Unfortunately I don't, but I'd love to find that link you mentioned. As to my own experience with them, they're all very generalized and often don't actually t

Unfortunately I don't, but I'd love to find that link you mentioned. As to my own experience with them, they're all very generalized and often don't actually test how well a student has learned something. I see these a lot with tech use. Calculators help test scores, but do students actually learn how to do the math? No, take away the calculator and see; often they can't even do basic multiplication without their fingers. Or you'll see studies generalized from groups of 10 students, without taking other variables into count. I remember one where 20 kids improved after a certain strategy in an upper middle class private school. Authors then said this is the wya to do things and it should be implemented in lower socioeconomic class schools too. And then the results often aren't meaningful and often feel forced, and really depend on how students feel on a given day and such... A student can easily bomb a test if they couldn't sleep the night before, and that score shouldn't show that they didn't necessarily learn with the intervention tested or whatever. And that's just the studies. The actual classes are worse. I've learned nothing about education theory, and it's mostly just random teachers pushing their philosophy of teaching on us, or spouting off the research that agrees with it. And half my classes have been irrelevant. I teach high school math/science, and at least half my classes have been solely dedicated to elementary school apps/content. The one sole HS class I've taught was a joke where the teacher just went into how good dual credit was and how all HS should basically become community colleges... Without realizing that it isn't that way everywhere (our school's, for instance, is a joke and half of them don't transfer to other schools in-state).