total-hours framing obscures the displacement mechanism" ], "risks": [ "Blanket time limits as the only guidance", "Ignoring differences between interactive, co-viewed, and passive use", "Moral framing of families' media choices" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Displacement, not just duration", "measure": "Time-use records of what screens replaced plus developmental screening", "timing": "Across early childhood", "caveat": "Duration alone is a weak predictor without content and context" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Longitudinal cohort evidence of an association with developmental screening outcomes; observational design limits causal inference.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Early childhood cohorts; small effects.", "sourceIds": [ "source:madigan-screen-time", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Advise on content, co-use, and what is displaced rather than issuing an hours rule; state the observational limits." }, "tags": [ "construct", "early-childhood", "digital", "risk" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:self-assessment", "label": "Self-assessment as a formative process", "aliases": [ "student self-evaluation", "self-grading against criteria" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Self-assessment against explicit criteria improves self-regulated learning and performance when it is formative rather than a summative self-grade.", "mechanism": "Comparing one's work against criteria develops monitoring and identifies the specific gap to act on, which is the core of self-regulation.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "psychometric" ], "domains": [ "general", "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate", "assess", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "revision decisions", "study regulation", "criteria internalization" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "higher education", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicit criteria and exemplars", "A subsequent chance to act on the judgment", "No grading consequence attached" ], "constraints": [ "Self-assessment accuracy is generally poor without criteria and training", "Summative self-grading invites distortion", "Confidence and accuracy are different things" ], "risks": [ "Self-rated mastery gating progression", "Self-grades used for marks", "Assuming accuracy improves without feedback" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Accuracy against an external standard, and subsequent action", "measure": "Self-rating compared with criterion-based external scoring plus the revision made", "timing": "Each cycle", "caveat": "Improving self-ratings can reflect leniency drift, not learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Systematic review finds positive effects on self-regulated learning and achievement when self-assessment is formative and criteria-based.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad; effects depend on formative framing and training.", "sourceIds": [ "source:panadero-self-assessment", "source:dunlosky-rawson-overconfidence", "source:nicol-macfarlane" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use formatively with criteria and always calibrate against an external measure." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "metacognition", "assessment", "self-regulation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:self-determination-theory", "label": "Self-determination theory", "aliases": [ "SDT", "autonomy, competence, relatedness" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Motivation varies in quality, not just amount; support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness produces more autonomous motivation and better persistence and wellbeing.", "mechanism": "Contexts that satisfy the three basic needs allow externally prompted behaviour to be internalized rather than merely complied with.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "climate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "sustaining effort", "voluntary practice", "course and workplace design" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "workplace learning", "adaptive software", "coaching" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Real choice within a structured task", "Attainable competence signals", "A relational context" ], "constraints": [ "Autonomy support is not absence of structure", "Need satisfaction is measured by self-report with the usual limits", "Achievement effects are smaller and less consistent than motivation effects" ], "risks": [ "Offering trivial choices as autonomy", "Using controlling rewards while claiming need support", "Assuming enjoyment implies learning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Autonomous motivation and persistence", "measure": "Validated need-satisfaction and motivation measures plus voluntary persistence and achievement, reported separately", "timing": "Across a term", "caveat": "Motivation gains do not automatically produce achievement gains" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large theoretical and intervention literature, with a recent meta-analysis of SDT-based interventions.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Cross-cultural support with debate about relative need weighting across cultures.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ryan-deci-sdt", "source:motivation-meta", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Design for need support as a climate condition; measure achievement separately from motivation." }, "tags": [ "theory", "motivation", "climate", "agency" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:self-efficacy", "label": "Self-efficacy", "aliases": [ "task-specific confidence", "perceived capability" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "A learner's belief about their capability on a specific task predicts effort, persistence, and performance, and is built mainly by mastery experience.", "mechanism": "Mastery experiences, credible vicarious models, specific feedback, and physiological state combine into a task-specific judgment that governs effort allocation.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "motivate", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "persistence prediction", "confidence building", "recovery after failure" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "coaching", "workplace learning", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Task-specific measurement, not global confidence", "Genuine opportunities for mastery experience" ], "constraints": [ "It is task-specific and does not transfer as a trait", "The correlation with achievement is moderate, and causality runs in both directions", "Encouragement without mastery experience does not durably raise it" ], "risks": [ "Measuring generalized self-esteem instead of task self-efficacy", "Inflating confidence beyond competence, which damages calibration", "Treating it as a fixed learner attribute" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Calibrated task confidence", "measure": "Task-specific efficacy ratings compared against actual performance", "timing": "Before and after task attempts", "caveat": "Overconfidence is itself a risk, not a success" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Foundational theory plus meta-analysis showing a moderate correlation with academic performance.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad; effect sizes moderate and correlational.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bandura-self-efficacy", "source:honicke-broadbent" ], "effect": { "metric": "r", "value": 0.33, "note": "Meta-analytic correlation with academic performance in higher education." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Build through mastery experience and specific feedback; measure per task and watch calibration, not just level." }, "tags": [ "construct", "motivation", "measurement", "learner-evidence" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:self-explanation", "label": "Self-explanation and deep explanatory questioning", "aliases": [ "elaborative interrogation", "explain a step" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Ask learners to explain why a fact, step, representation, or causal link makes sense and how it connects to prior knowledge.", "mechanism": "Generating explanations exposes gaps, integrates new information with schemas, and makes relations available for inference.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "concept integration", "worked-example study", "causal reasoning" ], "contexts": [ "individual reflection", "peer explanation", "guided questioning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Sufficient domain knowledge to generate a meaningful explanation", "A prompt aimed at a consequential relation" ], "constraints": [ "Provide feedback or models when explanations can entrench misconceptions", "Avoid generic why prompts for every step" ], "risks": [ "Fluent but incorrect explanations", "Prompt overload", "Scoring verbosity rather than conceptual relations" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Integrated and revisable explanation", "measure": "Presence and correctness of causal, structural, or principle-based links plus transfer", "timing": "During learning and on a novel application", "caveat": "Longer explanations are not necessarily better" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Evidence-rated guidance supports deep explanatory questions; effectiveness depends on knowledge, prompt, and feedback.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad mechanism with domain-specific implementation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ies-study", "source:icap", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Retrieve when explanation quality can be observed and corrected." }, "tags": [ "general", "elaboration", "explanation", "reasoning" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:self-regulation-in-open-online-learning", "label": "Self-regulation demands of open online learning", "aliases": [ "MOOC completion", "online course persistence" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Open online courses show very low completion and serve already-advantaged learners disproportionately; success depends heavily on self-regulatory capability the format assumes.", "mechanism": "Removing schedule, cohort, and accountability structures shifts the entire regulatory burden onto the learner, which favours those who already have those skills.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "digital-environments", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate", "access" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "open course design", "workforce upskilling", "access planning" ], "contexts": [ "online platforms", "workplace learning", "continuing education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace", "older-adult" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicit regulatory supports if broad access is the goal", "Realistic outcome definitions beyond completion" ], "constraints": [ "Completion is a poor and often misleading metric", "Participation skews toward the already-educated", "Self-regulation interventions in these settings show mixed results" ], "risks": [ "Claiming democratized access without checking who participates", "Reading non-completion as learner failure", "Designing for the self-regulated minority" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Who participates and what they achieve", "measure": "Participation and achievement disaggregated by prior education, plus goal-relative rather than completion-relative outcomes", "timing": "Across cohorts", "caveat": "Completion rate conflates intent with capability" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large-scale platform analyses show persistent low completion and advantaged participation; experimental self-regulation supports show modest and mixed effects.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Open online platforms; less applicable to supported cohort programmes.", "sourceIds": [ "source:reich-mooc", "source:kizilcec-mooc-srl", "source:bernard-distance" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Build regulatory structure into the design and report participation equity, not just completion." }, "tags": [ "construct", "digital", "adult", "equity" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:simple-view-of-reading", "label": "Simple view of reading", "aliases": [ "decoding times language comprehension", "SVR" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Reading comprehension is the product of word recognition and language comprehension, so a failure in either component produces reading failure for different reasons.", "mechanism": "Because the relation is multiplicative, a near-zero value on either component collapses comprehension regardless of the other, which makes component diagnosis essential.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "multilingual", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "reading difficulty diagnosis", "intervention targeting", "curriculum balance" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention", "assessment" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Separate measurement of decoding and language comprehension" ], "constraints": [ "It is a framework for diagnosis, not a full account of skilled reading", "Component weighting changes with age and orthography", "Multilingual learners require language-of-assessment care" ], "risks": [ "Reducing reading instruction to decoding alone", "Assessing comprehension without checking decoding", "Diagnosing a language difference as a reading disability" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Component profile", "measure": "Independent decoding (including pseudowords) and oral language comprehension measures", "timing": "At referral and periodically", "caveat": "A single comprehension score cannot identify which component failed" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "A durable framework supported by decades of component-skill research and endorsed in major evidence syntheses of reading.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad across alphabetic orthographies; weighting varies by language and age.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hoover-gough-svr", "source:castles-reading-wars", "source:literacy-wwc" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Always diagnose the two components separately before choosing a reading intervention." }, "tags": [ "theory", "literacy", "diagnostic", "reading" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:simulation-based-mastery-learning", "label": "Simulation-based mastery learning in clinical skills", "aliases": [ "deliberate practice with simulation", "mastery criterion clinical training" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Simulation training with a mastery criterion, deliberate practice, and feedback produces large skill gains and, in several studies, better patient outcomes.", "mechanism": "Repeated practice against an explicit performance standard with immediate feedback continues until the standard is met, removing the variability of time-based training.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "behavioral", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "health", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback", "assess" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "procedural skill training", "clinical competence", "certification" ], "contexts": [ "clinical simulation", "professional education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A validated performance checklist and mastery standard", "Simulation fidelity adequate to the skill", "Unlimited practice time to reach the standard" ], "constraints": [ "Requires substantial faculty and equipment resources", "Checklist validity determines what mastery means", "Fidelity needs vary by skill; higher is not always better" ], "risks": [ "Checklist compliance substituting for clinical judgment", "Declaring mastery on a weak standard", "Assuming simulation performance transfers without patient-level evidence" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Mastery attainment and downstream transfer", "measure": "Checklist performance to criterion plus workplace or patient outcome measures", "timing": "At certification and after", "caveat": "Simulation competence is not automatically clinical competence" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analyses of simulation-based mastery learning and of technology-enhanced simulation report large skill effects and, in a subset, patient-outcome benefits.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Health professions education; strongest for procedural skills.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mcgaghie-simulation", "source:cook-simulation-jama", "source:kulik-mastery" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "note": "Large effects on skills outcomes; smaller and less consistent for patient outcomes." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "The strongest adult-domain instance of mastery learning; require a validated standard and workplace-level follow-up." }, "tags": [ "method", "health", "adult", "assessment" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:simulations-virtual-labs", "label": "Computer simulations and virtual laboratories", "aliases": [ "virtual labs", "interactive simulations", "microworlds" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Simulations support conceptual learning when combined with guidance, and can equal or exceed physical labs for concept-focused goals.", "mechanism": "Learners can manipulate variables, see otherwise invisible relationships, and run many trials quickly, provided assignments constrain what they attend to.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "science", "engineering-design", "mathematics", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "variable relationships", "model exploration", "experiment design" ], "contexts": [ "laboratory", "classroom", "adaptive software", "home learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Assignments and prompts that direct attention", "Prior knowledge of the represented variables", "Debriefing that links the simulation to the concept" ], "constraints": [ "Unguided simulation use produces weak results", "A simulation is a model, and its simplifications teach too", "Physical manipulation goals are not substituted" ], "risks": [ "Treating the simulation as self-teaching", "Learners inferring the model's artefacts as physical facts", "Replacing hands-on skills that the curriculum requires" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Concept gain plus model awareness", "measure": "Conceptual pre-post, prediction tasks, and questions about model limits", "timing": "During and after the sequence", "caveat": "Fluent simulation manipulation can mask conceptual confusion" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Reviews find simulations generally beneficial for conceptual outcomes when supported by guidance, with comparisons to physical labs favouring neither uniformly.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Science and engineering topics with clear variable structure.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dejong-simulations", "source:rutten-simulations", "source:science-framework" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use with directed assignments and debriefing; state explicitly what the model omits." }, "tags": [ "method", "science", "digital", "inquiry" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:sleep-and-consolidation", "label": "Sleep and memory consolidation", "aliases": [ "sleep-dependent consolidation", "school start times" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Sleep actively consolidates newly learned material, and insufficient sleep degrades attention, learning, and wellbeing, particularly in adolescents.", "mechanism": "Post-learning sleep stabilizes and reorganizes memory traces; sleep restriction also impairs the attention and regulation that learning depends on.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "neuroscience", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "general", "health" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "consolidate", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "study scheduling", "school timetable policy", "wellbeing" ], "contexts": [ "home learning", "school systems", "study strategies" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Opportunity for adequate sleep, which is often a structural not individual matter" ], "constraints": [ "Adolescent circadian phase shift makes early start times biologically costly", "School start time change is a system decision with logistical costs", "Consolidation research is largely laboratory-based" ], "risks": [ "Framing sleep as purely a personal discipline issue", "All-night study normalized as commitment", "Ignoring the equity dimension of household and work constraints" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Retention and attention as a function of sleep", "measure": "Sleep duration and timing records alongside delayed retention and attention measures", "timing": "Across days and weeks", "caveat": "Self-reported sleep is systematically over-estimated" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Robust experimental evidence on sleep-dependent consolidation plus systematic review and public-health recommendations on adolescent school start times.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad; start-time evidence is strongest for adolescents.", "sourceIds": [ "source:diekelmann-born-sleep", "source:wheaton-school-start", "source:adolescent-nasem" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Treat sleep as a structural condition for learning; schedule practice and testing accordingly rather than moralizing." }, "tags": [ "construct", "development", "consolidation", "wellbeing" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:social-emotional-learning", "label": "Social and emotional learning programmes", "aliases": [ "SEL", "CASEL competencies" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Well-implemented SEL programmes improve social-emotional skills, attitudes, behaviour, and academic performance, with effects persisting at follow-up.", "mechanism": "Explicit, sequenced, active, focused, and explicit skill instruction plus a supportive climate builds regulation and relationship skills that also support academic engagement.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "climate", "self-regulate", "motivate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "behaviour and wellbeing", "school climate", "academic engagement" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "school systems", "preschool" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Sequenced, active, focused, explicit design", "Implementation fidelity and staff training", "Whole-school reinforcement" ], "constraints": [ "Implementation quality drives results; poorly implemented programmes show little", "Academic effects are smaller than social-emotional ones", "Outcome measures are often self- or teacher-report" ], "risks": [ "Bolt-on lessons without climate change", "Using SEL to manage compliance rather than support development", "Culturally mismatched norms of appropriate emotion" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Skill, behaviour, and academic outcomes separately", "measure": "Multi-informant skill and behaviour measures plus independent academic outcomes and fidelity data", "timing": "Post-programme and at follow-up", "caveat": "Self-report gains can exceed observed behaviour change" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large meta-analyses of universal school-based programmes with significant post-test effects and follow-up meta-analysis showing persistence.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and settings when implementation conditions are met.", "sourceIds": [ "source:durlak-sel", "source:taylor-sel-followup", "source:casel" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.27, "note": "Academic performance effect at post-test; social-emotional skill effects are larger, around 0.57." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Well-evidenced when the design is sequenced, active, focused, and explicit and implementation is monitored." }, "tags": [ "method", "climate", "development", "wellbeing" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:sociocultural-zpd", "label": "Sociocultural theory and the zone of proximal development", "aliases": [ "Vygotskian theory", "ZPD" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Higher-order thinking develops first in social interaction and then internally, so the productive teaching zone is what a learner can do with support but not yet alone.", "mechanism": "Joint activity with a more capable partner makes reasoning public; language and cultural tools mediate it, and responsibility transfers to the learner over time.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "collaborate", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "guided problem solving", "concept development", "apprenticeship" ], "contexts": [ "one-to-one", "small group", "classroom", "tutoring" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A partner with relevant expertise", "Shared task and language access", "Room for the learner to act" ], "constraints": [ "The zone is task-specific and moves as knowledge changes", "It is not a fixed learner property or a score", "Cultural context shapes what counts as competent participation" ], "risks": [ "Turning ZPD into a static learner label or level", "Using it to justify indefinite assistance", "Assuming any group work is developmentally productive" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Transfer of responsibility", "measure": "Comparison of assisted and unassisted performance on the same task", "timing": "Across a sequence of attempts", "caveat": "Support-visible success is not independent competence" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Foundational and widely used theory; consensus syntheses endorse its account of social and cultural mediation, while its specific instructional predictions are tested through scaffolding research.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad, but operationalization varies enormously across studies.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:scaffolding-review" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use to frame where support should sit; measure the transfer of responsibility rather than asserting the zone." }, "tags": [ "theory", "scaffolding", "sociocultural" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:socioeconomic-context", "label": "Socioeconomic context and opportunity", "aliases": [ "SES", "opportunity gap", "material conditions of learning" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Socioeconomic status is moderately associated with achievement, operates through opportunity and resources rather than capability, and specific interventions can narrow gaps.", "mechanism": "Material resources, instructional quality, out-of-school opportunity, and stability shape cumulative exposure to learning opportunities.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "critical-equity", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "access", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "equity analysis", "intervention targeting", "resource allocation" ], "contexts": [ "school systems", "programme evaluation", "policy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Disaggregated outcome data", "Interventions that address opportunity, not deficits" ], "constraints": [ "Association is at group level and says nothing about an individual", "Aggregated school-level measures show larger associations than individual ones", "It is a condition to address, not a learner attribute to encode" ], "risks": [ "Using SES to lower expectations or route to easier content", "Encoding proxies for SES into an adaptive model", "Deficit framing of families and communities" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Disaggregated growth under targeted support", "measure": "Outcome and opportunity-to-learn measures disaggregated by group", "timing": "Termly and annually", "caveat": "Group averages must never drive individual routing" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large meta-analytic evidence for the association plus meta-analytic evidence that specific academic interventions improve outcomes for low-SES learners.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad; the association is correlational and mediated.", "sourceIds": [ "source:sirin-ses-meta", "source:dietrichson-low-ses", "source:hpl2" ], "effect": { "metric": "r", "value": 0.3, "note": "Typical individual-level association; school-aggregated measures are considerably higher." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Use for targeting resources and auditing equity; never as an input to individual difficulty or expectation decisions." }, "tags": [ "construct", "equity", "access", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:spaced-repetition-scheduling", "label": "Algorithmic spaced repetition", "aliases": [ "spaced education", "flashcard scheduling", "expanding retrieval schedules" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Software that schedules review by predicted forgetting sustains retention of large item sets efficiently, including for busy professionals.", "mechanism": "Reviews are placed near the point of forgetting, combining spacing and retrieval so each review yields maximum retention gain per minute.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "general", "world-language", "health", "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "vocabulary", "terminology", "facts and classifications", "recertification" ], "contexts": [ "adaptive software", "flashcards", "workplace recertification" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Well-formed atomic items", "Initial understanding before memorization", "Sustained access over time" ], "constraints": [ "Optimal gap depends on the retention horizon", "Item quality dominates algorithm choice", "It builds recall, not application or judgment" ], "risks": [ "Memorizing items that were never understood", "Endless review backlogs causing abandonment", "Treating fact recall as the whole curriculum" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Retention per review minute", "measure": "Delayed recall plus review-time logs and lapse rate", "timing": "Across weeks and months", "caveat": "In-app accuracy is inflated by recent scheduling" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Spacing meta-analysis plus randomized trials of spaced education in professional settings show durable retention advantages.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Strong for well-formed recall items; not evidence for complex reasoning outcomes.", "sourceIds": [ "source:spacing-meta", "source:kerfoot-spaced-education", "source:dunlosky-techniques" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Default for durable factual and terminological knowledge; pair with application practice for anything more." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "spacing", "memory", "digital" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:spacing", "label": "Spacing / distributed practice", "aliases": [ "distributed learning", "spaced review" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Distribute repeated encounters over time rather than massing them in one session.", "mechanism": "Later encounters require reminding or retrieval and occur in varied temporal contexts, slowing forgetting.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "retention", "skill maintenance", "relearning" ], "contexts": [ "curriculum scheduling", "practice systems", "workplace recertification" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Multiple encounters", "A target retention horizon" ], "constraints": [ "Gap choice depends on desired retention interval and difficulty", "Too-long gaps can produce retrieval failure" ], "risks": [ "Treating one schedule as optimal for every item", "Assuming expanding gaps are always superior" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Slower forgetting and efficient relearning", "measure": "Delayed retention curve and relearning savings", "timing": "Across multiple delays", "caveat": "In-session difficulty can increase even while long-term retention improves" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Large quantitative synthesis and evidence-rated institutional guidance.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad for retention; exact schedules are context-dependent.", "sourceIds": [ "source:spacing-meta", "source:ies-study", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Build revisits into curricula and tools, then adapt intervals to retention evidence." }, "tags": [ "general", "memory", "schedule", "retention" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:spatial-skills-training", "label": "Spatial skills training", "aliases": [ "mental rotation training", "spatial reasoning practice" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Spatial skills are malleable and improve with training, with durable and transferable gains within the spatial domain; academic transfer to STEM is less established.", "mechanism": "Practice with spatial transformations builds representations and strategies that apply to structurally similar spatial tasks.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "developmental" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "science", "engineering-design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "mental rotation", "diagram interpretation", "STEM preparation" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "block play", "digital tools", "intervention" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Structured spatial tasks with feedback", "Sufficient practice duration" ], "constraints": [ "Transfer is reliable within spatial tasks; academic transfer is weaker evidence", "Effects are demonstrated across ages but vary by training type", "Gains do not automatically appear in mathematics scores" ], "risks": [ "Selling spatial training as a STEM achievement intervention", "Displacing domain instruction", "Assuming gender gaps are fixed rather than trainable" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Spatial gain and any academic transfer, separately", "measure": "Spatial task battery plus independent domain outcome measures", "timing": "After training and at delay", "caveat": "Spatial gains are real without implying STEM gains" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "A large meta-analysis establishes malleability, durability, and transfer within the spatial domain; academic transfer claims are weaker.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across ages and training types for spatial outcomes.", "sourceIds": [ "source:uttal-spatial-training", "source:goldin-meadow-gesture" ], "effect": { "metric": "g", "value": 0.47, "note": "Average training effect on spatial outcomes." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Worthwhile for spatial goals and diagram-heavy domains; do not promise STEM achievement gains." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "mathematics", "science", "transfer" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:stereotype-threat", "label": "Stereotype threat", "aliases": [ "identity threat in evaluative settings" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Situational cues that make a negative group stereotype relevant can depress performance, though effect sizes in school settings are small and publication bias is evident.", "mechanism": "Concern about confirming a stereotype consumes working memory and shifts monitoring away from the task.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "general", "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "climate", "assess" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "disputed" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "high-stakes testing conditions", "evaluative settings" ], "contexts": [ "assessment", "classroom", "selection" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A relevant stereotype and an evaluative framing" ], "constraints": [ "Meta-analytic estimates in operational school settings are small and heterogeneous", "Evidence of publication bias and failed replications is substantial", "It does not explain group achievement gaps by itself" ], "risks": [ "Using it as a complete explanation for disparities", "Ignoring it entirely because of replication concerns", "Interventions applied where no threat cue exists" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Performance change under altered framing", "measure": "Randomized framing manipulations with adequate power and preregistration", "timing": "During assessment", "caveat": "Small underpowered studies dominate the older literature" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "The original demonstrations are influential, but meta-analysis of school-age samples finds small effects with clear indications of publication bias.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Laboratory demonstrations are stronger than operational-setting evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:steele-aronson", "source:flore-stereotype-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Reduce gratuitous identity cues in assessment as cheap good practice; do not build explanations of achievement gaps on this construct." }, "tags": [ "construct", "contested", "equity", "assessment" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:structured-collaboration", "label": "Structured cooperative and collaborative learning", "aliases": [ "cooperative learning", "peer learning" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Design interdependent tasks with individual accountability, equitable participation, explanation, and group-process reflection.", "mechanism": "Peer explanation, questioning, critique, and shared problem solving can deepen elaboration and reveal differences in understanding.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "multiple-perspective problem", "joint explanation", "peer review" ], "contexts": [ "small group", "project team", "workplace learning" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A genuinely interdependent task", "Explicit roles or norms", "Individual evidence of learning", "Teacher or facilitator monitoring" ], "constraints": [ "Group size must permit participation", "Assess both group process and individual outcomes" ], "risks": [ "Social loafing", "Status domination", "One learner doing all reasoning", "Group product masking individual nonlearning" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Equitable substantive participation and individual learning", "measure": "Turn/idea distribution, explanation quality, peer uptake, identifiable contributions, and individual transfer", "timing": "During collaboration and after group support is removed", "caveat": "A polished group artifact is not evidence that every member learned" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Classroom meta-analysis finds positive average achievement and attitude effects with substantial implementation heterogeneity.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Across school and higher education when structures create accountability and productive interaction.", "sourceIds": [ "source:collaboration-meta", "source:icap" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Use when the task benefits from distributed perspectives and individual learning remains observable." }, "tags": [ "collaboration", "explanation", "accountability", "equity" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "collaborate", "practice" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:study-skills-programs", "label": "Study-skills and learning-strategy programmes", "aliases": [ "learning to learn courses", "study strategy training" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Strategy training works best when taught in context with the content it applies to, and worst when delivered as a detached generic course.", "mechanism": "Strategies are conditional knowledge: learners need to know when and where to apply them, which only the domain context supplies.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "self-regulate", "transfer" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "study strategy development", "transition support", "academic recovery" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "secondary classroom", "coaching" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A content course the strategies are practised inside", "Metacognitive framing of when to use each strategy", "Follow-up practice" ], "constraints": [ "Generic detached programmes transfer poorly", "Learners revert to familiar strategies under time pressure", "Self-reported strategy use is unreliable" ], "risks": [ "Running a standalone workshop and expecting change", "Teaching low-utility strategies such as highlighting", "Measuring satisfaction rather than strategy change" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Actual strategy change in course work", "measure": "Observed or logged study behaviour plus performance, not self-report alone", "timing": "Across a term", "caveat": "Self-reported strategy use overstates actual change" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis of study-skills interventions finds effects depend on contextualization; near-transfer within the taught context is the reliable result.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Secondary and higher education.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hattie-study-skills", "source:dunlosky-techniques", "source:dignath-buttner" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Embed strategy instruction inside a real course and teach the conditions of use, not the strategy list." }, "tags": [ "method", "self-regulation", "strategy", "transfer" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:summarization-training", "label": "Summarization as a study strategy", "aliases": [ "writing summaries", "gist extraction" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Summarizing helps only when learners have been trained to produce good summaries; untrained summarization is a low-utility strategy.", "mechanism": "Selecting main ideas and condensing forces processing of structure, but poor summaries copy surface sentences and add nothing.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "consolidate", "self-regulate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "text comprehension", "study review", "note consolidation" ], "contexts": [ "study strategies", "classroom", "writing tasks" ], "lifespanStages": [ "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Explicit training in summarization criteria", "Feedback on summary quality" ], "constraints": [ "Effects depend on training that is often long", "Weak readers copy rather than condense", "Rated low utility relative to retrieval and spacing" ], "risks": [ "Assuming summarizing is inherently generative", "Substituting it for retrieval practice", "Grading length rather than selection quality" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Summary quality and later comprehension", "measure": "Rubric scoring of idea selection plus delayed comprehension of new text", "timing": "After training and at delay", "caveat": "A neat summary can be pure transcription" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Comprehensive review rates summarization low utility overall, with benefits conditional on substantial training.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Mostly text-based academic tasks with older learners.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-techniques", "source:graham-perin-writing" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Only worth recommending with explicit criteria and feedback; prefer retrieval when the goal is retention." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "literacy", "consolidation", "contested" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:system-resource-tradeoffs", "label": "System-level resource decisions and cost-effectiveness", "aliases": [ "class size", "teacher effects", "cost per additional month of progress" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Which teacher a learner gets matters more than most structural variables, and expensive structural levers such as class-size reduction buy less progress per unit cost than several cheaper instructional ones.", "mechanism": "Structural changes act only through what they let teachers and learners do differently; where they do not change instruction, they produce little.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "critical-equity", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "general", "teacher-development" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "access", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "resource allocation", "programme selection", "policy analysis" ], "contexts": [ "school systems", "policy", "programme evaluation" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Cost data alongside effect data", "Local implementation-capacity assessment" ], "constraints": [ "Cost-effectiveness rankings are context- and price-specific and travel badly across systems", "Class-size effects are small relative to cost and concentrated in the earliest grades", "Teacher-effect estimates are not a licence for high-stakes individual teacher measurement" ], "risks": [ "Importing another system's toolkit rankings without local costs", "Using teacher-effect research to justify punitive evaluation", "Choosing the visible structural lever over the cheaper instructional one" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Progress per unit cost, locally estimated", "measure": "Effect estimates paired with local cost data and an implementation-capacity check", "timing": "At allocation decisions", "caveat": "Published rankings assume prices and conditions that may not hold locally" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Systematic review evidence on class-size effects, primary evidence on the magnitude of teacher effects, and institutional cost-effectiveness syntheses.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Findings are system- and price-specific; the ordering of options changes across contexts.", "sourceIds": [ "source:filges-class-size", "source:nye-teacher-effects", "source:eef-toolkit", "source:dietrichson-low-ses" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Compare options on locally costed progress, and prefer instructional levers over structural ones unless local evidence says otherwise." }, "tags": [ "construct", "policy", "equity", "measurement" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:systematic-phonics-programme", "label": "Systematic phonics programmes", "aliases": [ "synthetic phonics", "systematic code instruction" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Systematic phonics instruction outperforms unsystematic or no phonics on word reading and spelling, with the largest effects in the earliest grades and for at-risk readers.", "mechanism": "A planned cumulative sequence of letter-sound correspondences with blending practice makes the alphabetic system learnable rather than left to inference from text.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ], "taskTypes": [ "beginning reading", "decoding intervention", "spelling" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention", "tutoring" ], "lifespanStages": [ "preschool", "primary", "middle" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A planned cumulative scope and sequence", "Application to connected text", "Teacher knowledge of the code" ], "constraints": [ "Effects on comprehension are far smaller than on word reading", "Benefits are largest in kindergarten and first grade", "Phonics is necessary but not sufficient for reading" ], "risks": [ "Treating phonics as the whole reading curriculum", "Continuing a programme past the point of decoding competence", "Decodable-text drilling with no meaning focus" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Decoding of unfamiliar words", "measure": "Pseudoword and unfamiliar-word reading plus spelling, alongside separate comprehension measures", "timing": "Across the programme and at delay", "caveat": "Word-reading gains do not imply comprehension gains" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "National panel meta-analysis plus a major evidence review, with an evidence-rated practice guide recommendation.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Alphabetic orthographies, strongest in early grades and for at-risk readers.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ehri-phonics-meta", "source:nrp", "source:castles-reading-wars", "source:literacy-wwc" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 0.41, "note": "Overall reading effect from the national panel meta-analysis; larger for word reading and for early grades, smaller for comprehension." }, "sourceLocators": [ { "sourceId": "source:literacy-wwc", "locator": "Recommendations on developing awareness of segments of sound and teaching letter-sound relations (strong evidence)" } ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Default for beginning and struggling decoders; fade once decoding is established and never let it displace language and knowledge work." }, "tags": [ "method", "literacy", "decoding", "intervention" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:task-based-language-teaching", "label": "Task-based language teaching", "aliases": [ "TBLT", "task-supported language instruction" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Organizing language instruction around meaningful tasks produces positive learning outcomes, with larger effects for programmes implemented over time and assessed on real task performance.", "mechanism": "Tasks create communicative need, which drives negotiation of meaning and form-focused attention arising from actual communication demands.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "sociocultural", "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "world-language", "multilingual" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "transfer", "motivate" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "communicative competence", "language for specific purposes", "programme design" ], "contexts": [ "language classroom", "workplace language training" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Tasks with a genuine non-linguistic outcome", "Form-focused episodes within tasks", "Teacher preparation for task facilitation" ], "constraints": [ "Implementation varies widely under the same label", "Institutional exam pressure often distorts it", "Pure task work without form focus underperforms" ], "risks": [ "Tasks without any attention to form", "Assessing tasks by fluency alone", "Assuming the label describes the practice" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Task performance and language development", "measure": "Real-task outcome completion plus accuracy and complexity measures", "timing": "Across the programme", "caveat": "Task completion can be achieved with minimal target language" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Meta-analysis of TBLT implementation and evaluation shows positive effects, moderated by duration and outcome measure.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Varied international settings; implementation heterogeneity is high.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bryfonski-tblt", "source:norris-ortega" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Adopt with explicit form-focus episodes and real task outcomes; document what implementation actually means locally." }, "tags": [ "method", "world-language", "transfer", "collaboration" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:teacher-expectancy", "label": "Teacher expectancy effects", "aliases": [ "Pygmalion effect", "self-fulfilling prophecy in classrooms" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Teacher expectations are mostly accurate reflections of prior performance; genuine self-fulfilling effects are real but small, and can accumulate for stigmatized groups.", "mechanism": "Expectations influence the tasks, questions, and feedback a learner receives, which over time can produce the expected result.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "motivational-social", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "general", "teacher-development" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "climate", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "placement decisions", "differentiated expectations", "equity auditing" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "school systems", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A mechanism by which expectation changes treatment" ], "constraints": [ "Most expectancy-performance correlation is accuracy, not causation", "Average self-fulfilling effects are small", "Accumulation for stigmatized groups is the more serious concern" ], "risks": [ "Overclaiming dramatic Pygmalion effects", "Ignoring differential treatment because average effects are small", "Encoding low expectations into an adaptive system's difficulty routing" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Differential treatment given equal performance", "measure": "Audit of task difficulty, questioning, and feedback by group at matched prior attainment", "timing": "Ongoing", "caveat": "Outcome gaps alone cannot separate accuracy from causation" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Extensive review concluding expectancy effects are real but typically small, with accumulation and stigmatized-group effects as the main risks.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Classroom research, mostly primary and secondary.", "sourceIds": [ "source:jussim-harber", "source:hpl2" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Audit differential treatment at matched attainment; this is a direct fairness requirement for any automated routing." }, "tags": [ "construct", "equity", "climate", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:test-enhanced-transfer-limits", "label": "Limits of transfer from retrieval practice", "aliases": [ "does the testing effect transfer", "retrieval transfer boundary" ], "kind": "constraint", "summary": "Retrieval practice reliably improves retention of what was practised, but transfer to different questions or contexts is modest and depends on retrieval-format overlap.", "mechanism": "Retrieval strengthens the specific retrieval routes exercised; transfer requires that the new task recruit sufficiently similar routes.", "classification": { "layer": "constraint", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "assessment-measurement" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "practice", "assess" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "quiz design", "practice item design", "claims about retrieval practice" ], "contexts": [ "adaptive software", "classroom", "study strategies" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A defined transfer target", "Varied retrieval formats if transfer is the goal" ], "constraints": [ "Transfer effects are substantially smaller than retention effects", "Format and content overlap moderate transfer strongly", "Same-format quizzing predicts same-format performance" ], "risks": [ "Promising understanding gains from fact quizzing", "Optimizing an adaptive system on same-format items", "Reporting retention results as transfer results" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Transfer measured separately from retention", "measure": "Different-format and different-context items reported separately from repeated-format items", "timing": "At delay", "caveat": "A same-format post-test cannot demonstrate transfer" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analysis of transfer of test-enhanced learning finds a positive but markedly smaller effect than for repeated-format retention, moderated by overlap.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Broad across materials studied.", "sourceIds": [ "source:pan-rickard-transfer", "source:retrieval-meta", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "effect": { "metric": "g", "value": 0.4, "note": "Transfer effect; considerably smaller than same-format retention effects and highly moderated by overlap." } }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Vary retrieval formats when transfer matters, and never report retention results as transfer evidence." }, "tags": [ "constraint", "memory", "transfer", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:text-structure-instruction", "label": "Text structure and graphic organizer instruction", "aliases": [ "expository text structure", "story grammar" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Teaching learners to recognize and use the organizational structure of texts improves comprehension and recall of those texts.", "mechanism": "Structure knowledge provides a retrieval framework and directs attention to the relations the author intended, rather than to isolated facts.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "literacy", "history-social-studies", "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "consolidate" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "expository comprehension", "note structuring", "summarization support" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention", "content-area reading" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Texts with a clear structure", "Explicit modelling of the structure", "Practice across multiple texts" ], "constraints": [ "Structures must be taught with real content, not as an isolated skill", "Benefits are largest for expository text and weaker readers", "Organizer templates can become fill-in-the-blank ritual" ], "risks": [ "Worksheet organizers detached from meaning", "Teaching many structures at once", "Assuming transfer to unfamiliar structures" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Structure use on new texts", "measure": "Recall organization and comprehension on untaught texts of the same structure", "timing": "After instruction and at delay", "caveat": "Completing the organizer is not comprehension" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Evidence-rated practice-guide recommendations for comprehension instruction include explicit text-structure teaching.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Primary through secondary; strongest for expository text.", "sourceIds": [ "source:reading-comprehension-wwc", "source:adolescent-literacy-wwc" ], "sourceLocators": [ { "sourceId": "source:reading-comprehension-wwc", "locator": "Recommendation on teaching students the structure of different text types" } ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Teach a small number of structures deeply inside content reading, and check transfer to untaught texts." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "literacy", "comprehension", "representation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:threshold-concepts", "label": "Threshold concepts", "aliases": [ "troublesome knowledge", "portal concepts" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Some concepts act as portals: once grasped they irreversibly transform how a learner sees a discipline, and before that they produce a prolonged liminal state.", "mechanism": "Transformative, integrative, and often troublesome concepts reorganize a whole domain view rather than adding one more fact.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "constructivist" ], "domains": [ "general", "history-social-studies", "science" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "diagnose" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "emerging" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "curriculum prioritization", "identifying persistent sticking points" ], "contexts": [ "higher education", "professional education", "curriculum design" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary", "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Disciplinary expert input on what is genuinely transformative" ], "constraints": [ "Identification is largely expert judgment, not measurement", "Definitions are contested and hard to falsify", "It does not itself prescribe a teaching method" ], "risks": [ "Labelling any hard topic a threshold concept", "Using liminality to excuse ineffective instruction", "Assuming irreversibility without evidence" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Reorganized disciplinary reasoning", "measure": "Longitudinal explanation and problem-framing changes", "timing": "Across a course or program", "caveat": "Self-reported transformation is weak evidence" } ], "evidence": { "status": "hypothesis", "confidence": "low", "basis": "An influential but largely descriptive framework; identification criteria remain contested and are rarely tested causally.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Mainly higher and professional education discourse.", "sourceIds": [ "source:meyer-threshold" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "experimental-only", "rationale": "Use to prioritize curricular attention; never as evidence that a particular treatment works." }, "tags": [ "theory", "curriculum", "hypothesis", "contested" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:tpack", "label": "Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)", "aliases": [ "TPACK", "technology integration framework" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Effective technology use requires the intersection of content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge, not technology knowledge alone.", "mechanism": "Naming the intersections makes visible that a tool choice is only sound relative to a specific content representation and pedagogical purpose.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "teacher-development", "digital-environments" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "sequence", "explain" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "technology integration planning", "teacher professional learning design" ], "contexts": [ "teacher education", "professional development", "edtech selection" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A specific content goal", "A pedagogical rationale for the tool" ], "constraints": [ "Boundaries between the components are hard to measure reliably", "It describes knowledge, not outcomes", "Self-report TPACK instruments have known validity problems" ], "risks": [ "Using it to legitimize tool adoption after the fact", "Measuring teacher confidence and calling it knowledge", "Assuming the framework predicts learner results" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Justified tool-content-pedagogy fit", "measure": "Artifact review of lesson plans against content goals, not self-report scales", "timing": "During planning and review", "caveat": "Self-reported TPACK correlates weakly with observed practice" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "low", "basis": "A widely used conceptual framework for teacher knowledge with weak measurement validity and no direct learner-outcome claim.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Teacher-education discourse worldwide; treat as vocabulary, not evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mishra-tpack" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Useful for structuring a tool-choice rationale; it is not evidence that a technology helps learners." }, "tags": [ "framework", "teacher-development", "digital", "technology" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:training-design-effectiveness", "label": "Training design and evaluation criteria", "aliases": [ "needs assessment, practice, feedback", "Kirkpatrick criteria caution" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Organizational training works when needs assessment, practice, and feedback are present, and effect sizes depend heavily on which evaluation criterion is used.", "mechanism": "Training that targets an assessed need and provides practice with feedback changes capability; the criterion chosen determines what the reported effect even means.", "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "professional-workplace", "health" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "practice", "assess", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "corporate and clinical training", "programme evaluation" ], "contexts": [ "workplace learning", "professional development" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A documented needs assessment", "Practice with feedback in the design", "Criterion chosen before evaluation" ], "constraints": [ "Reaction-level measures do not predict learning or behaviour", "Effect sizes differ substantially across criteria", "Self-report criteria inflate results" ], "risks": [ "Smile sheets used as effectiveness evidence", "Skipping needs assessment and training the wrong thing", "Comparing effect sizes across different criteria" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Criterion-specified outcomes", "measure": "Pre-specified learning, behaviour, and results measures, reported separately", "timing": "At each evaluation level", "caveat": "Reaction data is not an outcome" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analysis of organizational training effectiveness showing meaningful effects that vary by evaluation criterion and by the presence of needs assessment, practice, and feedback.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Organizational and professional training.", "sourceIds": [ "source:arthur-training-meta", "source:blume-transfer-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Declare the criterion before evaluating and never report reaction data as effectiveness." }, "tags": [ "principle", "adult", "workplace", "measurement" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "label": "Transfer through varied cases and explicit bridging", "aliases": [ "generalization", "case comparison" ], "kind": "principle", "summary": "Teach for transfer by varying relevant contexts, comparing cases, naming deep structure, and testing uncued use after delay.", "mechanism": "Learners must abstract a relevant relation, notice a cue, retrieve prior knowledge, and adapt it; each step can fail independently.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "novel application", "workplace use", "cross-context reasoning" ], "contexts": [ "curriculum", "simulation", "professional training" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Robust domain knowledge", "Multiple cases that vary surface features while preserving target structure" ], "constraints": [ "Pre-specify near and far outcomes", "Measure uncued and delayed use" ], "risks": [ "Assuming far transfer from one example", "Calling immediate isomorphic performance transfer", "Using self-report as the only workplace outcome" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Independent use across changed contexts", "measure": "Near/far task, changed representation or social setting, uncued application, and maintenance", "timing": "After delay and in a new context", "caveat": "Cued transfer and near transfer should be reported separately" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Research syntheses show transfer is moderated by knowledge, cueing, similarity, context, and environment support.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "The transfer problem is general; effective bridges remain domain-specific.", "sourceIds": [ "source:transfer-taxonomy", "source:hpl2", "source:interleaving-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Treat transfer as a designed and measured outcome, never an automatic consequence." }, "tags": [ "general", "transfer", "comparison", "measurement" ], "classification": { "layer": "principle", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "transfer" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:transfer-of-training", "label": "Transfer of training to the workplace", "aliases": [ "training transfer", "transfer climate", "Baldwin and Ford model" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Whether training changes work behaviour depends on trainee characteristics, training design, and above all the work environment's transfer climate and support.", "mechanism": "Learned capability only becomes performance where the environment provides opportunity, support, and consequences for using it.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "instructional-design", "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "professional-workplace" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "adult-workplace" ], "taskTypes": [ "training evaluation", "workplace learning design", "performance change" ], "contexts": [ "workplace learning", "professional development" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Opportunity to perform the trained behaviour", "Supervisor and peer support", "Measurement beyond course completion" ], "constraints": [ "Environment factors often dominate design factors", "Self-reported transfer overstates behaviour change", "Transfer decays without reinforcement" ], "risks": [ "Evaluating training by satisfaction or completion", "Blaming trainees for an unsupportive environment", "Training a behaviour the workplace actively penalizes" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Observed behaviour change on the job", "measure": "Supervisor or record-based behaviour measures plus transfer-climate assessment", "timing": "Weeks to months after training", "caveat": "Course completion and satisfaction predict transfer poorly" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "The foundational transfer model plus a large meta-analysis identifying transfer climate, support, and motivation as the strongest predictors.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Organizational training broadly.", "sourceIds": [ "source:baldwin-ford", "source:blume-transfer-meta", "source:arthur-training-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Design and evaluate the environment, not just the course; never claim transfer from completion data." }, "tags": [ "framework", "adult", "workplace", "transfer" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:transformative-learning", "label": "Transformative learning", "aliases": [ "perspective transformation", "Mezirow's transformative learning" ], "kind": "theory", "summary": "Adults can undergo a shift in frame of reference through a disorienting dilemma and critical reflection, changing how they interpret experience rather than only what they know.", "mechanism": "A dilemma the existing frame cannot accommodate prompts critical reflection on assumptions, discourse with others, and eventual reintegration under a revised frame.", "classification": { "layer": "theory", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "critical-equity" ], "domains": [ "professional-workplace", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace", "older-adult", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "transfer", "self-regulate", "climate" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "emerging" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "adult-workplace", "older-adult", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "professional identity change", "values-laden learning", "reflective practice" ], "contexts": [ "continuing education", "professional development", "coaching" ], "lifespanStages": [ "adult-workplace", "older-adult", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A genuine disorienting experience", "Psychological safety for critical reflection", "Discourse with others" ], "constraints": [ "Evidence is largely qualitative and retrospective", "Transformation cannot be reliably engineered on a schedule", "There are real ethical limits to deliberately disorienting learners" ], "risks": [ "Manufacturing distress in the name of transformation", "Claiming transformation from a satisfaction survey", "Applying it where technical skill, not perspective, is the gap" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Documented frame change over time", "measure": "Longitudinal reflective evidence plus changed practice observed by others", "timing": "Over months", "caveat": "Self-reported transformation is weak evidence on its own" } ], "evidence": { "status": "hypothesis", "confidence": "low", "basis": "An influential adult-education theory supported mainly by qualitative and retrospective studies rather than controlled evidence.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Adult and professional education discourse.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mezirow-transformative", "source:merriam-adult-theory" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "experimental-only", "rationale": "Use as a lens for values-laden adult learning; never as a promised outcome or a justification for engineered distress." }, "tags": [ "theory", "adult", "reflection", "hypothesis" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:udl-options", "label": "Universal Design for Learning options", "aliases": [ "UDL", "multiple means" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "Proactively offer options for engagement, representation, and action or expression while preserving common goals and needed individualized access.", "mechanism": "Options may reduce predictable barriers and support agency, but UDL is a multicomponent framework whose active ingredients and fidelity are often unclear.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "early-childhood", "K-12", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "lesson design", "curriculum design", "assessment design" ], "contexts": [ "in-person", "digital", "hybrid" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Clear common learning goal", "Checkpoint-level rationale and fidelity data", "Accessibility and accommodation plan" ], "constraints": [ "Preserve construct alignment", "Limit option overload", "Analyze effects by component and learner group" ], "risks": [ "Learning-styles matching", "Substituting UDL for accommodations or assistive technology", "Attributing a package effect to undefined implementation" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Barrier reduction without construct drift", "measure": "Option uptake, access, participation, fidelity by checkpoint, objective outcomes, and subgroup evidence", "timing": "Across implementation", "caveat": "A UDL label without component detail is not a reproducible intervention" } ], "evidence": { "status": "contested", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Systematic review found uneven framework alignment, overlapping components, and insufficient theoretical and implementation detail.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Promising design framework; whole-package causal effects are not established broadly.", "sourceIds": [ "source:udl-review", "source:wcag22" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "do-not-generalize", "rationale": "Use checkpoint-level options as testable design hypotheses, not as proof that a UDL-branded package improves learning." }, "tags": [ "accessibility", "UDL", "options", "contested" ], "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "critical-equity", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "special-education", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "access", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "program-system", "maturity": "disputed" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:utility-value-intervention", "label": "Utility-value writing intervention", "aliases": [ "relevance writing", "connecting content to life" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Brief writing exercises in which learners articulate how content connects to their own lives can raise interest and performance, particularly for learners with low success expectancy.", "mechanism": "Self-generated relevance changes perceived task value without changing the task, and the effect concentrates where value was the binding constraint.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "motivational-social" ], "domains": [ "science", "mathematics", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "motivate" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "consolidating" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "engagement in required courses", "supporting struggling learners" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "higher education", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Learner-generated rather than told relevance", "Content that has a genuine connection to make", "Repeated brief occasions" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are heterogeneous and concentrate in specific subgroups", "Directly telling learners why it is useful can backfire for low-confidence learners", "It does not substitute for instruction" ], "risks": [ "Scaling as a universal treatment", "Telling rather than eliciting relevance", "Expecting it to fix instructional problems" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Value change and performance in subgroups", "measure": "Interest and value measures plus course performance, analysed by prior expectancy", "timing": "Across the course", "caveat": "Average effects hide the subgroup where it works" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Randomized classroom experiments show interest and performance gains concentrated among low-expectancy learners.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Secondary and undergraduate science courses mostly.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hulleman-utility-value", "source:eccles-wigfield-2020" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Low-cost and targeted; report subgroup results rather than an average, and always elicit rather than assert relevance." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "motivation", "equity", "engagement" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:variation-theory", "label": "Variation theory of learning", "aliases": [ "patterns of variation and invariance", "learning study" ], "kind": "framework", "summary": "To learn a concept, a learner must experience variation in its critical features against a constant background, so what varies in an example set is a design decision.", "mechanism": "Discernment of a critical aspect requires experiencing it varying while other aspects are held invariant; contrast, separation, and generalization are ordered patterns of variation.", "classification": { "layer": "framework", "traditions": [ "constructivist", "instructional-design" ], "domains": [ "mathematics", "science", "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "sequence" ], "grainSize": "lesson", "maturity": "emerging" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "example set design", "concept discrimination", "lesson sequencing" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "instructional materials", "lesson study" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "An explicit account of the concept's critical features", "Control over the example sequence" ], "constraints": [ "Requires prior analysis of what learners actually fail to discern", "Evidence base is largely design-based and qualitative", "Poorly chosen critical features make the design inert" ], "risks": [ "Varying surface features that are not critical", "Treating the framework as validated effect evidence", "Overloading a single lesson with too many variations" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Discernment of the critical feature", "measure": "Discrimination items that hold background constant and vary the target aspect", "timing": "Within and after the lesson", "caveat": "Success on the taught set may not show discernment" } ], "evidence": { "status": "hypothesis", "confidence": "low", "basis": "A coherent design framework supported mainly by design-based and lesson-study research rather than controlled effect estimates.", "directness": "consensus-design", "generalizability": "Mostly mathematics and science lesson studies, heavily Scandinavian and East Asian.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kullberg-variation" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "experimental-only", "rationale": "Useful for generating contrasting example sets; do not present as established effect evidence." }, "tags": [ "framework", "comparison", "discrimination", "design" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:wait-time", "label": "Wait time after questions", "aliases": [ "think time", "pause after questioning" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Extending the pause after a question, and after the learner's answer, to several seconds changes the length, quality, and distribution of responses.", "mechanism": "Silence gives time to retrieve and formulate rather than to react, and it changes who is able to enter the conversation.", "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "sociocultural" ], "domains": [ "general" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "functions": [ "explain", "collaborate", "access" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "classroom questioning", "discussion", "checking for understanding" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "small group", "tutoring", "live online" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary", "postsecondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "A question worth thinking about", "Tolerance for silence" ], "constraints": [ "Original effects come from a modest observational and quasi-experimental base", "Wait time alone does not improve a low-quality question", "Cultural norms about silence differ" ], "risks": [ "Extending wait after trivial recall questions", "Using silence as pressure on one learner", "Assuming better talk means better learning without measuring" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Response length and participation spread", "measure": "Timed response length, number of distinct responders, and reasoning quality", "timing": "During questioning episodes", "caveat": "More talk is not automatically more learning" } ], "evidence": { "status": "context-dependent", "confidence": "moderate", "basis": "Classic classroom research with consistent observational findings; modern causal evidence on learning outcomes is limited.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Widely applicable; effects reported mainly on discourse rather than achievement.", "sourceIds": [ "source:rowe-wait-time", "source:rosenshine-principles" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Near-zero-cost discourse improvement; pair it with better questions rather than treating it as an achievement intervention." }, "tags": [ "tactic", "questioning", "participation", "equity" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:worked-examples-fading", "label": "Worked examples followed by fading", "aliases": [ "example-problem pairs", "completion problems" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Let novices study accurate solution processes, then progressively remove steps and shift to independent solving.", "mechanism": "Examples reduce unproductive means-ends search and direct attention toward solution structure; fading restores retrieval and generation demands as knowledge grows.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "upper-primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "structured procedure", "mathematics", "programming", "technical skill" ], "contexts": [ "initial instruction", "guided practice" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Accurate example aligned to the target", "Prompts or comparison that require processing", "A plan for subsequent independent practice" ], "constraints": [ "Prior knowledge moderates benefit", "Test independent and transfer performance" ], "risks": [ "Passive copying", "Redundancy and expertise reversal", "Examples that omit expert decision points" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Independent solution structure and reduced assistance", "measure": "Explanation of decisions, error pattern, independent solution, and transfer", "timing": "After example study and after fading", "caveat": "Correct imitation of the shown procedure is a weak transfer measure" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Meta-analytic and evidence-rated practice-guide support for novice structured learning, with expertise and design moderators.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Strongest in mathematics and well-structured tasks; less certain in open-ended domains.", "sourceIds": [ "source:worked-examples-meta", "source:ies-study", "source:cognitive-load" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "A strong candidate for novices when paired with active processing, fading, and independent checks." }, "tags": [ "general", "example", "novice", "practice" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive" ], "domains": [ "general", "mathematics" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "explain", "practice" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:working-memory-capacity", "label": "Working memory capacity as a learner variable", "aliases": [ "working memory limits", "attentional control capacity" ], "kind": "construct", "summary": "Working memory capacity constrains performance on novel complex tasks and predicts learning difficulties, but training it does not produce far transfer to academic outcomes.", "mechanism": "Capacity limits how many novel interacting elements can be processed at once; it is supported by reducing extraneous demand and by building retrievable schemas, not by capacity drills.", "classification": { "layer": "construct", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "neuroscience" ], "domains": [ "general", "special-education" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "functions": [ "diagnose", "access" ], "grainSize": "micro-move", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ], "taskTypes": [ "task design", "identifying learning difficulty", "support planning" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "assessment", "intervention", "adaptive software" ], "lifespanStages": [ "cross-lifespan" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Task analysis of simultaneous element demand" ], "constraints": [ "Capacity is not fixed destiny and correlates imperfectly with achievement", "Working memory training shows near but not far transfer", "It should never be used as a stable classification of a learner" ], "risks": [ "Buying brain-training products for academic gains", "Labelling learners by capacity", "Lowering curriculum expectations instead of reducing extraneous load" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Performance change when extraneous load is reduced", "measure": "Same-content tasks with reduced simultaneous demand plus support-need documentation", "timing": "Across task variants", "caveat": "Improvement with support shows a design problem, not a capacity fix" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Robust evidence that capacity constrains novel task performance, and convergent meta-analytic evidence that training programmes do not transfer to academic outcomes.", "directness": "mixed-direct-and-inferential", "generalizability": "Broad; the anti-training conclusion is well replicated.", "sourceIds": [ "source:melby-lervag-wm-training", "source:simons-brain-training", "source:cognitive-load" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "contextual-option", "rationale": "Reduce extraneous demand and build schemas; do not purchase capacity training and do not classify learners by capacity." }, "tags": [ "construct", "working-memory", "accessibility", "warning" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:writing-model-practice-reflect", "label": "Writing through model, practice, feedback, and reflection", "aliases": [ "writing strategy instruction", "mentor-text apprenticeship" ], "kind": "tactic", "summary": "Model planning, drafting, and revising decisions; guide practice; provide actionable feedback; and fade support toward purposeful independent writing.", "mechanism": "Modeling externalizes expert decisions, guided practice builds control, and reflection supports strategy selection across genres and disciplines.", "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "upper-primary", "secondary", "adult" ], "taskTypes": [ "argument", "explanation", "narrative", "disciplinary writing" ], "contexts": [ "language arts", "content area", "professional communication" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Clear audience, purpose, and criteria", "Representative mentor texts", "Opportunity for revision" ], "constraints": [ "Practice across varied tasks for transfer", "Preserve rhetorical choice while teaching strategies" ], "risks": [ "Formulaic checklists suppressing purpose", "Surface imitation of mentor texts", "Feedback without revision time" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Independent purposeful writing decisions", "measure": "Plan, draft, revision quality, strategy choice, rubric dimensions, and transfer to a new genre", "timing": "Across drafts and a later independent composition", "caveat": "A polished teacher-supported draft does not establish independent control" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "IES/WWC rates the Model-Practice-Reflect strategy strongly and reading-writing integration moderately.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Secondary writing across disciplines; adapt for younger and adult writers.", "sourceIds": [ "source:writing-wwc", "source:feedback-meta" ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Use explicit cognitive apprenticeship with real revision and eventual independent writing." }, "tags": [ "writing", "modeling", "feedback", "metacognition" ], "classification": { "layer": "tactic", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences-initial@0.1.0", "status": "inherited" } }, { "id": "pedagogy:writing-strategy-instruction", "label": "Explicit writing strategy instruction", "aliases": [ "self-regulated strategy development", "SRSD", "planning and revising strategies" ], "kind": "method", "summary": "Teaching explicit strategies for planning, drafting, and revising, with self-regulation support, produces some of the largest effects in the writing literature.", "mechanism": "Writing overloads working memory; externalized strategies and self-regulation routines manage the process so composing capacity is available for content and language.", "classification": { "layer": "method", "traditions": [ "cognitive", "behavioral" ], "domains": [ "literacy" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "functions": [ "practice", "self-regulate", "feedback" ], "grainSize": "unit-course", "maturity": "established" }, "applicable": { "learnerStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ], "taskTypes": [ "composition quality", "genre writing", "revision" ], "contexts": [ "classroom", "intervention", "writing tasks" ], "lifespanStages": [ "primary", "middle", "secondary" ] }, "prerequisites": [ "Adequate transcription fluency or accommodation for it", "Modelled strategies with memorization support", "Gradual release to independent use" ], "constraints": [ "Effects are largest for struggling writers", "Strategies must be faded to avoid formulaic writing", "Transcription demands must be addressed in parallel" ], "risks": [ "Formulaic five-paragraph output as the ceiling", "Strategy acronyms without genuine revision", "Ignoring transcription barriers including disability" ], "observableEvidence": [ { "indicator": "Independent writing quality and revision behaviour", "measure": "Blind-scored writing on new prompts plus observed planning and revising", "timing": "After instruction and at delay", "caveat": "Adherence to a strategy template is not writing quality" } ], "evidence": { "status": "strong", "confidence": "high", "basis": "Multiple meta-analyses identify strategy instruction as the highest-effect writing intervention, with evidence-rated practice-guide support.", "directness": "direct-intervention", "generalizability": "Primary through secondary; largest effects for struggling writers.", "sourceIds": [ "source:graham-perin-writing", "source:graham-elementary-writing", "source:writing-wwc" ], "effect": { "metric": "d", "value": 1, "note": "Strategy instruction effects in writing meta-analyses are commonly the largest in the set, often near or above 1.0 for struggling writers." }, "sourceLocators": [ { "sourceId": "source:writing-wwc", "locator": "Recommendation to explicitly teach appropriate writing strategies using a model-practice-reflect cycle" } ] }, "recommendation": { "status": "candidate-default-with-fit-check", "rationale": "Default for weak writers; require fading and real revision so the strategy does not become the ceiling." }, "tags": [ "method", "literacy", "writing", "self-regulation" ], "provenance": { "origin": "rack:learning-sciences@0.2.0", "status": "new" } } ], "relations": [ { "from": "pedagogy:academic-language-multilingual", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:reading-comprehension-knowledge", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Academic language and vocabulary support disciplinary text understanding without replacing content.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ell-wwc", "source:reading-comprehension-wwc" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:achievement-goal-orientation", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:expectancy-value-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Goal orientation describes what success means; expectancy-value describes whether it is pursued.", "sourceIds": [ "source:elliot-mcgregor", "source:eccles-wigfield-2020" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:metacognitive-calibration", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "External performance information can correct monitoring and guide strategy changes.", "sourceIds": [ "source:feedback-meta", "source:metacognition-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Corrective feedback repairs failed or erroneous retrieval.", "sourceIds": [ "source:retrieval-meta", "source:feedback-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:active-learning-stem", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:icap-engagement-hypothesis", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Active learning designs vary in how far up the ICAP ordering they reach.", "sourceIds": [ "source:freeman-active-learning", "source:icap", "source:chi-overt-activities" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:active-learning-stem", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:checking-for-understanding", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "The benefit comes from eliciting and responding to every learner's current state.", "sourceIds": [ "source:freeman-active-learning", "source:wiliam-assessment" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:adolescent-agency", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:motivation-need-support", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Meaningful bounded choice and identity-safe relationships can support autonomy and belonging.", "sourceIds": [ "source:adolescent-nasem", "source:hpl2" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:adolescent-reading-intervention", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:simple-view-of-reading", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Older struggling readers must be routed by component profile, not by age.", "sourceIds": [ "source:reading-intervention-wwc", "source:hoover-gough-svr" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:adult-competency-frameworks", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:adult-self-directed-learning", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "Population proficiency data constrains realistic assumptions about adult learners.", "sourceIds": [ "source:oecd-piaac", "source:merriam-adult-theory" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:adult-self-directed-learning", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:metacognitive-calibration", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Self-direction depends on monitoring, strategy selection, and feedback rather than adult age.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:metacognition-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:adult-self-directed-learning", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Workplace learning succeeds only when knowledge generalizes and is maintained in the work environment.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:algebra-instruction-strategies", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:math-strategy-comparison", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Strategy comparison is one of the algebra guide's recommended practices.", "sourceIds": [ "source:algebra-wwc", "source:rittle-johnson-star-comparison" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:algebra-instruction-strategies", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:worked-examples-fading", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Solved-problem analysis is worked-example instruction in algebra.", "sourceIds": [ "source:algebra-wwc", "source:worked-examples-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:analogical-case-comparison", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Explicit comparison is one of the few reliable levers on transfer.", "sourceIds": [ "source:gentner-analogical", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:andragogy", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:adult-self-directed-learning", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Adult status does not confer self-direction in an unfamiliar domain.", "sourceIds": [ "source:merriam-adult-theory", "source:kirschner-urban-legends" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:assessment-fair-access", "type": "part-of", "to": "pedagogy:assessment-validity-precision", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "Construct-irrelevant access barriers undermine intended score interpretations.", "sourceIds": [ "source:testing-standards" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:assessment-fair-access", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:accessibility-by-design", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "Accessible delivery and interaction are prerequisites for fair digital assessment.", "sourceIds": [ "source:testing-standards", "source:wcag22" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:assessment-for-learning-strategies", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:formative-assessment-cycle", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Strategy-level specification is what makes the cycle implementable and auditable.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wiliam-assessment", "source:formative-review" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:assessment-validity-precision", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:curriculum-based-measurement", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "Slope interpretation is a validity claim that needs adequate data density.", "sourceIds": [ "source:testing-standards", "source:deno-cbm" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:assessment-validity-precision", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:assessment-triangle", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "A validity argument depends on explicit cognition, observation, and interpretation links.", "sourceIds": [ "source:assessment-nrc", "source:testing-standards" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:attention-and-media-multitasking", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-design", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Divided attention adds load that no material-level design can remove.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ophir-multitasking", "source:cognitive-load" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:belonging-intervention", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:classroom-climate", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Belonging messages depend on an environment that can actually support belonging.", "sourceIds": [ "source:walton-cohen-belonging", "source:wang-degol-climate" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:blended-online-learning", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:flipped-classroom", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Delivery mode shapes access and interaction but does not itself produce learning.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bernard-distance", "source:vanalten-flipped" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:blooms-revised-taxonomy", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:assessment-triangle", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "Both are alignment frameworks: one classifies the objective, the other the inference chain.", "sourceIds": [ "source:krathwohl-taxonomy", "source:assessment-nrc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:brain-training-transfer", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:working-memory-capacity", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "refuted", "rationale": "Capacity constrains learning, but training it does not transfer to academics.", "sourceIds": [ "source:melby-lervag-wm-training", "source:simons-brain-training" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:checking-for-understanding", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:assessment-for-learning-strategies", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Eliciting evidence is one of the named strategies.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wiliam-assessment", "source:rosenshine-principles" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:classroom-management", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:classroom-climate", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Proactive relational management is a main lever on classroom climate.", "sourceIds": [ "source:korpershoek-classroom-management", "source:roorda-relationships" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:cognitive-aging-and-learning", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:spaced-repetition-scheduling", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Pacing control matters more as processing speed declines.", "sourceIds": [ "source:salthouse-aging", "source:spacing-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-design", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "The design principle operationalizes the theory's account of working memory limits.", "sourceIds": [ "source:sweller-1988", "source:cognitive-load" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-design", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:multimedia-coherence", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Coherence and integrated references reduce avoidable processing and split attention.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cognitive-load", "source:ies-study" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-design", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:worked-examples-fading", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Worked examples can reduce unproductive novice search on structured tasks.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cognitive-load", "source:worked-examples-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:computational-thinking-transfer", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:computing-practices", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Transfer claims for computing practices decline sharply with distance.", "sourceIds": [ "source:scherer-computational-thinking", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:computing-practices", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Testing and debugging turn artifact behavior into information for revision.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cs-framework", "source:feedback-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:concept-mapping", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Direct comparison favoured retrieval practice over concept mapping for retention.", "sourceIds": [ "source:karpicke-blunt", "source:nesbit-concept-mapping" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:conceptual-change", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-diagnostic", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Existing conceptions must be elicited before they can be engaged.", "sourceIds": [ "source:posner-conceptual-change", "source:smith-misconceptions" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:conceptual-change", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:science-argumentation", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Argument from evidence is a main mechanism by which conceptions are revised.", "sourceIds": [ "source:osborne-argumentation", "source:posner-conceptual-change" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:conceptual-procedural-iteration", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:fact-fluency", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Fluency without conceptual anchoring produces brittle, unadaptable performance.", "sourceIds": [ "source:rittle-johnson-iterative", "source:adding-it-up" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:concrete-abstract-linking", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Mapping the same relation across forms can prepare use beyond one representation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ies-study", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:contextual-interference", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:interleaving-discrimination", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "The two are the motor and cognitive expressions of the same manipulation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:shea-morgan-contextual", "source:interleaving-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:contextual-interference", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:desirable-difficulties", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Random ordering is the motor-learning form of a desirable difficulty.", "sourceIds": [ "source:shea-morgan-contextual", "source:bjork-self-regulated" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:contingent-scaffolding", "type": "should-fade-into", "to": "pedagogy:metacognitive-calibration", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Responsibility should move from external support toward learner monitoring and control.", "sourceIds": [ "source:scaffolding-review", "source:metacognition-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:contrasting-cases-invention", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:productive-failure", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Invention before instruction is the canonical productive-failure design.", "sourceIds": [ "source:schwartz-martin-invention", "source:productive-failure-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:contrasting-cases-invention", "type": "precedes", "to": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "The generation phase is only productive when consolidation follows it.", "sourceIds": [ "source:productive-failure-meta", "source:schwartz-martin-invention" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:cooperative-structures", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:structured-collaboration", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Interdependence plus individual accountability is what makes collaboration work.", "sourceIds": [ "source:johnson-cooperative", "source:roseth-cooperative" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:curriculum-based-measurement", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:multi-tiered-support", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Tiered routing depends on repeatable progress measurement.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deno-cbm", "source:fuchs-rti" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:deeper-learning-competencies", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Transferable competence depends on domain learning plus explicit conditions of use.", "sourceIds": [ "source:education-life-work", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:delayed-transfer-assessment", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:assessment-validity-precision", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Claims about retention or generalization require observations beyond immediate practiced performance.", "sourceIds": [ "source:assessment-nrc", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:delayed-transfer-assessment", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:learning-vs-performance", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Delayed transfer measurement is how the distinction becomes operational.", "sourceIds": [ "source:soderstrom-bjork" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:deliberate-practice-bounds", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:spacing", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Focused repetitions need scheduling and recovery; massed hours are not the target construct.", "sourceIds": [ "source:spacing-meta", "source:hpl2" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:deliberate-practice-bounds", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Focused correction depends on valid, specific performance information.", "sourceIds": [ "source:feedback-meta", "source:hpl2" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:deliberate-practice-theory", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:deliberate-practice-bounds", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "The original framework's explanatory claim exceeds what meta-analysis supports.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ericsson-deliberate-practice", "source:deliberate-practice-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:desirable-difficulties", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:contextual-interference", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Random practice ordering is the motor-domain instance of the same principle.", "sourceIds": [ "source:shea-morgan-contextual", "source:soderstrom-bjork" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:desirable-difficulties", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:interleaving-discrimination", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Interleaving lowers practice performance and can raise discrimination at delay.", "sourceIds": [ "source:interleaving-meta", "source:soderstrom-bjork", "source:kornell-bjork-interleaving", "source:rohrer-taylor" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:desirable-difficulties", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Retrieval is the canonical desirable difficulty: harder in session, better at delay.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bjork-self-regulated", "source:retrieval-meta", "source:rowland-testing-meta", "source:adesope-practice-testing", "source:agarwal-retrieval-classroom" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:desirable-difficulties", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:spacing", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Spacing depresses practice fluency while improving retention.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bjork-self-regulated", "source:spacing-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:developmental-context-calibration", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:early-intentional-practice", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Target, language, pacing, and support should follow observed development and context rather than a fixed age script.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:dialogic-shared-reading", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:responsive-language-interaction", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Dialogic reading is a structured form of responsive adult-child language interaction.", "sourceIds": [ "source:whitehurst-dialogic", "source:mol-dialogic-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:dialogic-shared-reading", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:early-vocabulary-instruction", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Shared reading supplies meaningful contexts for taught words.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mol-dialogic-meta", "source:marulis-vocabulary" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:differentiated-instruction", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:learning-styles-matching", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "refuted", "rationale": "Adapting on assessed performance is not adapting on a supposed style.", "sourceIds": [ "source:learning-styles", "source:willingham-learning-styles" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:differentiated-instruction", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-variable", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Differentiation must route on current task evidence rather than on labels.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deunk-differentiation", "source:kli-framework" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:digital-natives-myth", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:attention-and-media-multitasking", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "refuted", "rationale": "No group multitasks without switching cost, whatever their device familiarity.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kirschner-digital-native", "source:ophir-multitasking" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:disciplinary-literacy", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:knowledge-and-comprehension", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Disciplinary reading presumes the background knowledge to contextualize sources.", "sourceIds": [ "source:shanahan-disciplinary", "source:recht-leslie" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:dual-coding", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:multimedia-learning-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Dual coding supplies the two-channel assumption the theory builds on.", "sourceIds": [ "source:clark-paivio", "source:mayer-multimedia-2017" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:early-math-progression", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-diagnostic", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "A progression should be navigated from observed mathematical strategies, not chronological age alone.", "sourceIds": [ "source:early-math-wwc", "source:hpl2" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:early-number-magnitude", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:early-math-progression", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Magnitude representation is an early anchor point in mathematical progressions.", "sourceIds": [ "source:siegler-ramani-games", "source:early-math-nrc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:early-science-engineering", "type": "precedes", "to": "pedagogy:science-three-dimensional", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Early investigation practices lay groundwork for three-dimensional science learning.", "sourceIds": [ "source:preschool-science-nasem", "source:science-framework" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:early-vocabulary-instruction", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:reading-comprehension-knowledge", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Vocabulary depth is a component of later comprehension.", "sourceIds": [ "source:marulis-vocabulary", "source:reading-comprehension-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:elaborative-interrogation", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:self-explanation", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Both prompt generated explanation; self-explanation targets the learner's own reasoning.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-techniques", "source:chi-self-explanation" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:engagement-construct", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:icap-engagement-hypothesis", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Behavioural engagement is not the cognitive engagement ICAP orders.", "sourceIds": [ "source:fredricks-engagement", "source:icap" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:errorful-learning", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Errors help only when the correction actually arrives.", "sourceIds": [ "source:metcalfe-errors", "source:feedback-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:errorful-learning", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:pretesting", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "The pretesting benefit is a case of errorful generation followed by correction.", "sourceIds": [ "source:metcalfe-errors", "source:richland-pretesting" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:executive-function-curricula", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "EF gains do not reliably transfer to academic outcomes.", "sourceIds": [ "source:diamond-ling", "source:melby-lervag-wm-training" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:executive-function-curricula", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:executive-function-development", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Curricula attempt to operationalize EF development with inconsistent results.", "sourceIds": [ "source:blair-raver-tools", "source:diamond-ling" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:executive-function-development", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:early-intentional-practice", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Executive function is one of the target domains of intentional early practice.", "sourceIds": [ "source:diamond-executive-function", "source:early-childhood-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:expectancy-value-theory", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:self-determination-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Expectancy and value explain choice; needs explain the quality of the motivation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:eccles-wigfield-2020", "source:ryan-deci-sdt" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:expertise-reversal", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:contingent-scaffolding", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Scaffolding that helps a novice interferes once the learner holds the schema.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal", "source:scaffolding-review" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:expertise-reversal", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:multimedia-learning-theory", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Several multimedia principles reverse for high-prior-knowledge learners.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal", "source:mayer-multimedia-2017" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:expertise-reversal", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:worked-examples-fading", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Worked examples help novices and become redundant or harmful as expertise grows.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal", "source:worked-examples-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:expertise-reversal", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-variable", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "The reversal can only be managed if component-level prior knowledge is actually measured.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal", "source:kli-framework" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Small steps and checking manage working-memory demand during acquisition.", "sourceIds": [ "source:rosenshine-principles", "source:cognitive-load" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:checking-for-understanding", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Without frequent checking it degenerates into uninterrupted presentation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:rosenshine-principles", "source:wiliam-assessment" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "type": "should-fade-into", "to": "pedagogy:guided-inquiry", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "As knowledge grows, guidance should decrease toward more open investigation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal", "source:alfieri-discovery" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:external-attentional-focus", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:contextual-interference", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Both are practice-design variables in motor skill acquisition.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wulf-attentional-focus", "source:shea-morgan-contextual" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:fact-fluency", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:schema-based-word-problems", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Automatic facts free capacity for the structural reasoning a word problem needs.", "sourceIds": [ "source:math-intervention-wwc", "source:cognitive-load" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:feedback-design-levels", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "The four-level account specifies which feedback focus is usable.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hattie-timperley-feedback", "source:feedback-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:feedback-literacy", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:feedback-design-levels", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Uptake capability presumes the feedback carries gap-closing information.", "sourceIds": [ "source:carless-feedback-literacy", "source:hattie-timperley-feedback" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:flipped-classroom", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:active-learning-stem", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "The gain comes from what replaces lecture in class, not from the video.", "sourceIds": [ "source:vanalten-flipped", "source:freeman-active-learning" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:formative-assessment-cycle", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Feedback is one possible evidence-contingent next action inside the cycle.", "sourceIds": [ "source:formative-review", "source:feedback-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:formative-assessment-cycle", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:assessment-triangle", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "Formative inferences require construct-aligned elicitation and interpretation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:assessment-nrc", "source:formative-critique" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:formative-assessment-effect-caution", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:formative-assessment-cycle", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Umbrella effect estimates are much smaller than commonly quoted.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kingston-nash-formative", "source:formative-critique" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:game-based-learning", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:gamification-reward-layers", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Instructional games embed learning in the mechanics; gamification adds rewards around an unchanged activity.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wouters-serious-games", "source:sailer-gamification" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:gamification-reward-layers", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:motivation-need-support", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Points and leaderboards can undermine autonomy while raising short-term activity.", "sourceIds": [ "source:sailer-gamification", "source:ryan-deci-sdt" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:generation-effect", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Retrieval practice is a generation manipulation applied to studied material.", "sourceIds": [ "source:slamecka-generation", "source:retrieval-meta", "source:roediger-karpicke" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:gesture-and-embodiment", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:concrete-abstract-linking", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Gesture externalizes the relational structure a concrete representation is meant to carry.", "sourceIds": [ "source:goldin-meadow-gesture", "source:hpl2", "source:fyfe-concreteness-fading" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:goal-setting-and-implementation-intentions", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:study-skills-programs", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Specific goals plus if-then plans convert strategy knowledge into strategy use.", "sourceIds": [ "source:locke-latham-goals", "source:hattie-study-skills" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:grit-construct", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:growth-mindset-warning", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Both are popular trait-level constructs whose achievement claims exceed their evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:crede-grit-meta", "source:growth-mindset-meta", "source:sisk-mindset-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:growth-mindset-warning", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:motivation-need-support", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "A brief malleability message is not equivalent to providing autonomy, competence support, belonging, effective strategies, or resources.", "sourceIds": [ "source:growth-mindset-meta", "source:motivation-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:guided-inquiry", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:contingent-scaffolding", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Guidance level is the active ingredient in inquiry effectiveness.", "sourceIds": [ "source:lazonder-harmsen", "source:alfieri-discovery" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:guided-play", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:contingent-scaffolding", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Responsive adult guidance can scaffold a clear goal while preserving child agency.", "sourceIds": [ "source:guided-play-review", "source:scaffolding-review" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:guided-play", "type": "part-of", "to": "pedagogy:playful-learning-continuum", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Guided play is the segment of the continuum with the clearest learning evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:weisberg-guided-play", "source:guided-play-review" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:historical-thinking-sourcing", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:disciplinary-literacy", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Sourcing and corroboration are the history-specific instance.", "sourceIds": [ "source:wineburg-historical", "source:shanahan-disciplinary" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:home-learning-environment", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:dialogic-shared-reading", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Home shared reading is the main site where dialogic reading occurs.", "sourceIds": [ "source:senechal-lefevre", "source:mol-dialogic-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:homework-practice", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:spacing", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Out-of-class practice is only justified as distributed retrieval, not as new instruction.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cooper-homework", "source:spacing-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:instructed-second-language-acquisition", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:academic-language-multilingual", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Explicit attention to language form supports academic language development.", "sourceIds": [ "source:norris-ortega", "source:ell-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:instructional-coaching", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:feedback-design-levels", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Coaching is observation-based process feedback with a revision opportunity.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kraft-coaching", "source:hattie-timperley-feedback" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:instructional-coaching", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-of-training", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Job-embedded coaching addresses the transfer environment directly.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kraft-coaching", "source:baldwin-ford" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:intelligent-tutoring-systems", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:one-to-one-tutoring", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Step-based tutoring systems approach human tutoring effectiveness.", "sourceIds": [ "source:vanlehn-tutoring", "source:kulik-fletcher-its" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:interest-development", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:expectancy-value-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Interest is one durable source of the value term.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hidi-renninger", "source:eccles-wigfield-2020" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:interleaving-discrimination", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Mixed practice can support selection under varied conditions when categories are appropriate for comparison.", "sourceIds": [ "source:interleaving-meta", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:knowledge-and-comprehension", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:reading-comprehension-knowledge", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Topic knowledge is a primary driver of what a reader understands.", "sourceIds": [ "source:recht-leslie", "source:reading-comprehension-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:knowledge-component-model", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:schema-knowledge-organization", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Knowledge components are an operational decomposition of organized knowledge.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kli-framework" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:knowledge-component-model", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:intelligent-tutoring-systems", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Step-level tutoring depends on a component-level learner model.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kli-framework", "source:vanlehn-tutoring" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:l2-corrective-feedback", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:feedback-design-levels", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Explicitness and timing choices in language feedback follow the general feedback account.", "sourceIds": [ "source:li-corrective-feedback", "source:hattie-timperley-feedback" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:learner-knows-best", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:engagement-construct", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Satisfaction and engagement metrics can move opposite to learning.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deslauriers-feeling", "source:fredricks-engagement" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:learner-knows-best", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:metacognitive-monitoring-accuracy", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Learner judgments of instruction are subject to the same fluency illusion.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deslauriers-feeling", "source:soderstrom-bjork" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:learning-strategy-model", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:study-skills-programs", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "hypothesis", "rationale": "Which strategy helps depends on the learner's current phase for that content.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hattie-donoghue-model", "source:hattie-study-skills" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:learning-styles-matching", "type": "part-of", "to": "pedagogy:neuromyths", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "refuted", "rationale": "Learning styles is the most prevalent educational neuromyth.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dekker-neuromyths", "source:learning-styles" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:learning-trajectories", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:early-math-progression", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Trajectories are the operational form of developmental progressions.", "sourceIds": [ "source:clements-trajectories", "source:early-math-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:learning-vs-performance", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:delayed-transfer-assessment", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Detecting the distinction requires deferred, support-free measurement.", "sourceIds": [ "source:soderstrom-bjork", "source:pan-rickard-transfer" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:learning-vs-performance", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:desirable-difficulties", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "The distinction is what makes a difficulty legible as desirable rather than harmful.", "sourceIds": [ "source:soderstrom-bjork", "source:bjork-self-regulated" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:literacy-phoneme-grapheme", "type": "precedes", "to": "pedagogy:reading-comprehension-knowledge", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Accurate decoding supports text access while oral language and comprehension knowledge must develop in parallel.", "sourceIds": [ "source:literacy-wwc", "source:reading-comprehension-wwc" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:mastery-learning", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:formative-assessment-cycle", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Mastery learning is a formative cycle with a fixed criterion and variable time.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kulik-mastery", "source:formative-review" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:mastery-learning", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:curriculum-based-measurement", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "A mastery criterion needs repeatable equivalent measurement to be meaningful.", "sourceIds": [ "source:deno-cbm", "source:kulik-mastery" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:math-and-test-anxiety", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:fact-fluency", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Timed public fluency formats are a documented source of mathematics anxiety.", "sourceIds": [ "source:barroso-math-anxiety", "source:ashcraft-krause" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:math-and-test-anxiety", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-diagnostic", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Anxious underperformance can be misread as a knowledge gap.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ashcraft-krause", "source:barroso-math-anxiety" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:math-strategy-comparison", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:interleaving-discrimination", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Comparing alternative methods practices discrimination and procedural choice after initial acquisition.", "sourceIds": [ "source:algebra-wwc", "source:interleaving-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:math-systematic-representations", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:concrete-abstract-linking", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Effective intervention explicitly connects selected models, language, quantities, and symbols.", "sourceIds": [ "source:math-intervention-wwc", "source:ies-study" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:mathematical-proficiency-strands", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:conceptual-procedural-iteration", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "The strands framework names what the iterative account describes developmentally.", "sourceIds": [ "source:adding-it-up", "source:rittle-johnson-iterative" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:metacognitive-monitoring-accuracy", "type": "part-of", "to": "pedagogy:metacognitive-calibration", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Monitoring accuracy is the measurable core of calibration.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-rawson-overconfidence", "source:bjork-self-regulated" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:metacognitive-monitoring-accuracy", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:delayed-transfer-assessment", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Calibration can only be computed against an external delayed performance measure.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-rawson-overconfidence", "source:soderstrom-bjork" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:minimal-guidance-instruction", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:guided-inquiry", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Guided discovery outperforms both explicit instruction and unassisted discovery.", "sourceIds": [ "source:alfieri-discovery", "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:minimal-guidance-instruction", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:productive-failure", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "A bounded generation phase with guaranteed consolidation is not minimal guidance.", "sourceIds": [ "source:productive-failure-meta", "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:montessori-education", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:playful-learning-continuum", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Montessori occupies a specific position on the agency-and-structure continuum.", "sourceIds": [ "source:lillard-montessori", "source:weisberg-guided-play" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:motivation-need-support", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:self-determination-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Need-supportive design is the theory's applied form.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ryan-deci-sdt", "source:motivation-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:motivation-need-support", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:metacognitive-calibration", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Agency, competence, and belonging can support sustained self-regulation when effective strategies are available.", "sourceIds": [ "source:motivation-meta", "source:hpl2" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:multi-tiered-support", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Without strong universal instruction the tiers become a referral pipeline.", "sourceIds": [ "source:fuchs-rti", "source:rosenshine-principles" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:multilingual-programme-models", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:academic-language-multilingual", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Programme design determines whether content and language develop together.", "sourceIds": [ "source:english-learners-nasem", "source:ell-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:multimedia-coherence", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:learning-styles-matching", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "refuted", "rationale": "Content-appropriate complementary media do not validate matching instruction to a preferred modality label.", "sourceIds": [ "source:learning-styles", "source:ies-study" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:multimedia-coherence", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:multimedia-learning-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Coherence is one of the theory's design principles.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mayer-multimedia-2017", "source:mayer-moreno-load" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:multiple-intelligences-matching", "type": "part-of", "to": "pedagogy:neuromyths", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "refuted", "rationale": "Instructional matching by intelligence type shares the same refuted logic.", "sourceIds": [ "source:waterhouse-mi-critique", "source:dekker-neuromyths" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:music-chess-far-transfer", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "refuted", "rationale": "Far transfer without shared structure does not occur, however appealing the claim.", "sourceIds": [ "source:sala-gobet-music", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:note-taking", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:summarization-training", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Both depend on selection and paraphrase rather than verbatim capture.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mueller-oppenheimer", "source:dunlosky-techniques" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:pair-programming", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:cooperative-structures", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Driver-navigator roles are a computing-specific interdependence structure.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hannay-pair-programming", "source:johnson-cooperative" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:peer-assessment", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:assessment-for-learning-strategies", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Activating learners as resources for one another is one of the named strategies.", "sourceIds": [ "source:double-peer-assessment", "source:wiliam-assessment" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:peer-tutoring", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:one-to-one-tutoring", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Peer tutoring extends tutoring benefits at lower marginal cost with more structure required.", "sourceIds": [ "source:cohen-tutoring-meta", "source:johnson-cooperative" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:physical-activity-and-cognition", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:executive-function-development", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Activity is one of the supports associated with executive function development.", "sourceIds": [ "source:donnelly-physical-activity", "source:diamond-ling" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:preschool-effects-and-convergence", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:early-intentional-practice", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Short-term early gains often converge unless subsequent grades sustain them.", "sourceIds": [ "source:durkin-tnvpk", "source:heckman-perry" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:pretesting", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:generation-effect", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Pretesting applies generation before rather than after instruction.", "sourceIds": [ "source:richland-pretesting", "source:metcalfe-errors" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-diagnostic", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-design", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "The same material imposes different effective demands depending on relevant schemas.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:cognitive-load" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-diagnostic", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:productive-failure", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Generation before instruction requires enough knowledge to produce interpretable attempts.", "sourceIds": [ "source:productive-failure-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-diagnostic", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:worked-examples-fading", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Examples are most useful for novices and can become redundant as expertise grows.", "sourceIds": [ "source:worked-examples-meta", "source:cognitive-load" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-diagnostic", "type": "precedes", "to": "pedagogy:expertise-reversal", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Diagnosis supplies the knowledge estimate that fading decisions depend on.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl2", "source:kalyuga-expertise-reversal" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-variable", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Explicit guidance is most valuable for novices and should fade with knowledge.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance", "source:rosenshine-principles" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-variable", "type": "part-of", "to": "pedagogy:knowledge-component-model", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Component-level knowledge state is the variable the KLI framework models.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kli-framework" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:problem-based-learning", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "The two favour different outcome types: application versus knowledge coverage.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dochy-pbl-meta", "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:problem-based-learning", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:prior-knowledge-variable", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Learners need enough prior knowledge to engage the problem productively.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance", "source:dochy-pbl-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:productive-failure", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:productive-struggle", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Productive failure is a narrower, specified generation-then-consolidation sequence within the broader struggle label.", "sourceIds": [ "source:productive-failure-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:productive-struggle", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:productive-failure", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Observed difficulty is not evidence that a high-fidelity productive-failure design is present.", "sourceIds": [ "source:productive-failure-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:project-based-learning", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:explicit-direct-instruction", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Projects need embedded instruction on the knowledge they use.", "sourceIds": [ "source:chen-pbl-meta", "source:kirschner-minimal-guidance" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:reading-fluency-repeated-reading", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:systematic-phonics-programme", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Fluency practice presumes the decoding skill it automates.", "sourceIds": [ "source:therrien-repeated-reading", "source:nrp" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:reciprocal-teaching", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:cooperative-structures", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Role transfer through structured dialogue is a cooperative comprehension design.", "sourceIds": [ "source:palincsar-brown", "source:rosenshine-reciprocal" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:reciprocal-teaching", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:literacy-phoneme-grapheme", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Comprehension dialogue presumes the learner can decode the text.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hoover-gough-svr", "source:reading-comprehension-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:reduced-feedback-frequency", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:learning-vs-performance", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "The guidance effect is a clean instance of the performance-learning dissociation.", "sourceIds": [ "source:winstein-schmidt", "source:soderstrom-bjork" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:reduced-feedback-frequency", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Constant feedback improves performance while present and can impair learning.", "sourceIds": [ "source:winstein-schmidt", "source:soderstrom-bjork" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:rereading-and-highlighting", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "refuted", "rationale": "The most common study strategies are among the least effective.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-techniques", "source:retrieval-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:rereading-and-highlighting", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:metacognitive-monitoring-accuracy", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Fluency-based strategies are the main driver of the overconfidence problem.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-rawson-overconfidence", "source:dunlosky-techniques" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:spacing", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Spaced retrieval combines the retention advantages of distributed encounters and active recall.", "sourceIds": [ "source:retrieval-meta", "source:spacing-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:rubrics-and-exemplars", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:peer-assessment", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Shared criteria are what make peer feedback specific enough to use.", "sourceIds": [ "source:jonsson-rubrics", "source:double-peer-assessment" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:schema-based-word-problems", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:math-systematic-representations", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Schema diagrams are systematic representations tied to quantity.", "sourceIds": [ "source:jitendra-schema", "source:math-intervention-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:schema-knowledge-organization", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Organized deep-structure knowledge is what makes transfer possible at all.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hpl1", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:science-argumentation", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:science-three-dimensional", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Argumentation is one of the framework's core science practices.", "sourceIds": [ "source:osborne-argumentation", "source:science-framework" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:science-three-dimensional", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Crosscutting concepts and repeated practices are intended to connect ideas across phenomena and disciplines.", "sourceIds": [ "source:science-framework", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:screen-media-young-children", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:responsive-language-interaction", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Screen use matters mainly through what interaction it displaces.", "sourceIds": [ "source:madigan-screen-time", "source:hpl2" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:self-assessment", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:rubrics-and-exemplars", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Self-assessment without explicit criteria is unreliable.", "sourceIds": [ "source:panadero-self-assessment", "source:jonsson-rubrics" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:self-efficacy", "type": "part-of", "to": "pedagogy:expectancy-value-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Task-specific efficacy is the expectancy component in operational form.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bandura-self-efficacy", "source:eccles-wigfield-2020" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:self-explanation", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Explaining deep relations can help abstract structure beyond surface features.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ies-study", "source:hpl2" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:self-regulation-in-open-online-learning", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:blended-online-learning", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Removing structure shifts the regulatory burden onto the learner and filters who succeeds.", "sourceIds": [ "source:reich-mooc", "source:kizilcec-mooc-srl" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:simple-view-of-reading", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:literacy-phoneme-grapheme", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "The decoding component is what code instruction targets.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hoover-gough-svr", "source:castles-reading-wars" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:simulation-based-mastery-learning", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:deliberate-practice-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Clinical mastery training uses the deliberate-practice design features.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mcgaghie-simulation", "source:ericsson-deliberate-practice" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:simulation-based-mastery-learning", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:mastery-learning", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Clinical simulation mastery training is mastery learning in a professional domain.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mcgaghie-simulation", "source:kulik-mastery" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:simulations-virtual-labs", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:guided-inquiry", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Simulations work when the investigation is guided and debriefed.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dejong-simulations", "source:lazonder-harmsen" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:sleep-and-consolidation", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:spacing", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Sleep between spaced sessions is part of what consolidates the learning.", "sourceIds": [ "source:diekelmann-born-sleep", "source:spacing-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:social-emotional-learning", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:classroom-climate", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "SEL programmes act partly through improved climate and relationships.", "sourceIds": [ "source:durlak-sel", "source:wang-degol-climate" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:sociocultural-zpd", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:contingent-scaffolding", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Scaffolding is the instructional operationalization of the zone.", "sourceIds": [ "source:scaffolding-review", "source:hpl2" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:socioeconomic-context", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:one-to-one-tutoring", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Intensive support shows the largest gains where opportunity has been most constrained.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dietrichson-low-ses", "source:cohen-tutoring-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:spaced-repetition-scheduling", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:spacing", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Scheduling algorithms operationalize the spacing effect for large item sets.", "sourceIds": [ "source:spacing-meta", "source:kerfoot-spaced-education" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:spacing", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:interleaving-discrimination", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Interleaving often spaces each category, though its distinctive target is discrimination and strategy selection.", "sourceIds": [ "source:interleaving-meta", "source:spacing-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:spatial-skills-training", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:early-number-magnitude", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Spatial and magnitude representations are related early mathematical foundations.", "sourceIds": [ "source:uttal-spatial-training", "source:early-math-nrc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:stereotype-threat", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:assessment-fair-access", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Identity-relevant framing is one of several construct-irrelevant threats in assessment.", "sourceIds": [ "source:flore-stereotype-meta", "source:testing-standards" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:structured-collaboration", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:icap-engagement-hypothesis", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "hypothesis", "rationale": "Substantive co-construction may instantiate interactive engagement; mere group seating does not.", "sourceIds": [ "source:icap", "source:collaboration-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:study-skills-programs", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Detached strategy courses fail precisely because conditions of use are not taught.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hattie-study-skills", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:summarization-training", "type": "contrasts-with", "to": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Summarization is rated low utility relative to practice testing.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dunlosky-techniques", "source:retrieval-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:system-resource-tradeoffs", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:socioeconomic-context", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Resource decisions are where opportunity gaps are either narrowed or reproduced.", "sourceIds": [ "source:dietrichson-low-ses", "source:sirin-ses-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:system-resource-tradeoffs", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:instructional-coaching", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Teacher effects are large enough that improving teaching is usually a better buy than structural change.", "sourceIds": [ "source:nye-teacher-effects", "source:kraft-coaching" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:system-resource-tradeoffs", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:one-to-one-tutoring", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Intensive tutoring competes for the same budget as structural levers with smaller effects.", "sourceIds": [ "source:eef-toolkit", "source:filges-class-size", "source:cohen-tutoring-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:systematic-phonics-programme", "type": "does-not-imply", "to": "pedagogy:reading-comprehension-knowledge", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Word-reading gains are much larger than comprehension gains.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ehri-phonics-meta", "source:castles-reading-wars" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:systematic-phonics-programme", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:literacy-phoneme-grapheme", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "A systematic programme is the planned delivery of phoneme-grapheme mapping.", "sourceIds": [ "source:ehri-phonics-meta", "source:literacy-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:task-based-language-teaching", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:instructed-second-language-acquisition", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Tasks supply the meaningful use that explicit form focus needs to attach to.", "sourceIds": [ "source:bryfonski-tblt", "source:norris-ortega" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:teacher-expectancy", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:differentiated-instruction", "polarity": "negative", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Differentiation can encode low expectations as reduced curriculum access.", "sourceIds": [ "source:jussim-harber", "source:steenbergen-grouping" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:test-enhanced-transfer-limits", "type": "moderates", "to": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Retrieval benefits retention far more reliably than transfer.", "sourceIds": [ "source:pan-rickard-transfer", "source:retrieval-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:text-structure-instruction", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:reading-comprehension-knowledge", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Structure instruction is one evidence-rated comprehension practice.", "sourceIds": [ "source:reading-comprehension-wwc", "source:adolescent-literacy-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:threshold-concepts", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:conceptual-change", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "hypothesis", "rationale": "Both describe reorganization of understanding rather than accumulation of facts.", "sourceIds": [ "source:meyer-threshold", "source:vosniadou-conceptual-change" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:tpack", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:blended-online-learning", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Tool choice is only defensible relative to content and pedagogical purpose.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mishra-tpack", "source:bernard-distance" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:training-design-effectiveness", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-of-training", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Design quality is insufficient without a supportive transfer environment.", "sourceIds": [ "source:arthur-training-meta", "source:blume-transfer-meta" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:transfer-of-training", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:transfer-bridging", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Workplace transfer is the organizational instance of the transfer problem.", "sourceIds": [ "source:baldwin-ford", "source:transfer-taxonomy" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:transformative-learning", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:andragogy", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "hypothesis", "rationale": "Both are adult-education frameworks with design value and weak causal evidence.", "sourceIds": [ "source:mezirow-transformative", "source:merriam-adult-theory" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:udl-options", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:accessibility-by-design", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "contested", "rationale": "Proactive options may reduce barriers but do not replace WCAG conformance, accommodations, or assistive technology.", "sourceIds": [ "source:udl-review", "source:wcag22" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:udl-options", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:accessibility-by-design", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "normative-standard", "rationale": "UDL operationalizes access as design options; conformance standards remain the floor beneath it.", "sourceIds": [ "source:udl-guidelines", "source:wcag22", "source:unesco-inclusion" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:utility-value-intervention", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:expectancy-value-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "The intervention manipulates the value term directly.", "sourceIds": [ "source:hulleman-utility-value", "source:eccles-wigfield-2020" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:variation-theory", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:analogical-case-comparison", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "hypothesis", "rationale": "Both concern what must vary across examples for a critical feature to be discerned.", "sourceIds": [ "source:kullberg-variation", "source:gentner-analogical" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:wait-time", "type": "supports", "to": "pedagogy:checking-for-understanding", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Extending think time changes who can answer the checking question.", "sourceIds": [ "source:rowe-wait-time", "source:rosenshine-principles" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:worked-examples-fading", "type": "complements", "to": "pedagogy:self-explanation", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Explanation can focus attention on solution decisions, but prompts must be accurate and proportionate.", "sourceIds": [ "source:worked-examples-meta", "source:icap" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:worked-examples-fading", "type": "should-fade-into", "to": "pedagogy:retrieval-practice", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "As knowledge grows, learners need to retrieve and generate rather than continue copying full solutions.", "sourceIds": [ "source:worked-examples-meta", "source:retrieval-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:working-memory-capacity", "type": "part-of", "to": "pedagogy:cognitive-load-theory", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Capacity limits are the theory's central constraint.", "sourceIds": [ "source:sweller-1988", "source:cognitive-load" ], "origin": "0.2.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:writing-model-practice-reflect", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:worked-examples-fading", "polarity": "conditional", "evidenceStatus": "context-dependent", "rationale": "Teacher modeling and mentor texts externalize decisions before support fades toward independent writing.", "sourceIds": [ "source:writing-wwc", "source:worked-examples-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:writing-model-practice-reflect", "type": "requires", "to": "pedagogy:actionable-feedback", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Writers need usable information and revision opportunities to refine decisions.", "sourceIds": [ "source:writing-wwc", "source:feedback-meta" ], "origin": "0.1.0" }, { "from": "pedagogy:writing-strategy-instruction", "type": "implements", "to": "pedagogy:writing-model-practice-reflect", "polarity": "positive", "evidenceStatus": "strong", "rationale": "Strategy instruction is the highest-effect form of the model-practice-reflect cycle.", "sourceIds": [ "source:graham-elementary-writing", "source:writing-wwc" ], "origin": "0.2.0" } ], "statistics": { "entries": 180, "relations": 217, "sources": 241, "byLayer": { "tactic": 49, "constraint": 6, "construct": 23, "method": 31, "principle": 20, "framework": 26, "theory": 14, "anti-pattern": 10, "measure": 1 }, "byEvidence": { "strong": 77, "normative-standard": 7, "context-dependent": 69, "contested": 14, "refuted": 8, "hypothesis": 5 }, "byDomain": { "multilingual": 10, "literacy": 30, "digital-environments": 19, "special-education": 15, "general": 119, "science": 31, "mathematics": 44, "engineering-design": 7, "computing": 7, "professional-workplace": 21, "assessment-measurement": 18, "health": 10, "physical-motor": 6, "music": 5, "teacher-development": 6, "history-social-studies": 5, "world-language": 5, "arts": 1 }, "byStage": { "primary": 88, "middle": 101, "secondary": 106, "cross-lifespan": 42, "postsecondary": 79, "adult-workplace": 52, "older-adult": 6, "preschool": 25, "infancy-toddler": 4 }, "byFunction": { "explain": 50, "access": 22, "motivate": 22, "climate": 26, "diagnose": 37, "feedback": 33, "practice": 68, "collaborate": 16, "assess": 25, "self-regulate": 22, "transfer": 31, "sequence": 38, "consolidate": 19 }, "byMaturity": { "established": 99, "consolidating": 56, "disputed": 12, "deprecated": 8, "emerging": 5 }, "byRecommendation": { "candidate-default-with-fit-check": 69, "contextual-option": 81, "do-not-generalize": 13, "experimental-only": 8, "avoid": 9 } } }