Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
2 references
-
- Vol 7 RE: App B
- Vol 7 RE: Chapters 7, 11, App D
intelligent tutoring systemslearning outcomesadaptive instructionstep-based guidanceinstructional feedbackdomain modelsprocedural knowledgemeta-analysisJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
This meta-analysis evaluates intelligent tutoring systems (ITS)—programs that model learners and adapt instruction—against several alternative learning conditions. The authors synthesised 107 effect sizes from studies spanning school, university, and workplace settings and many subject areas.
Key ideas
Overall, students using an ITS achieved better learning outcomes than those receiving large-group instruction, textbook or workbook study, and other computer-based instruction. Effects were smaller when ITS were compared with individualised human tutoring or small-group instruction, showing that the relevant comparison matters. The analysis also examined system type, procedural versus declarative knowledge, assessment type, and design features as potential moderators. Results support the value of step-based guidance, feedback, and adaptation but reveal substantial variation among systems and studies.
Why it matters
For educators, the paper does not imply that any software labelled intelligent will work; benefits depend on sound domain models, close alignment between tutoring and assessment, and thoughtful integration with teaching.
-
- Vol 4 RE: Chapter 12
disciplinary knowledgeinterdisciplinary knowledgeepistemic knowledgeprocedural knowledgephenomenon-based learningproject-based studycurriculum integrationteacher collaborationConcept note Evidence summaryAt a glance
The Knowledge for 2030 concept note distinguishes four forms of knowledge needed within future-oriented curricula: disciplinary, interdisciplinary, epistemic, and procedural. Disciplinary knowledge supplies the conceptual foundations and ways of organizing understanding developed within subjects.
Key ideas
Interdisciplinary knowledge connects concepts across fields so learners can address complex problems that do not respect subject boundaries. OECD identifies five curriculum approaches: transfer broad concepts or “big ideas” across disciplines; make connections among concepts explicit; organize thematic or phenomenon-based learning; combine related subjects or create new learning areas; and create space for project-based study. Epistemic knowledge concerns how practitioners in a discipline think, justify claims, and create knowledge, while procedural knowledge concerns how to perform processes and may be domain-specific or transferable. The note rejects a choice between strong subjects and integration: interdisciplinary work depends on sufficient disciplinary grounding.
Why it matters
It also links knowledge design to equity, curriculum overload, transfer, authenticity, and opportunity to learn. Effective integration requires deliberate sequencing, teacher collaboration, and assessment that recognizes connected understanding.
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway