State of the Evidence¶
Generated by
scripts/build_evidence_report.pyfrom the claim pages' evidence codes and the[±~][SMW]markers on the pages that cite them. Do not edit by hand.
What the wiki's evidence adds up to. Every number counts distinct studies, keyed by DOI (or by author-year where a study has none), because one source often yields many claims. Nothing here is a verdict: tiers are reported as ranges and counts, and the impact codes are never averaged. q, i, kind and rigour are defined in the Schema & Guide and in evidence-scales.json.
In short¶
The wiki holds 6,930 distinct studies behind 26,894 claims. What they add up to (the sections below have the detail):
- Few studies can show a cause. 31% are experiments or systematic reviews (
q3orq4); only 2% are pre-registered trials or well-powered meta-analyses (q4). 56% are quasi-experiments, observational studies or narrative reviews, and 12% are case studies, opinion or theory. - Few print an effect size. 1,687 of 6,930 studies (24%) report one for the finding the wiki cites; the rest report a significance test, a description, or nothing that says how large an effect was.
- Strong work is not only trials. 817 studies are rated
r3, done well for their kind; 516 of them are qualitative, design, theoretical or review work, which the design tier alone would rank low. - Most findings stand alone. 98% of claims rest on one study; a finding reported once, in one setting, has not been shown to hold elsewhere.
- Not all research reaches design. 72% of studies, and 44% of claims, are cited by a principle, pattern, element, strategy or design; the rest are recorded but not connected to a design decision, either because none has been written or because the finding does not bear on one.
- Principles and patterns. Of 224 pages written in the conditional format, 106 have research testing their central relationship, at least in part, and 118 carry a labelled default design because nothing in the wiki tests it. Their citations of claims are 5% strong, 42% moderate and 54% weak, and 49% supporting, 46% conditional and 6% against.
These figures describe two things at once: what education research has produced, and what this wiki has collected so far. As inclusion is held to a higher standard the second will move; the first is why it has to.
The corpus¶
| Claims | 26,894 |
| Evidence entries | 32,166 |
| Distinct studies | 6,930 |
| Claims resting on one study | 26,361 (98%) |
| Claims with no coded evidence | 0 |
| Studies reporting an effect size | 1,687 of 6,930 (24%) |
Studies by kind and rigour (rigour is judged against the standard of the study's own kind, so an r3 interview study and an r3 trial are each strong for what they are; r? means the text available could not show it):
| kind | r3 | r2 | r1 | r? | all |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| causal | 97 | 883 | 296 | 384 | 1,660 |
| quant-synthesis | 116 | 189 | 42 | 135 | 482 |
| review | 164 | 536 | 111 | 143 | 954 |
| associational | 88 | 1,028 | 413 | 289 | 1,818 |
| qualitative | 126 | 323 | 71 | 94 | 614 |
| design | 61 | 545 | 135 | 35 | 776 |
| theoretical | 165 | 331 | 67 | 63 | 626 |
Studies by design tier q (the causal-design ladder; where one study is coded differently on two claims, the tier most of its entries give):
| q1 case / opinion / theory | q2 quasi-experiment, observational, narrative review | q3 experiment or systematic review | q4 pre-registered RCT or well-powered meta-analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 863 (12%) | 3,905 (56%) | 2,008 (29%) | 154 (2%) |
Studies per claim: 0: 0, 1: 26,361, 2: 448, 3: 68, 4 or more: 17.
Most claims rest on one study because of how the wiki grows: an extraction turns one article into claims, so every new claim starts with exactly one source, and gains a second only when a later article is merged into it. The single-study share measures how much merging remains, as much as it measures the literature.
Load-bearing studies¶
The studies the most claims rest on. A study that many claims rest on alone is a single point of failure: a correction to it, or a misreading of it, reaches every one of them.
Citation load against evidence base¶
The claims the rest of the wiki cites most, beside what they rest on. A claim cited from hundreds of pages on the strength of two studies is where one more study, or a replication, would matter most.
Of the 39 claims cited from 50 or more pages, 6 rest on one study or none: In one 37-student classroom experiment, recall and retention differ …, Part-task practice reduces cognitive load for absolute novices during …, Relevancy of emphasized text directs attention and influences test …, A training-design argument, not tested by any study recorded here, …, Example-first conditions outperformed problem-first conditions on an …, Worked examples reduce unnecessary search for novices..
Contested claims¶
Claims cited as support on some pages and as counter-evidence on others ([+] and [-] markers on the same claim). The disagreement is in how pages use the claim, which is often the point: a boundary condition cited against a strategy it limits. It is still where a reader should look twice.
407 claims are cited both ways.
Evidence by kind of page¶
Each page that cites claims carries its own profile under its title. Summarised by kind:
| Kind | Pages | Citing a claim | Median studies behind a citing page | Citing pages whose claims have no studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| principles | 170 | 170 | 29 | 0 |
| elements | 1,057 | 782 | 2 | 0 |
| patterns | 54 | 54 | 30 | 0 |
| strategies | 6,733 | 3,572 | 3 | 0 |
| processes | 18 | 16 | 9.5 | 0 |
| methods | 37 | 22 | 1.5 | 0 |
| theories | 1,360 | 915 | 1 | 0 |
| learner-variables | 75 | 75 | 49 | 0 |
| designs | 1,022 | 723 | 1 | 0 |
| products | 1,919 | 1,428 | 1 | 0 |
| research-methods | 641 | 562 | 1 | 0 |
Toward pooled estimates¶
A pooled effect size needs effect sizes with their uncertainty, on one scale, for comparable contrasts and outcomes. Those are recorded in observations/, which holds 27 study records: 2 report a standardised mean difference directly and 6 more report a statistic convertible to one (a correlation, an odds ratio, a partial η²). Fewer than three studies are on that scale at all, so no pooled estimate is reported. The wiki's i codes are not a substitute: they are bins, and averaging them would state a precision nobody measured.