About
Claims about learning, read against the evidence
Last updated .
Learning technology is sold on claims. An AI tutor doubles outcomes. A platform lifts completion by a third. A new study shows that one habit changes everything. Some of those claims rest on careful work and some rest on a press release, and from the outside they sound alike.
Geitoq takes one of them each week and does the slow part: it finds the research behind the claim, reads the studies themselves, and sets out what each one did, with whom, and what it found. Then it says what the evidence supports, what it does not show, and how sure I am. The reader should be able to disagree with me using the same sources I used.
Who's writing this
I'm Christopher Ross. I run thisismyurl.com, a web design and strategy practice that also helps colleges and training teams learn and work with AI, and I'm finishing a master of arts in Learning and Technology at Royal Roads University. That is where I learned to read a methods section before the abstract. Geitoq is my own project. It is not client work, nobody sponsors it, and it is not for hire by the companies it covers.
Research, drafting and checking here use AI assistance as a normal part of the workflow. Every citation is checked by script against the source, every factual sentence is tied to a passage in a source the script opened, a different model checks each claim against its passage, and separate AI reviewers with different briefs read the draft. Nothing publishes unless every one of those checks passes, and I audit a sample of published pieces afterward. That is house practice, each piece's method note says how AI was used in it, and the standards page shows what each check does.
How a claim gets picked
I look for claims that are circulating, that matter to people who teach, train or buy learning technology, and that reward a closer read than they are getting. A claim from a vendor, a headline, a policy document or a conference keynote is fair game. A claim I can't find evidence about is also a result, and I report it as one.
What this site is not
It is not a product review and it does not rank tools. It does not give legal, medical or instructional-design advice for your situation. It does not say what works for every learner, because few studies can.