Visible Learning by John
Hattie (2009)
Introduction
Visible Learning is the result of 15 years’
research and synthesises over 800 meta-analyses (over 50,000 studies) relating
to the influences on achievement in school-aged students. It presents the
largest ever collection of evidence-based research into what actually works in
schools to improve learning.
The main contributors that influence
achievement are classified as the student, home, school, curricula, teacher and
teaching strategies. A model of teaching and learning is developed based on the
notion of visible teaching and visible learning.
A major message of the book is that what
works best for students is similar to what works best for teachers. This includes
an attention to setting challenging learning intentions, being clear about what
success means and an attention to learning strategies for developing conceptual
understanding about what teachers and students know and understand.
New Zealand ranks in the top half-dozen
nations in reading, mathematics and science and has a high proportion of
excellent teachers, who are seeking to always improve and constantly monitor
their performances to make a difference to what they do; and many inspire the
love of learning that is one of the major outcomes of any school. Visible
Learning identifies what it is these excellent teachers do to positively
influence student achievement.
Although the current evidence-based fad has
turned into a debate about test scores, Visible Learning is about using
evidence to build and defend a model of teaching and learning.
The Challenge
In the past there have been difficulties in
summarizing and comparing the huge amount of research into educational methods
and “what works” in schools. The vast majority of innovations or strategies can
be said to “work” because they can be shown to have a positive effect. But a
student left to work on his own, without a teacher, would be likely to show
improvement.
In 1976 Gene Glass introduced the notion of
meta-analysis – whereby the effects in each study, where appropriate,
are converted to a common measure (an effect size), such that the
overall effects could be quantified, interpreted, and compared, and the overall
moderators of this overall effect could be uncovered and followed up in more
detail.
John Hattie uses these effect sizes to
allow us to make a much more sophisticated judgment on what is really making an
impact on student learning and achievement.
The nature of the evidence and
effect sizes
Hattie looks at 138 different influences on
student achievement and places the major results from thousands of research
studies along a continuum of effect sizes, ranging from d = -.34 to d = 1.44.
What do these effect sizes mean?
An effect size of d = 1.0 indicates an
increase of one standard deviation on the outcome – in this case the outcome is
student achievement. A one standard deviation increase is typically associated
with advancing children’s achievement by two to three years or improving the
rate of learning by 50%. When implementing a new program, an effect size of 1.0
would mean that, on average, students receiving that treatment would exceed 84%
of students not receiving that treatment.
Hattie’s work is based on educational
innovations. Research shows that these can be expected to have an average
effect size of 0.4 (the “hinge point”). Innovations tend to capture the
enthusiasm of the teacher and the excitement of the students attempting
something new. So very few innovations have no positive effect at all. It is
not unreasonable to claim that at least half of all implementations, at least
half of all students, and at least half of all teachers can and do attain an
effect size of d = 0.4 as a consequence of their actions. Therefore when
analysing effects, we can say that anything with an effect size of over 0.4 is
likely to be having a visible, positive effect.
To put it another way, an effect size of
0.2 or less is low, 0.4 is medium and 0.6 or more is high.
Caveats
- There are many outcomes of schooling, such as attitudes, physical outcomes, belonging ness, respect, citizenship and the love of learning. This book focuses on achievement and that is a limitation of this review.
- The most successful outcomes come from innovations, and these effects from innovations may not be the same as the effects of teachers in regular classrooms – the mere involvement in asking questions about the effectiveness of any innovation may lead to an inflation of its effects.
- We need to be careful about drawing too definite a conclusion from an effect size without examining the study. For example, homework is shown to have an overall effect size of 0.29, which is low and well below the average of 0.40. But when you look more closely, you find that primary students gain least from homework (d = 0.15) while secondary students have greater gains (d = 0.64).
The art of teaching
On the other hand, Hattie has the
educational expertise to put these studies into context. For example he
summarises the art of teaching thus:
“…the
act of teaching reaches its epitome of success after the lesson has been
structured, after the content has been delivered, and after the classroom has
been organised. The art of teaching, and its major successes, relate to “what
happens next” – the manner in which the teacher reacts to how the student
interprets, accommodates, rejects and/or reinvents the content and skills, how
the student relates and applies the content to other tasks, and how the student
reacts in light of success and failure apropos the content and methods that the
teacher taught. Learning is spontaneous, individualistic, and often earned
through effort. It is a timeworn, slow, gradual, fits-and-starts kind of
process, which can have a flow of its own, but requires passion, patience, and
attention to detail (from the teacher and the student)”.
Quality feedback
A key finding of the study is that the most
powerful single influence enhancing achievement is feedback. But again we
need to be careful with this information. Does this mean that we need to give
children more and more feedback to raise their achievement? No! What is
needed is quality feedback and where that feedback has the greatest effect is
when teachers receive more and better feedback about their teaching, and
then the ripple effect back to the student is high (Hattie & Timperley,
2007).
The six main
contributors that influence achievement: the student, home, school, curricula,
teacher and teaching strategies.
1. The
Student
The child brings prior knowledge of
learning to their classroom – from pre-school, from their culture, from
television, from home and from the previous year. Much of this prior learning
leads to expectations by students and teachers about learning. These
expectations are powerful enhancers of - or inhibitors to – the opportunities
provided in schools. By the age of eight, most students have worked out their
place in the rankings of the achievement equation. Indeed, Jo Boaler’s research
has shown that 80% of children who are placed in an ability grouping at age 5
will stay in the same grouping throughout their schooling.
Self-reported grades: effect size 1.44
(Rank 1/138 P43)
This, the highest recorded influence in the
study, simply means that students predict their performance – usually accurately
– on their past achievement. If these predictions are too low – and often both
students and teachers’ expectations will, on past performance, predict too low,
then limits will be set on what is achievable.
On a more positive note, if students are genuinely
involved in setting goals and short or medium term targets (ie success
criteria) that they believe will help them reach these goals, then their
predictions and achievement is very likely to be higher.
Carol Dweck’s work on fostering a Growth
Mindset (Self-Theories: their role in motivation, achievement and development,
2000) indicates that many students see their intelligence – and consequently
their future achievement – as a fixed entity (Fixed Mindset), rather than
something that can grow and develop (Growth Mindset). If teachers and students
work together to adopt a Growth Mindset, then the self-fulfilling low
expectations of students (and teachers) can be raised, sometimes dramatically.
Self-concept; effect size 0.43 (Rank
60/138 P46)
Teachers often make claims about the
relationship between self-concept and achievement; the common claim being that
high achievers have high self-concept and that it is one of their teaching
roles to make students feel good about themselves. Such claims presuppose a
strong relationship between perceptions of self and achievement. Hansford &
Hattie (1982) found a low, but positive (r = 0.20) relationship.
The relation between self-efficacy and
achievement, however, is among the strongest of self-measures (Multon, Brown
& Lent 1991). Hattie’s summary here bears a strong similarity to Carol
Dweck’s theory of self-efficacy. Hattie says:
“…it
is more likely that there are stronger relationships between certain
self-strategies and achievement. Achievement is more likely to be increased
when students invoke learning rather than performance strategies, accept rather
than discount feedback, benchmark to difficult rather than easy goals, compare
themselves to subject criteria rather than to other students, possess high rather
than low efficacy to learning, and affect self-regulation and personal control
rather than learned helplessness in the academic situation.”
Speaking at the Centre for Confidence in
Glasgow in September 2008, Carol Dweck referred to the important
difference between self-esteem and self-efficacy. She made the following
points:
·
Private
education buys “empty self-belief” of confidence of superiority over
others
·
Fixed Mindset self-esteem is about feeling good about yourself,
often in relation to the perceived lower achievement of others
·
Growth Mindset self-esteem is about having the courage &
determination to address weaknesses
·
Confidence & self-efficacy comes from mastery
of problems through resilience,
not from false self-esteem
·
Growth Mindset Teacher: “I am not interested in judging how good your work is, I am
interested in the quality of your learning”
Hattie
suggests that teachers would have more success if they addressed students’ low
self-efficacy before trying to raise their achievement. Dweck shows how
to do this by promoting a Growth Mindset in the classroom.
Motivation; effect size 0.48 (Rank 51/138
P47)
There is much value anticipating when
student motivation is at its highest. Dörnyei (2001) noted that motivation is
highest when students are competent, have sufficient autonomy, set worthwhile
goals, get feedback, and are affirmed by others. He also challenged educators
to seriously consider student demotivation, caused by, for example, public
humiliation, devastating test results, or conflicts with teachers or peers. I
would add to this list ability grouping with very little chance of promotion.
In her paper “The ‘Psychological Prisons’
from which they never escaped: The role of ability grouping in reproducing
social class inequalities.” Jo Boaler, of Stanford University
interviewed
young adults about their experience of Maths setting at High school.
The adults from set 1 were happy with their
grouping but aware that it had shaped their whole experience, those from set 2
downwards talked not only about the ways their attainment had been constrained
by the grouping but also the ways they had been set up for low attainment in
life. One of the young men from Amber Hill spoke eloquently about the setting
experience:
“You’re putting
this psychological prison around them (…), it’s kind of… people don’t
know what they can do, or where the boundaries are, unless they’re told at that
kind of age.”
“It kind of
just breaks all their ambition … particularly schools like Amber Hill where it’s predominantly working-class kids whose
parents don’t necessarily have the ambition for
them. And then if it’s being reinforced
in the classroom with kind of “yes you’re going to be a labourer for the whole
of your life” then it means they can’t break out of that box. It’s quite sad
that there’s kids there that could potentially be very, very smart and benefit
us in so many ways, but it’s just kind of broken down from a young age. So
that’s why I dislike the set system so much—because I think it almost formally
labels kids as stupid.” (Nikos, ex-Amber Hill student).system so much—because I
think it almost formally labels kids as stupid.” (Nikos, ex-Amber Hill
student).
In
another paper, Setting, Social class & Survival of the Quickest, British
educational Research Journal, 1997, she found that:
·
There
was no evidence that setting raised achievement
·
But
there was evidence that setting diminished achievement for some students
There
was much evidence that the students who were disadvantaged by this system were
predominantly working class, female or very able.
She also
found that students in the top set could also sometimes be seriously
disadvantaged by ability grouping.
“In set 1
for example, the students who experienced the most difficulties in response to
setting were originally the highest attainers in the group. At the end of Y8,
immediately before the students were setted, Carly & Lorna attained the
highest and second highest NFER scores in the school. At the end of Y11 these
two students achieved the lowest GCSE grades in set 1 (grade E)”
Carol Dweck
does not advocate mixed ability, but, like John Hattie, warns of the dangers of
setting on motivation and self-concept. In her research she has found that high
achieving girls can suffer badly if they have a Fixed Mindset, due to the blow
to their fragile self-esteem caused by suddenly finding themselves struggling
in a top set, whereas previously they have seen themselves as achieving well in
relation to their peers.
A key problem in many secondary schools is
that high sets tend to be large (28-32 students) while low sets tend to be
smaller. This is often because the top sets present fewer classroom management
problems. The problem with this is that it makes it very difficult to promote
students to the top set as it is often full and teachers are reluctant to
demote students. If there is not regular movement between sets, students will
quickly decide that they have been labelled as “set 3” or “set 5” students and
will not be motivated to improve their performance.
Section 2 – Home
Contributions from the Home
Socioeconomic Status (SES) (d = 0.57 rank 32/138 P61)
The three main factors are parental income,
parental education, and parental occupation. SES is more important at the
school than at the individual level. One of the ways this influence is
manifested is that schooling introduces a language and set of cultural
norms with which many parents, particularly those from lower SES families, are
not familiar.
A major study of five of the lowest SES
schools in New Zealand (Clinton, Hattie & Dixon, 2007) found major benefits
when teaching parents the language of schooling. Strategies included giving
families computers and employing former teachers as home – school liaison
officers. These people helped parents learn how to assist their children to
attend and engage in learning, and to speak with teachers and school personnel.
Home environment (d = 0.57 rank 31/138
P66)
The home environment measures the
socio-psychological environment and intellectual stimulation at home. Iverson
& Walberg (1982) suggested that achievement is more closely linked to the
socio-psychological environment than to parents’ occupation and education.
Gottfried (1984) found that the most consistent and highly correlated factors
with achievement were maternal involvement, variety and play materials. This
links with Howard Sharron’s “Changing Children’s Minds”, which stresses the key
strategy of personal mediation by teachers, when they are working with children
who have suffered deprivation or trauma in their home environment.
Television (d = -0.18 rank 137/138 P67)
The overall effects of television on
achievement are small, but negative. However the range of viewing times had
different effects. There were slightly positive effects for viewing times of up
to 10 hours per week, while over 10 hours had a negative effect and over 35
hours unsurprisingly having a more negative effect.
Parental involvement in Learning (d =
0.51 rank 45/138 P68)
There is much variance in the influence of
parental involvement. There are negative effects when parents’ involvement
comprises a surveillance approach, lower effects relating to parental
involvement in early intervention, and much higher effects relating to parental
aspirations and expectations and when parents take a more active approach in
learning.
Hong & Ho (2005) concluded that
parent expectations were the most important influence on their children’s
achievement, whereas parental supervision in the forms of monitoring
homework, time watching television, and time going out with friends appeared to
have a negative effect on the educational aspirations of students.
Concluding comments
Across all home variables, parental
aspirations and expectations for children’s educational achievement has the
strongest relationship with achievement (d = 0.80).
These expectations are more powerful than
many of the structural factors of the home, eg single or two parent families,
resident or non-resident fathers, divorced parents, adopted or non-adopted
children.
Section 3 The School
The contributions from the school
In the developed world the highest
proportion of variation in student achievement lies within schools, rather than
between schools. Willms (2000) concluded that “the pressure and support for
change needs to be directed at particular teachers within schools, not simply
at entire schools”.
The situation is quite different in less
resourced nations (eg throughout Africa) where most variability is between
schools.
Attributes of schools
Finances
(d = 0.23 rank 99/138 P73)
Although the meta-analyses would seem to
indicate that money does not matter, this would be a misleading conclusion.
While Hanushek (1989) and other studies have found no consistent statistical
relation between educational expenditure and measures of student performance,
Hattie found that the problem seems to be that so often money is added into the
educational system with little attention to the efficiency or effectiveness of
education outcomes.
Greenwald et al (1996) found that we can
expect “…comparable and substantial increases in achievement if resources were
targeted to selecting (and retaining) more educated or more experienced
teachers”. Hattie, on the other hand, says there is little evidence to justify
“substantial”, but agrees with the importance of the teacher (and costs
associated with enhancing teaching). In his paper ___________(expert teachers)
he explains that it is not experienced teachers that make the difference, but expert
teachers – and he explains in detail what he means by expert teachers.
Mobility
(d = -0.34 rank 138/138 P81)
The effect of mobility between schools is
quite marked. Transcience, or mobility across schools, has become a major trend
in recent decades. In New Zealand, 40% of students change schools each year
(partly caused by 3 tier system) and in USA 20% change residence each year. The
effects of such mobility on reading and maths are negative (Mehana, 1997, d =
-0.27 vs d = -0.22).
The reasons for this decline may be many,
but a most important cause relates to peer effects. Galton & Willcocks
(1983) found every change of school caused negative effects. They noted
typically that there were problems with friendship patterns, particularly
friendships to support learning. Following transition the key factor is whether
a child makes a friend in the first month (Galton, 1995; Pratt & George
2005).
Principals and school leaders (d = 0.36
rank 74/138 P83)
Bearing in mind that Hattie focuses on the
influence of principals on students, there is an important moderator in the meta-analyses
relating to the type of principal leadership.
Hattie specifies two major forms of
leadership: instructional leadership and transformational leadership.
Instructional leadership refers to those principals who focus on creating a learning climate
free of disruption, a system of clear learning objectives and higher
expectations for teachers and students.
Transformational leadership refers to those principals who engage with their staff in ways that
inspire them to new levels of energy, commitment, and moral purpose such that
they work collaboratively to overcome challenges and reach ambitious goals.
The evidence from the meta-analyses
supports the power of the former over the latter in terms of the effects on
student outcomes.
For example Brown (2001) found the effects
were greater on instructional leadership dimensions (eg organization, d = 0.66)
than from transformational leadership (consideration d = 0.36, inspiration d =
0.40). The effects were much higher at the elementary level (d = 0.76) than for
middle (d = 0.36) and high (d = 0.44).
Robinson, Lloyd and Rowe (in press) found
that instructional leadership effects (
d = 0.55) were much greater than transformational leadership (d = 0.09). Specific
dimensions of instructional leadership that had greatest effect on student
outcomes were promoting and participating in teacher learning and
development (d = 0.91); planning, co-ordinating and evaluating teaching and the
curriculum (eg direct involvement in the support and evaluation of teaching
through regular classroom visits and provision of formative and summative
feedback to teachers) (d = 0.74); strategic resourcing (aligning resource
selection and allocation to priority teaching goals d = 0.60); establishing
goals and expectations (d = 0.54) and ensuring an orderly and supportive
environment, both inside and outside the classroom (d = 0.49).
Class size ( d = 0.21 rank 106/138 P.85)
Meta-analyses consistently show that there
is little gain in student achievement from reducing class size. 164 studies
between 1980 and 2005 on the effects of reducing class size from 25 to 15
produced an average effect size of d = 0.13 (P.87)
One reason for these small effect sizes
relates to teachers of smaller classes using the same teaching methods as they
were using with larger classes and thus not optimizing the opportunities
provided by having fewer students. Many of the more powerful influences on
student learning described in this book could be more effective if the class
size was smaller. There could be more (and better) feedback, more interaction
with (and between) students, more diagnosis and so on.
Ability Grouping (d= 0.12 rank 121/138)
The meta-analysis studies have summarised
more than 300 studies, covering a wide variety of schooling cultures and experiences
across all age ranges. The outcomes can be broadly grouped into achievement
effects and equity effects. The latter address the question of whether the
gains or losses from ability grouping are uniformly distributed across various
sub-groups (eg minority vs majority groups or different socio-economic
backgrounds). The results show that ability grouping has minimal effects on
learning outcomes and profound negative equity effects. The overall effects on
Maths and reading were similarly low (reading d = 0.00, maths d = 0.02), the
effects on self-concept were close to zero, and effects on attitudes to subject
matter slightly higher (d = 0.10). The overall effects for high ability groups
were d = 0.14, middle ability d = -0.03 and low ability d = 0.09.
In a study of 25 Junior and Senior High
Schools, Oakes et al (2005) found that in most cases ability grouping fails to
foster the outcomes schools value. She found that ability grouping fosters
friendship networks linked to students’ group membership, and these peer groups
may contribute to polarized attitudes among high school students, with higher
ability students becoming more enthusiastic and lower ability students more
alienated. Oakes et al also commented that ability grouping limits “students’
schooling opportunities, achievements and life-chances. Students not in the
higher tracks (ability groups) have fewer intellectual challenges, less
engaging and supportive classrooms and fewer well-trained teachers”. In the UK
league tables and targets for GCSE scores, based on C grades or above, would be
likely to disadvantage lower ability groups.
Hattie concludes that if more lower ability
classes were more stimulating, challenging and taught by well trained teachers
with high expectations, there may be gains for these students; there are not.
As usual the quality of teaching and the nature of student interactions are the
key issues.
Carol Dweck comes to much the same
conclusion, emphasising the importance of building students’ belief in their
ability to improve their intelligence and performance at any stage. Being stuck
in a low ability group with no prospect of promotion can only have the reverse
effect (see Jo Boaler c/f).
Refer to earlier section on Motivation (P4-5 of summary)
Within Class Grouping (d = 0.16
rank 116/138 P93)
Within class ability grouping has a similar
effect to ability grouping. Kulik and Kulik (1992) found that the effect size
for students in higher ability groups were d = 0.29, for medium-ability groups
0.17 and for lower ability groups d = 0.21. So once again the middle groups
performed worse.
One meta-analysis (Lou et al 1996) found
that effects varied according to class size. In large classes (35+ students)
the effect of grouping is d = 0.35, whereas in small classes (less than 26) the
effect is d = 0.22 and in medium-sized class it is d = 0.06.
Retention (d = -0.16
rank 136/138 P97)
Retention, or making low achieving students
repeat a year, is one of the few areas where it is difficult to find a single
study with a positive effect. The effect on attendance was even more marked, d
= -0.65 and retention almost doubled the likelihood of a student dropping out
of school (Foster, 1993).
School Curricula effects for gifted students
The curricula effects in this section
relate to differential curricula experiences for gifted students within
schools, such as ability grouping for gifted students, acceleration &
enrichment.
Ability Grouping for Gifted Students (d
= 0.30 rank 87/138 P99)
This is different from high ability groups
and involves specific curricula aimed at challenging students at the
appropriate level. This means there is more likelihood of success in engagement
and learning.
Acceleration (d = 0.88
rank 5/138 P100)
An alternative to special classes for
gifted children is to accelerate students through the curricula: “Accelerated
instruction enable bright students to work with their mental peers on learning
tasks that match their abilities” (Kulik and Kulik, 1984). A number of studies
have found significant gains in achievement from acceleration, which
consistently outperforms enrichment.
Hattie wonders why, if acceleration is so
successful, it is one of the least used methods for gifted students. Levin
(1988) asked, if acceleration is so beneficial for gifted students, why could
it also be used with non-gifted students? Evidence on this question is, as yet,
limited from a meta-analysis point of view.
Enrichment (d = 0.39
rank 68/138 P101)
Enrichment involves activities meant to
broaden the educational lives of some groups of students (usually gifted).
Wallace (1989) found that teachers’
experience was a key factor here, with those with several years of teaching
gifted students having greater effects (d = 0.88) than those with no or limited
experience (d = -0.06)
Classroom Influences – Climate of the Classroom
Classroom Management (d = 0.52 rank 42/138 P 102)
The overall positive effect of a
well-managed classroom is not surprising. What is more, some aspects of
classroom management can be seen to boost achievement even more, eg:
- Teacher’s ability to identify and act quickly on potential problems d = 1.42
- Teacher retaining emotional objectivity d = 0.71
- Effective disciplinary interventions d = 0.91
- Group contingency strategies (ie behaviour targets) d = 0.98
- Tangible recognition of appropriate behaviour d = 0.82
- Direct and concrete consequences for misbehaviour d = 0.52
Teacher-student relationships were powerful
moderators of classroom management
(d = 0.87)
Group Cohesion (d = 0.53 rank 39/138 P
103)
The major effect identified by the
meta-analyses and a key factor in positive classroom climate is classroom
cohesion – the sense that all (teachers and students) are working towards
positive learning gains in a collaborative way. In situations with greater
cohesion it is more likely that there is co-peer learning, tolerance and
welcoming of error and thus increased feedback, and more discussion of goals,
success criteria, and positive teacher-student and student-student
relationships.
Peer Influences (d = 0.53 rank 41/138 P104)
The effect of peers can be considerable,
although it is noted how infrequently peers are involved in the teaching and
learning process. In our own work we have identified a myriad of ways in which
peers can influence learning, such as helping, tutoring, providing friendship,
giving feedback, and making class/school a place students want to come to each
day (Wilkinson & Fung, 2002).
Levy-Tossman, Kaplan & Assor (2007)
demonstrated that for many performance-oriented (or Fixed Mindset*)
students (ie those who focus more on the product or outcome of learning and
proving their achievement to others), friendship is not often characterised by
intimacy, and thus the concerns with social comparison and impression
management may lead to them taking on less challenging tasks to ensure
demonstrations of competence; whereas many achievement-oriented (or Growth
Mindset*) students (ie those who focus more on learning as something
valuable and meaningful in itself, aiming to master the learning) had more
concern for their personal academic development and growth.
* See Self-Theories: their role in
motivation, personality and development – Carol Dweck (1999).
Conclusion
The most powerful effects of the school
relate to features within schools, such as the climate of the classroom, peer
influences and the lack of disruptive pupils in the classroom. Other powerful
effects include adapting curricula to be more appropriately challenging (eg
through acceleration or differential curricula for gifted students) and having
principals who see themselves as instructional leaders.
Section 4 The Teacher
The contributions from the teacher
The current mantra that teachers make
the difference is misleading. Not all teachers are effective, not all
teachers are experts and not all teachers have powerful effects on students. It
is teachers’ variability in effect that is critical.
In his paper “Distinguishing Expert
Teachers from Novice and Experienced Teachers” (2003), John Hattie identified
three dimensions that most successfully separated expert teachers from the
rest:
- Challenge
- Deep representation
- Monitoring & Feedback
The importance of these dimensions can be
seen again in Quality of Teaching (below)
He has
also described expert teachers as those who meet with colleagues regularly to
discuss:
- Evidence of progress of their
and their colleagues’ students
- How to improve their teaching
- How to change their teaching
- How to do this in the light of evidence that what they are doing at present is not having the effect they you want
Teacher Education (d = 0.11 rank 124/138 P110)
The meta-analyses relating to teacher
education show that the effect size on subsequent student outcomes is
negligible, although the effect on specific skills is quite high. It seems to
be important for student-teachers to be encouraged to shake off pre-conceptions
about teaching that they have retained from their own experience, and
especially to be encouraged to see teaching through the eyes of their students.
Microteaching (d = 0.88 rank 4/138 P112)
Microteaching is a “laboratory experience”
with analysis, reflective teaching and video-taped role-play and typically
involves student-teachers conducting (mini-) lessons to a small group of
students and then engage in post-discussions about the lessons. This type of experience
seems to be the exception rather than the rule for student-teachers.
Quality of Teaching (d = 0.44 rank 56/138
P115)
All the meta-analyses on the relation of
the quality of teaching to learning come from student ratings of teachers by
college and university teachers. Quality teachers, as rated by students, are
those who challenge, who have high expectations, who encourage the study of
their subject, and who value surface and deep aspects of the subject. The lack
of student evaluations in elementary and high schools should be a major
concern. The visibility of learning from the students’ perspective needs to be
known by teachers so they can have a better understanding of what learning
looks like and feels like for the students.
Hattie also reminds us that the effects of
poor teaching can be devastating, not just while the student is in that class,
but tend to persist for years to come.
Teacher-Student Relationships (d = 0.72
rank 11/138 P118)
In Russell Bishop’s work with Maori
students in New Zealand
Professional Development (d = 0.62 rank
19/138 P 119)
Professional development is likely to
change teacher learning (d = 0.90), but these changes have less effect on
teachers’ actual behaviour (d = 0.60) and teachers’ reactions to the PD (d =
0.42) and even less influence on student learning (d = 0.37).
The four types of instruction found to be
most effective on teacher knowledge and behaviour were:
- Observation of actual classroom methods
- Microteaching (see above)
- Video/audio feedback
- Practice
Higher effect sizes were also found in
studies where training groups involved both high school and primary teachers.
Timperley et al (2007) found 72 studies
that assessed the effects of PD on student outcomes. They used the effect sizes
to ascertain seven themes about what works best in PD:
- Learning opportunities for teachers occurred over an extended period of time
- The involvement of external experts was more related to success than within-schools initiatives
- It was important to engage teachers sufficiently to deepen their knowledge and extend their skills in ways that improved student outcomes.
- Critically, PD needed to challenge teachers’ prevailing discourse and conceptions about learning (when this discourse was problematic, it was usually based on the assumption that some groups of students could not, or would not learn as well as others)
- Teachers talking to teachers about teaching (involvement in a professional community of practice) was necessary, but not sufficient in itself.
- PD was more effective when the school leadership supported opportunities to learn, where there was access to relevant expertise, and where opportunities were provided to process new information.
- Funding, release time, and whether involvement was voluntary or compulsory were unrelated to influences on student outcomes.
Expectations (d = 0.43 rank 58/138 P121)
It is now widely accepted that teachers do
form expectations about student ability and skills and that these expectations
affect achievement (Dusek and Joseph, 1985). For Hattie the key questions is
not “Do teachers have expectations?” but “Do they have false and misleading
expectations that lead to decrements in learning or learning gains – and for
which students?”
Rosenthal and Rubin (1978) looked at
interpersonal expectancies (when the experimenter tends to obtain the results
that he or she expects) and found a mean effect size of d = 0.70 over eight
different areas of research. The implication is that teachers are more likely
to have their students reach their “expected” outcomes, regardless of the
veracity of the expectations. Dusek & Joseph (1983) found that student
attractiveness, student prior conduct in class, cumulative folder information
and social class were related significantly to teacher expectancies.
Weinstein (2002) has shown that students
know they are treated differentially in class due to expectations held by
teachers and are quite accurate in informing on how teachers differ in the
degree to which they favour some children over others with higher expectations.
Tracking & Mindsets: There are differences in classes where teachers aim to select talent
for different pathways (such as schools with tracking) compared with those
where achievement cultures aim to develop talent in each child. There are also
differences in classes where teachers believe that achievement (and
intelligence) is difficult to change because it is fixed and innate compared to
teachers who believe achievement (and intelligence) is changeable (Dweck 2006).
“Be prepared to be surprised” seems to be the mantra to avoid negative expectation effects. If
teachers and schools are going to have expectations, make them challenging,
appropriate & checkable. We should not forget the potentially negative
effects of students setting their own low expectations (recall the power of
self-reported grades) and not being provided with high levels of confidence
that they can exceed these expectations and not only attain but enjoy
challenging learning intentions.
Not Labelling Students (d = 0.61 rank
21/138 P124)
Many of the meta-analyses reviewed in this
section do not have achievement as an outcome, but do relate to how teachers
(and parents) differentiate between special and regular students (and many
other labels). The controversy in distinguishing between mentally disabled and
non-disabled children is often couched between the development and cognitive
processing claims. The developmental position is that disabled children pass
through cognitive developmental stages in an identical manner but differ in
rate and the upper limit of development (Piaget, 1970). The
information-processing claim is that they differ in the cognitive processes
they use in reasoning. While labels help to “classify” learning-disabled
students and can lead to extra funding, rarely do they make a difference to
what works best with their learning. Labelling also too often leads to lower
expectations.
Teacher Clarity (d = 0.75 rank 8/138
P125)
One of the themes of Visible Learning is
how important it is for the teacher to communicate the intentions of the
lessons and the notions of what success means for these intentions (success
criteria). Fendick (1990) investigated teacher clarity, which he defined as
organization, explanation, examples and guided practice, and assessment of
student learning – such that clarity of speech was a prerequisite of teacher
clarity. The correlation was 0.35 (d = 0.75) and the effects were larger when
students, rather than observers, rated the teachers.
Conclusion
We need to talk about quality teachers in
terms of what they do and the effects they have on students. Too often we
emphasize the personal and professional attributes, but maybe we should to the
quality of the effects of teachers on learning – so the discussion about
teaching is more critical than the discussion about teachers (see Chapters 8
& 9).
Initial Teacher Training Programmes have
little impact on how well those teachers influence the achievement of their
students. (For details of how these programmes need to be improved, see P127).
Teachers’ subject matter knowledge is a
conundrum – it is difficult to find evidence that this is important, yet nobody
would suggest that teachers should have less!
Teachers walk into classrooms with
conceptions of teaching, learning, curricula, assessment and their students
(Brown, 2004). These factors are powerful moderators on the success of these
teachers.
How to invoke higher
expectations seems critical, and this may require more in-school discussion of
appropriate benchmarks across grades, and seeing evidence of performance before
starting the year (Nuthall, 2005, shows half of all material taught in any
class is already known by the students). So much of the early part of the year
with a different teacher involves trial and error as teachers find out about
proficiencies of students. As we have already seen, teacher-student
relationships are crucial (d = 0.72) but they take time to develop. Hattie argues that the greatest single
issue facing the further enhancement of students is the need for teachers to
have a common perception of progress. When a student moves from one teacher to
another, there is no guarantee that he or she will experience increasingly
challenging tasks, have a teacher with similar (hopefully high) expectations of
progress up the curricula, or work with a teacher who will grow the student
from where he or she is, as opposed to where the teacher believes he or she
should be at the start of the year.
To have high expectations and to share a
common conception of progress requires teachers to be concerned about the
nature of their relationships with their students, as the power of these is
critical for learning to occur. Russell Bishop moves around classes in New
Zealand, asking students “Does your teacher like you?” He found that most white
students said yes, but many ethnic minority students said no. The powerful
effect of this work is that, after seeing these results, the teachers are quick
to change their practices.
Developing a warmer socio-emotional climate
in the classroom, fostering effort and thus engagement for all students,
requires teachers to enter the classroom with certain conceptions about
progress, relationships and students. It requires them to believe that their
role is that of a change agent – that all students can learn and progress, that
achievement for all is changeable and not fixed, and that demonstrating to all
students that they care about their learning is both powerful and effective.
Section 5
The contribution from the Curricula
Curricula programs: reading
Reading is one of the most contested
curricula areas, as so many educationalists have made strong claims as to the
best way to teach reading. It is common to polarize the difference as phonics
versus whole language and the proponents of each are well heard.
This section summarises 50 meta-analyses on
reading research based on over 2000 studies and about 5 million students, with
an average effect size of d = 0.51, and demonstrates the importance of gaining
a set of learning strategies to construct meaning from text. This summary
of the meta-analyses shows the importance and value of actively teaching
the skills and strategies of reading across all years of schooling. There
need to be planned, deliberate, explicit and active programs to teach specific
skills. Successful reading requires the development of decoding skills, the
development of vocabulary and comprehension and the learning of specific
strategies and processes. It is clear that some programs, particularly those
based on skills and strategies, are successful, whereas others without such
emphases have very minimal effects. Continuing to develop one’s proficiency in
reading depends on acquiring these skills as well as learning to derive meaning
and often enjoyment from the skills of reading.
Reading: visual perception programs (d = 0.55 rank 35/138 P.130)
Writing programs (d = 0.44 rank 57/138
P.141)
Graham & Perin (2007) found that it is
powerful to teach strategies for planning, revising and editing compositions (d
= 0.82), particularly if the students are struggling writers. Effect sizes for
various strategies were: summarizing reading material (d = 0.82), working
together to plan, draft, revise and edit (d = 0.75), setting clear and specific
goals for what students are to accomplish with their writing product (d =
0.70), using word-processing (d = 0.55), and teaching strategies to write
increasingly complex sentences (d = 0.50). Gersten and Baker (2001) found
similar effects for strategies teaching students with learning disabilities.
Atkinson (1993) reported an effect size of
d = 0.52 from workshop instructional treatment of writing, arguing that this
effect may be the result of the relationship with “audience”, either because of
the presence of a real and immediate audience as in writing workshops, or
because of a need to collaborate with others to complete a task.
In North Tyneside EAZ we have found a key
feature of the Write Away Together program (Andy Taylor & Liz Ayres) is
writing for audience (and reading their writing aloud to an adult or group of
students), which encourages children to be much more self-critical in their
writing and more aware of the impact of their writing on a reader.
Mathematics programs (d = 0.45 rank
54/138 P.144)
The power of feedback to students learning
maths was highlighted by Baker, Gersten & Lee (2002). They found that the
highest effects accrued when teachers provided feedback data or recommendations
to students (d = 0.71), then for peer-assisted learning (d = 0.62), explicit
teacher-led instruction (d = 0.65), and direct instruction
(d = 0.65).
Powerful effects of feedback and strategy
teaching are also found in studies of teaching maths to lower ability students.
Lee (2000) found that the programs with the greatest effect were strategy-based
methods (d = 0.85), guided practice (d = 0.86), peer tutoring (d = 0.76),
teacher-modelling (d = 0.73), using specific forms of feedback (d = 0.62),
using mastery criteria (d = 0.63), sequencing examples (d = 0.58), and changing
instructions on the basis of feedback (d = 0.42).
Use of calculators (d = 0.27 rank 93/138
P.145)
Meta-analyses mostly show a low, but
positive effect from the use of calculators in maths teaching. Ellington (2000) found that the effects were
higher for lower ability students (d = 0.30) and negative for higher ability
students (d = -0.23). He also found that the effects were much higher when
calculators were involved in the teaching process, eg when used for composition
problem-solving (d = 0.72).
All studies tended to show that using
calculators helps to reduce students’ cognitive load and allows them to devote
their attention to problem-solving.
Play Programs ( d = 0.50 rank 46/138 P.154)
The place of play in enhancing achievement
has long been cited and even today seems very powerful. Fisher (1992) found
evidence to suggest that play promotes improved performance outcomes, both in
cognitive-linguistic and affective-social domains. For younger children, play
makes a difference. This is likely to be related to learning about peer
relations and learning how to learn from peers, facing and meeting challenges,
the consequence of deliberative practice in play, and the satisfaction from
deciding or becoming aware of both the learning intentions and the success
criteria from being involved in play.
Specific Curricula programs
Creativity Programs ( d = 0.65 rank 17/138 P.155)
Overall, creativity programs have a large
positive effect on outcomes. Higgins, Hall, Baumfield & Moseley (Durham
University 2005) reviewed programs to enhance thinking and creartive
processing. Across all outcomes, the effect size was d = 0.74. Specifically the
effect sizes were: 0.62 for cognitive outcomes, 0.62 for curricula achievement,
and 1.44 fro affective outcomes. Across curriculum domain, the effects were
greatest in Maths (d = 0.89), science (d = 0.78) and then reading (d = 0.48).
Outdoor Education ( d = 0.52
rank 43/138 P.156)
Over all programs, the most consistently
successful were Outward Bound or Adventure programs (Clinton, 1987). Hattie,
marsh, Neill & Richards found an average increase of 0.34 across all
outcomes. Perhaps the most exciting outcome is that this is one of the few
areas in education where the follow-up effects (d = 0.17) were positive and
were in addition to the effects at the end of the program (so 0.34 + 0.17 =
0.51). It is rare to find such increasing after-effects from an education
intervention, as too many have a diminishing return.
There was much variation between programs,
with Australian programs far exceeding American ones. This was believed to be
because the former were more orientated to teaching and the latter to outdoor
experience.
Cason & Gills (1994) found that longer
programs were more effective than shorter ones and younger participants gained
more than older participants. Learning about facing challenge, seeking
feedback, adapting to peer cooperative learning and enhanced self-regulation
about one’s skill and strengths seems to last beyond the outdoor experience.
Concluding comments on contributions from the curricula (P.159)
It is less the content of the curricula
that is important than the strategies teachers use to implement the curriculum
so that students progress upwards through the curricula content. The sharing by
teachers of their conceptions about what constitutes progress is critical (and
this assists in reducing the negative effects of mobility and changing
classrooms), as well as ensuring appropriately challenging surface, deep, and
conceptual knowledge and understanding. Too often there is little attention
paid to how to build a common perception of progress across the years studying
the curriculum (Hattie, 2006).
Teachers need to help students to develop
learning strategies that enable them to construct meaning from text, develop
understanding from numbers, and learn principles in science. The teaching of
these strategies needs to be planned, deliberate, explicit, and part of active
programs to teach specific skills and deeper understanding.
The
contributions from teaching approaches – part 1 (P.161)
This chapter look at goals, success
criteria and fostering student involvement. It follows a model of teaching and
learning based on Clarke (2001; Clarke, Timperley & Hattie, 2003) where
learning intentions and success criteria frame the challenge and purpose of the
lesson. If such goal-directed lessons are to be successful, they must also use
appropriate feedback, take account of students’ views of the process of
learning, and ensure students are actively involved in the monitoring of their
own learning and developing meta-cognitive skills.
Table 9.1 (P.162) provides ample evidence
of the importance and efficacy of these teaching strategies.
This section also focuses on the importance
of Mastery Learning (or mastery oriented learning) and refers to Carl Dweck’s
work (Elliott & Dweck, 1988), which distinguishes between mastery and
learning goals.
Goals
( d = 0.56 rank 34/138 P.163)
There is strong evidence that challenging,
achievable goals influence achievement, provided the individual is involved in
setting them.
Locke & Latham (1990) found that
achievement is enhanced to the degree that teachers set challenging, rather
than “do your best” goals, relative to the students’ present competencies.
There is a direct linear relationship between the degree of goal difficulty and
performance (see table 9.2 P.165). Goals have a self-energizing effect if they
are appropriately challenging as they can motivate students to exert effort in
line with the difficulty or demands of the goal. Commitment to the goals helps,
but is not necessary for goal attainment – except for Special Needs students,
where commitment makes a major difference. “Do your best” goals are too easily
attained – in a sense anything you achieve can be defined as your best. But the
challenge should not be so difficult that it is seen as unattainable. Rather
teacher and student must be able to see a clear pathway to achievement of the
goal.
According to Locke & Latham, goals
inform individuals as to what type or level of performance is to be attained so
they can direct and evaluate their actions and efforts accordingly. Feedback
allows them to track their performance in relation to their goals so that
adjustments in effort, direction, and even strategy can be made as needed
(self-monitoring). Because assigned goals provide an individual with normative
information on the expected level of performance, they have major effects on
the development of self-efficacy and confidence, which in turn affects the
choice of difficulty of goals.
Martin (2006) argued that a good method to
assist students in setting task-specific and situation-specific goals was to
use the notion of “personal bests”. He found that setting personal bests had
high positive relationships to educational aspirations, enjoyment of school,
participation in class and persistence on the task.
Concept mapping ( d = 0.57 rank 33/138 P.168)
Concept mapping involves the development of
graphical representations of the conceptual structure of the content to be
learnt. The importance of concept mapping relates to its emphasis on
summarizing the main ideas in what is to be learnt. It does not seem to matter
who does the concept mapping (teacher, student, students in groups, Horton et
al, 1993) but it is important that students are involved, eg in contributing
the terms used in the map.
Strategies emphasizing success criteria
It is important that success
criteria are as clear and specific as possible (at surface or deep levels, or
both) because the teacher and learner need to monitor the student’s throughout
the lesson to make sure they understand the intended meaning.
Mastery Learning ( d = 0.58 rank 29/138 P.170)
Mastery learning means that children learn
effectively when provided with clear explanations of what it means to “master”
the material being taught. Other features include: high levels of collaboration
in the classroom ( ie not competitive); high levels of teacher feedback that is
both frequent and specific; and the regular (preferably independent) correction
of the mistakes students make along their learning path (it also helpful to see
mistakes as a positive learning experience).
The important variable in mastery learning
is the time required to reach the levels of attainment. The notion is that learning
should be held constant and time should be allowed to vary, rather than
the opposite, which is the norm in traditional instruction.
Willett et al (1983) reviewed a dozen
different innovations in teaching strategies and found that mastery learning
had the highest effects.
Worked Examples (d = 0.57 rank 30/138 P.172)
Worked examples are increasingly used to
demonstrate to students what “success” looks like and thus what the goal could
be for their own learning. They can also be used for comparison and analysis
after the discussion and formulation of success criteria.
With problem-solving, worked examples are
used to alleviate the cognitive load for students so that they can concentrate
on the processes that lead to the answer, not just providing an answer (that
may or may not be correct)
Implementations that emphasize feedback
Feedback ( d = 0.73 rank 10/138 P.173)
Since Hattie’s first meta-analyses of
influences on student achievement in 1992, it has been clear that feedback is
among the most powerful of these influences. He did not initially realise that
the most powerful feedback is that provided to the teacher, especially by the
student, but also by other teachers. When teachers seek, or are at least open
to, feedback from students as to what students know, what they understand,
where they have misconceptions, when they are not engaged – then teaching and
learning can be synchronised and powerful. Feedback to teachers helps to make
learning powerful.
Quality feedback to students is also
effective, but while many teachers think they are providing regular, quality
feedback, students often disagree!
Carless (2006) asked students and teachers
whether teachers provided detailed feedback that helped them with their
assignments. About 70% of teachers said they did this often or always, but only
45% of students agreed with these claims. Further, Nuthall (2005) found that
most feedback that students obtained in any day in classrooms was from other
students, and most of this feedback was incorrect.
Extrinsic Rewards
Programmed instruction, praise, punishment
and extrinsic rewards were the least effective forms of feedback. Deci,
Koestner and Ryan (1999) found a negative correlation between extrinsic rewards
and motivation and task performance. Tangible rewards significantly undermined
intrinsic motivation, particularly for interesting tasks (d = - 0.68), compared
to uninteresting tasks (d = 0.18). In addition, when feedback was administered
in a controlling manner (eg saying that the student performed as they “should”
have performed), the effects were even worse (d = -0.78). Thus Deci et al
concluded that extrinsic rewards are typically negative because they “undermine
people’s taking responsibility for motivating or regulating themselves”.
Rather, extrinsic rewards are a controlling strategy that often leads to
greater surveillance, evaluation and competition, all of which have been found
to undermine enhanced engagement & regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
A model of feedback (see P.176)
Hattie’s model of feedback concludes with
feedback at four levels:
- Task level – How well tasks are understood / performed.
This feedback may
indicate whether the work is correct or incorrect and may include directions to
more, different or correct information, such as “You need to include more about
the Treaty of Versailles”.
- Process level – The process needed to understand / perform tasks.
This feedback is
more directly aimed at the processing of information, or learning processes
needed for understanding or completing the task. A teacher or peer may say to
the learner “ You need to edit this piece of writing by attending to the
descriptors you have used, so the reader is able to understand the nuances of
your meaning” – or for a younger age group “You need to use more powerful
adjectives to help the reader understand how the person is feeling – use one of
these or your own: devastating; appalling (Shirley Clarke’s Example Comment).
- Self-regulation level – Self-monitoring, directing and regulating of actions.
This feedback
helps the student to self-regulate, encouraging greater skill at
self-evaluation, or confidence to engage further with the task without relying
on the teacher for help. For example “You already know the key features of the
opening of an argument. Check to see whether you have incorporated them in your
first paragraph”.
Levels 2 & 3 can have major influences
on self-efficacy, self-regulatory proficiencies and self-beliefs about the
student as a learner, such that the student is encouraged or informed how to
better and more effortlessly continue on task.
- Self Level – Personal evaluations and effect (usually positive) on the learner.
This feedback is
personal in that it is directed at the “self”, which is too often unrelated to
performance on the task, eg “You are a great student”, “Well done!”
Level 4 feedback is rarely effective and
does not raise achievement. It draws attention to the self, which encourages
students to avoid the risks involved in tackling a challenging assignment, so
they minimize effort, having a high fear of failure (Dweck, 2000, Black &
Wiliam, 1998).
In conclusion, it is important to remember
that feedback is only really effective when it follows up effective
instruction: it needs initial learning or surface information to build on. If a
student has not listened to or understood the basic elements of initial
instruction, any amount of feedback is likely to be of little use. Feedback is
what happens second, is one of the most powerful influences on learning, occurs
too rarely (especially quality or focused feedback) and is most powerful when
provided to the teacher.
Frequent testing/Effects of testing (d = 0.34 rank 79/138 P.178)
Another form of feedback is frequent
testing, but this is only effective if there is feedback from the tests to
the teachers such that they modify their instruction to attend to the strengths
and gaps in student performance. Gocmen (2003) found an effect size of
d = 0.41 from frequent testing, but this was much higher when accompanied by
feedback (d = 0.62) compared to no feedback (d = 0.30).
Lee (2006) investigated the effects of
statewide high-stakes testing and test-driven accountability policies on
reading and Maths in USA since 1990. He found a d = 0.36 effect (d = 0.29 for
reading and d = 0.38 for Maths), but the effects only occurred in elementary schools
(d = 0.44) and middle schools (d = 0.35) and not in high schools (d = 0.03).
There have been very mixed results from studies of states in USA using high
stakes testing. For example, Lee (2006) found that states with the strongest
accountability programs made greater gains over the years than those with
weaker accountability. But he noted that these gains mapped to a similar
trajectory to how the states had been performing before they introduces high
stakes accountability.
Providing formative evaluation of
programs (d = 0.90 rank 3/138 P.181)
As we have already found, feedback to
teachers on what is happening in their classrooms so they can ascertain “How am
I going?” in achieving the learning intentions they have set for their
students, so they can then decide “Where to next?” for the students. Formative
evaluation provides one such form of feedback and involves teachers looking
carefully at evidence of the effectiveness of teaching programs, innovations
etc with an open mind. Their willingness to seek evidence of where students are
not doing well in order to improve the innovation, the keenness to see the
effects on all students and the openness to new experiences that make the
difference. Interventions are not “change for change’s sake” for not all
innovations are successful. The major message is for teachers to pay
attention to the formative effects of their teaching, as it is these attributes
of seeking evaluation of the effects (intended or unintended) of their programs
that makes for excellence in teaching.
Questioning (d = 0.46 rank 53/138 P.182)
Feedback can
also come from teachers asking questions of their students, although it is an
adage that teachers already know the answer to most of the questions they ask.
The use of questions, especially higher order questions can be a “powerful
strategy for building comprehension” (Gadamer, 1993) and can lead to “,,,
improved comprehension, learning and memory of the materials among school
children as well…” (Craig et al, 2006). So much of class time is spent by
teachers asking questions of their students (often 300-400 questions per day –
Brualdi, 1998), but usually these are not open, inquiry questions, they are
“display questions” that the teacher knows the answer to and do not enhance
understanding or thinking. Redfield & Rousseau (1981) found that gains in
achievement may be expected when teachers are trained in questioning skills.
Perhaps of more importance than teacher
questioning is analysing the questions that students ask. Structuring class sessions
to entice, teach and listen to students’ questioning of students is powerful
(Hattie et al, 1998).
Time on Task (d = 0.38 rank 70/138 P.184)
Spending more time on learning (longer
school day or school year etc) is unlikely to improve educational performance
(Walberg, Niemiec & Frederick, 1994). The key to enhancing learning is to increase
productive time. Berliner (1984) and Yair (2000) found that “engaged”
learning time is usually around 40-50% of lesson time. The percentage was lower
when teachers were lecturing or students watching TV and higher when students
were working in groups or laboratories. The more students felt “challenged, and
the greater the academic demands on students – the more the students are
engaged with instruction – the less prone they are to external preoccupations”
(Yair, 2005).
Success depends not on the amount of
practice or experience that is important in learning new skills, but the
amount of deliberate, relevant, effort to improve performance. This
deliberate practice needs to be “at an appropriate, challenging level of
difficulty and enable successive refinement by allowing for repetition, giving
room to make and correct errors, and providing informative feedback to the
learner” (Van Gog, Ericsson, Rikers & Paas, 2005). They further noted that
such practice requires students to stretch themselves to higher levels of
performance, and requires much concentration and effort over extended periods,
usually of fixed times over many days.
Spaced and massed practice (d = 0.71 rank
12/138 P.185)
It is the frequency of different
opportunities rather than merely spending more time on task that makes the
difference to learning. So teachers need to increase the rate of correct
academic responses to deliberative practice opportunities until minimal levels
of mastery (defined by success criteria) are met (Walker, Greenwood, Hart &
Carta, 1994). This finding helps us to understand a common denominator to many
of the effective practices in this book, such as direct instruction, peer-tutoring,
mastery learning and feedback. Deliberative practice increases opportunities to
not only enhance mastery but also fluency (the core of precision teaching).
This
is not “drill and practice”, which can so often be: Dull and repetitive,
involve minimal feedback, not extend or provide multiple different experiences
etc. Deliberative practice can involve specific skills and complex
performances, and the attainment of success criteria can be motivating and lead
to longer retention of sometimes over-learned surface and deep knowing
(Péladeau, Forget & Gagné, 2003).
Study Skills (d = 0.59 rank 25/138 P.189)
Study skills interventions can be
classified as cognitive, meta-cognitive and affective. Cognitive
interventions focus on task-related skills such as note taking and summarizing.
Meta-cognitive interventions focus on self-management learning skills such as
planning; monitoring; and where, when and how to use strategies. Affective
interventions focus on non-cognitive features of learning such as motivation
and self-concept.
The key message in this section is that
courses in study skills alone have limited impact, whereas combining study
skills with subject content can make a real difference.
Lavery (2008) found the highest effects
from strategies that aimed at the “forethought” phase of learning, such as
goal-setting and planning, self-instruction and self-evaluation. Organising and
transforming (eg rearrangement of instructional materials to improve learning /
making an outline before writing a paper) has been found to be a valuable
component of many interventions.
Hattie et al (1996) concluded that “the
best results came when strategy training was used meta-cognitively, with
appropriate motivational and contextual support” and questioned whether
“learning to learn” programmes that are
not embedded in the context of the subject are of much value.
Matching Styles of Learning (d = 0.41
rank 62/138 P.195)
It is often claimed that when teaching is
aligned with the preferred or dominant learning style of students then
achievement is enhanced. Hattie found that many of the studies making these
claims were flawed, although he did find that when students enjoy learning then
achievement is likely to be higher (which is not surprising!). Hattie found
that studies tended to confuse learning strategies, which do make a difference,
with learning styles, which do not.
Concluding Comments
The argument defended in this chapter is
that successful learning is a function of the clarity of challenging learning
intentions, the specifications and the success criteria; the power of using
multiple and appropriate teaching strategies with a particular emphasis on the
presence of feedback at the right level of instruction; a classroom environment
that not only tolerates, but welcomes errors; seeing learning and teaching from
the students’ perspective; and placing reliance on teaching study skills and
strategies of learning.
Emphasizing learning styles, coaching for
tests, mentoring and individualized instruction are notes for their lack of
impact.
The contributions from teaching
approaches – part 11
This chapter investigates a range of
teaching strategies, school-wide programs, implementations using technologies,
and out of school learning. As noted in the previous chapter, there are the
same common themes in what makes some of these successful – pre-planning,
deliberate attention to learning intentions and success criteria, and a
constant effort to ensure teachers are seeking feedback on how successfully
they are teaching their students.
Teaching strategies ( d = 0.60 rank 23/138 P.200)
The teaching of strategies covers a wide
ambit of methods and has among the higher effect sizes, although most of these
meta-analyses relate to special education or students with learning
difficulties.
Swanson & Hoskyn (1998) included
methods such as: explanation, elaboration, and plans to direct task
performance; modelling from teachers including verbal modelling, questioning
and demonstration; reminders to use certain strategies or procedures; step by
step prompts or multi-process instructions; dialogue between teacher and
student; questions from teachers; and provision by the teacher of necessary
assistance only. Their research focused specifically on students with learning
disabilities.
Marzano (1998) concluded that “the
effective teacher is one who has clear instructional goals. These goals are
communicated to students and to parents. Ideally the instructional goals
address elements of the knowledge domains as well as the cognitive,
meta-cognitive and self-system and it is most important for the teacher to understand
the interrelationships among the various domains.
Reciprocal teaching ( d = 0.74
rank 9/138 P.203)
Reciprocal teaching was devised as an
instructional process to teach students cognitive strategies that might lead to
improved learning outcomes (initially in reading comprehension). The emphasis
is on teachers enabling their students to learn and use cognitive strategies
such as summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting, and these are
“supported through dialogue between teacher and students as they attempt to
gain meaning from text” Rosenshein & Meister, 1994. Each student takes a
turn at being the “teacher” and often the teacher and students take turns
leading a dialogue concerning sections of a text. Students check their own
understanding of the material by generating questions and summarizing. Expert
scaffolding is essential for cognitive development as students move from
spectator to performer after repeated modelling by adults. The aim, therefore,
is to help students actively bring meaning to the written word, and assist them
to monitor their own learning and thinking.
Direct Instruction ( d = 0.59
rank 26/138 P.204)
Direct Instruction good, assertive teaching
using AfL and modelling. It involves seven major steps:
- Teacher has a clear idea of the learning intentions before the lesson.
- Teacher knows what success criteria of performance are to be expected, when and what students will be held accountable for from the lesson/activity. Students need to be informed about the standards of performance.
- There is a need to build commitment and engagement in the learning task (ie a “hook” to grab the students’ attention and interest).
- There are guides to how the teacher should present the lesson – including input (lecture, film, video, tape, pictures, etc), modelling, checking for understanding (and re-teaching a concept or skill if not understood).
- Guided practice – an opportunity for each student to demonstrate his or her grasp of new learning by working through an activity, while the teacher moves around determining level of mastery and providing instant feedback.
- There is the closure (or plenary) part of the lesson. Closure involves those actions or statements by a teacher (or by a student) that are designed to bring a lesson or part of a lesson to a close, usually involving reviewing and clarifying the key points.
- There is independent practice. This reinforces the content or a skill on a repeating schedule so that the learning is not forgotten. This can provide for decontextualisation: enough different contexts so that the skill or concept can be applied to any relevant situation. For example, if the lesson is about inference from reading about dinosaurs, independent practice could be about inference from reading about whales. The failure to do this seventh step is often deemed responsible for most student failure to be able to apply something leaned.
The effects of
direct instruction are similar for regular (d = 0.99) and special education and
lower achieving students (d = 0.86), higher for reading (d = 0.89) than maths
(d = 0.54), similar for low level word-attack (d = 0.64) and high level
comprehension (d = 0.54), and similar for elementary and high school students
(Adams & Engleman, 1996).
The messages of
these meta-analyses underline the power of stating the learning intentions and
success criteria, and then engaging students in working towards these – surely
commonly accepted as good, assertive teaching in modern classrooms?
Problem-solving teaching (d = 0.61
rank 20/138 P.210)
Problem solving involves the act of
defining or determining the cause of the problem, identifying, prioritizing and
selecting alternatives for a solution; or using multiple perspectives to
uncover the issues related to a particular problem, designing an intervention
plan and then evaluating the outcome. Hembree (1992) found significant direct
links between problem solving and various measures of basic performance, in
particular skills in basic mathematics. The teacher characteristic with the
most positive effect on student performance was specialist training in
heuristic* methods (d = 0.71).
Marcucci’s (1980)
meta-analysis of research on methods of teaching mathematical problem solving
also supported the power of teaching the heuristic* method of problem solving.
Curbelo (1984) found similar effects of problem solving in maths, but these
effects were twice as high as they were in science.
Cooperative
Learning (various effect sizes – see below
P.212)
There are four groups of
meta-analyses that involve cooperative learning.
1.
Those that compare cooperative
learning vs heterogeneous classes (d = 0.41 rank 63/138)
2.
Those that compare cooperative
vs individualistic learning (d = 0.59 rank 24/138)
3.
Those that compare cooperative
vs competitive learning (d = 0.54 rank 37/138)
4.
Those that compare competitive
vs individualistic learning (d = 0.24 rank 96/138)
Both cooperative and competitive
learning are more effective than individualistic methods – pointing again to
the power of peers in the learning equation.
There seems a universal
agreement that cooperative learning is effective, especially when contrasted
with competitive and individualistic learning. The New Zealand education system
comes out top on cooperativeness in international comparisons – but it also
comes top in competitiveness. The notion that both could be beneficial seems
too often forgotten, as most of the research contrasts one with the other.
Further, cooperative learning has a prime effect on enhancing interest and
problem solving provided it is set p with high levels of peer involvement.
Roseth, Fang,
Johnson & Johnson (2006) concluded that under cooperative conditions,
interpersonal relations have the strongest influence on achievement, and this
clearly points to the value of friendship in the achievement equation. As they
concluded “if you want to increase student academic achievement, give each
student a friend”. Friendship in schools is not only powerful for the student’s
sense of well-being but it also facilitates a student’s sense of
school-belonging (Hamm & Fairclough, 2007) – although for too many
adolescents friendships can have the opposite effect if they convey the message
that “learning is not cool”.
Peer learning can
be powerful – whether cooperatively or competitively. As Nuthall (2007) has
shown, most feedback that students receive is from other students (although
most of it is incorrect). When there is some structure to this peer learning
(as in most instances of cooperative and competitive learning) then the power
of peers can be unleashed. Students are more able to collectively make and
learn from errors, and their conversations can assist in having the goals,
learning intentions and success criteria spelt out for all.
Computer-assisted
instruction (d = 0.37 rank 71/138
P.220)
There have been nearly 5,000
studies involving nearly 4,000,000 people on the effects of computer-assisted
instruction. Across the various meta-analyses there was little difference
across age groups or ability levels of students. There are some differences
across subjects, but not in any meaningful way, and no differences relating to
the duration of the computer intervention. The use of computers can assist in
engagement and positive attitudes to learning and school. They can also
increase the probability of learning, but there is no necessary relation
between having computers, using computers and outcomes.
An analysis of
the meta-analyses of computers in schools indicates that computers are used
effectively when:
a)
There is a diversity of
teaching strategies
b)
There is a pre-training
in the use of computers as a teaching and learning tool
c)
There are multiple
opportunities for learning
d)
The student, not the
teacher is in “control” of learning
e)
Peer learning is
optimized
f)
Feedback is optimized.
This list should come as no
surprise given the rest of the claims in Visual Learning, as they also
emphasize the “visible learning – visible teaching” messages.
To develop this message further:
a)
There is a diversity of
teaching strategies
An advantage of the computer is
that the method of teaching is most likely to be different from that
experienced when the teacher instructs the students – at minimum students get
to experience two different teaching strategies. There is an advantage for
computer work to be a supplement (d = 0.45) rather than a substitute (d = 0.30)
for teacher instruction.
b)
There is a pre-training in
the use of computers as a teaching and learning tool
Teachers are frequent users of
computers, but more for their personal and administrative use. Many find it
difficult to see how computers can be related to their particular conceptions
of teaching. Jones (1991) found that more than 10 hours of pre-training had the
greatest effect (d = 0.53). More importantly he claimed that “less than 10
hours of training is not only unproductive, but it is counterproductive. Those
teachers who received such short-term training seem to have classes that
achieve substantially less than average computer-using classes, whereas
teachers receiving more than 10 hours pre-training achieve up to 72% additional
gain beyond the average computer using class”,
c)
There are multiple
opportunities for learning
There are many
ways whereby the use of computers can assist with multiple learning
opportunities, e.g tutorials and programming, word-processing, drill and practice,
simulations & problem-solving. Tutorials involve structured learning
experiences and these seem to have the greatest effects. Many computer packages
may be of better instructional quality than many teachers’ instructional
methods. Of particular interest is the effects of drill and practice – and
despite the moan by many adults, students need much drill and practice. However
it does not need to be dull and boring, but can be, indeed should be, engaging
and informative. Key attributes that led to higher effects were learner
control, not losing sight of the learning goal, and the immediate announcement
of correctness or otherwise of the answer to the drill.
d)
The student, not the
teacher, is in “control” of the learning
A key finding was the increased
effectiveness of computer-aided instruction when the student was in control of
his/her learning (ie pacing, time allocations for mastery, sequencing and
pacing of instructional materials, choice of practice items, reviewing). For
example, when using word-processors, students tend to write more and of better
quality than when asked to write on paper. This is especially true of weaker
writers.
e)
Peer learning is
optimized
Using computers in pairs is much
more effective than when computers are used alone or in larger groups. Peers
can be involved in problem solving, suggesting and trying new strategies, and
working through possible next steps. As is noted in the sections on group
learning, students can learn most effectively when working together, as it
exposes them to multiple perspectives, revision on their thinking, varied
explanations for resolving dilemmas, more sources of feedback and correction of
errors.
f) When
feedback is optimized
A further
advantage of computers is that they respond to the student despite who they are
– male or female, black or white, slow or fast. Teachers claim expertise in
anticipating students’ reactions and deciding when and to whom to provide
feedback, but given the low levels of feedback in most classrooms it is clear
that this flexibility means that many students miss out. Computer feedback is
potentially less threatening to students and can occur in a more programmed
manner. (Blok, Oostdam, Otter & Overmatt, 2002).
Homework ( d = 0.29 rank 88/138 P.234)
Homework is a hotly contested area.
Many parents seem to judge the effectiveness of schools by the presence or
amount of homework – although they expect not to be involved in this learning
other than by providing a quiet and secluded space, as they believe that these
are the right conditions for deep and meaningful learning.
Cooper (1989)
argued that the effects of homework are twice as large for high as for junior
high, and twice as large again for junior high as for elementary students.
Shorter homeworks tend to be more effective, especially if the material is not
complex and is novel.
Trautwein,
Koller, Schmitz & Baumert (2002) found that a lot of homework and a lack of
monitoring seem to indicate an ineffective teaching method. They warned against
homework that undermined a student’s motivation and that led to the student
internalising incorrect routines. The effects are greater for higher rather
than lower achieving students, and for older rather than younger students. For
too many students, homework reinforces that they cannot learn by themselves,
and that they cannot do the schoolwork. The effects are highest when homework
involves rote learning, practice or rehearsal of the subject matter.
It is important
to note that prescribing homework does not develop time management skills.
Concluding comments (P.236)
There are many teaching strategies
that have an important effect on student learning. As noted above, effective
teaching occur when the teacher decides the learning intentions and success
criteria, makes them transparent to the students, demonstrates them by
modelling, checks for understanding, and reinforces what they have been told by
tying it all together with closure. These effective teaching strategies involve
much cooperative preplanning and discussion between teachers, optimizing peer
learning, and require explicit learning intentions and success criteria.
Peers play a
powerful role, as is demonstrated in the strategies involving reciprocal
teaching, learning in pairs on computers, and both cooperative and competitive
learning (as opposed to individualistic learning).
It is clear that,
yet again, it is the differences in the teachers that make the difference in
student learning. Related to these teacher influences are the lower effects of
many of the interventions when they are part of comprehensive teaching reforms.
Many of these are top-down innovations, which mean that teachers do not
evaluate whether the reforms are working for them or not.
Bringing it all together (P.237)
Hattie’s story is
about the visibility of teaching and learning; It is the power of passionate,
accomplished teachers who focus on students’ cognitive engagement with the
content of what it is they are teaching. It is about teachers who focus their
skills in developing a way of thinking, reasoning, and emphasizing
problem-solving and strategies in their teaching about the content they wish
their students to learn. It is about teachers enabling students to do more than
what teachers do unto them; it is the focus on imparting new knowledge and
understanding and then considering and monitoring how students gain fluency and
appreciation in this new knowledge and build conceptions of this knowing and
understanding. It is how teachers and students strategize, think about, play
with and build conceptions about worthwhile knowledge and understanding.
Monitoring, assessing and evaluating the progress in this task is what then
leads to the power of feedback – which comes second in the learning equation.
Feedback to students involves providing information and understanding about the
tasks that make the difference in light of what the student already
understands, misunderstands, and constructs. Feedback from students to teachers
involves information and understanding about the tasks that make the difference
in light of what the teacher already understands, misunderstands, and
constructs about the learning of his or her students. It matters when teachers
see learning through the lens of the student grappling to construct
beliefs and knowledge about whatever is the goal of the lesson. This is never
linear, not always easy, requires learning and over learning, needs dollops of
feedback, involves much deliberative practice, leads to lots of errors and
mis-directions, requires both accommodating and assimilating prior knowledge
and conceptions, and demands a sense of excitement and mission to know,
understand and make a difference.
The conclusions
are recast here as six signposts towards excellence in education:
1.
Teachers are among the post
powerful influences in learning.
2.
Teachers need to be directive,
influential, caring, and actively engaged in the passion of teaching and
learning.
3.
Teachers need to be aware of
what each and every student is thinking and knowing to construct meaning and
meaningful experiences in light of this knowledge, and have proficient
knowledge and understanding of their content to provide meaningful and
appropriate feedback such that each student moves progressively through the
curriculum levels.
(NB Expert teachers meet and work
together to constantly improve towards this ideal).
4.
Teachers need to know the
learning intentions and success criteria of their lessons, know how well
they are attaining these criteria for all students, and know where to go
next in light of the gap between students’ current knowledge and
understanding and the success criteria of: “Where are you going?”, “How are you
going?” and “Where to next?”
5.
Teachers need to move from the
single idea to multiple ideas, and to relate and then extend these ideas such
that learners construct and then reconstruct knowledge and ideas. It is not the
knowledge or ideas, but the learner’s construction of this knowledge and these
ideas that is critical.
6.
School leaders and teachers
need to create school, staffroom, and classroom environments where error is
welcomed as a learning opportunity, where discarding incorrect knowledge and
understandings is welcomed, and where participants can feel safe to learn,
re-learn, and explore knowledge and understanding.
In these six
signposts, the word “teachers” is deliberate, as a major theme is when teachers
meet to discuss, evaluate, and plan their teaching in the light of the feedback
evidence about the success or otherwise of their teaching strategies and
conceptions about progress and appropriate challenge. This is not critical
reflection, but critical reflection in light of evidence about their
teaching.
Will evidence make a difference?
The theme throughout this book is
that the beliefs and conceptions held by teachers need to be questioned – not
because they are wrong (or right) but because the essence of good teaching is
that teachers’ expectations and conceptions must be subjected to debate,
refutation, and investigation. Only then can there be major improvements in
student achievement. We need to ask about the conceptions of teaching that have
led to teachers making decisions about:
·
What is best to teach next,
without attending closely to what these students already know;
·
What materials to choose, with
no regard to any evidence (other than prior use) that these are the optimum
materials (and so often these materials are made by the cottage industry in
teachers’ homes);
·
How to keep students engaged
and busy, but not ensuring that they actually learn
·
What activities provoke the
most interest, instead of asking what leads to students putting in effort (it
is the effort, not the interest level, of the activity that is important)
·
How to maximise the challenge
of the learning goals and create structures for students to learn via the
challenge, rather than structuring the material so that it is easy to learn.
Teachers and principals need to
collect the effect sizes within their schools and then ask “What is working
best?”, “Why is it working best?”, and “Who is it not working for?”. This will
create a discussion among teachers about teaching. This would require a caring,
supportive staffroom, a tolerance of errors, and for learning from other
teachers, a peer culture among teachers of engagement, trust, shared passion,
and so on. Trust reduces the sense of vulnerability that teachers experience as
they take on new and uncertain tasks associated with reform. Trust also
maximises the occurrence of error and thus allows feedback to be powerful in
use and effectiveness. To engender reform that will make a difference requires
incentives primarily in terms of teachers learning about their teaching, about
what is working and for whom, and from sharing evidence of the effectiveness of
their methods.
The personal nature of
learning
Olson (2003)
states it simply – it is students themselves, in the end, who decide what
students will learn. Thus we must attend to what students are thinking, what
their goals are, and why they would want to engage in learning what is offered
in schools. Learning is very personal to the teacher and to each
student. While we assemble students in groups (classes, within-class groups),
the meaning of the implications of education is personal for each of us. This
does not mean we need to attend to individualized instruction but that we need
to be aware of the progression of knowledge and understanding for each student
– and how they learn by themselves, learn with others, and learn with adults,
along with awareness of what they bring from their home and their culture.
There are at least three worlds in the classroom (Nuthall, 2005): the public
world, which includes teacher-led discussion and work tasks; the private-social
world of informal peer interactions, whispers, and note-passing; and the
private-individual world of self-talk and thinking. Each world has its own
characteristic patterns of behaviour, interaction structures, customs, rules,
roles, expectations, and discourse.
Nuthall’s major
conclusion related to “how little
teachers knew about what was going on in their classrooms”. He found that
students lived in a personal and social world of their own in the classroom,
they already knew 40% of what the teachers intended them to learn, a third of
what each student learned was not learned by any other student in the class,
students learned how and when the teacher would notice them and how to give
appearance of active involvement, and a quarter of the specific concepts and
principles that students learned were critically dependent on private peer-talk
or on self-designed activities or use of resources. The world of learning and
classrooms from the student’s personal viewpoint is so often unknown to the
teacher – hence reinforcing Hattie’s major claim that teachers need to spend
more time and energy understanding learning through the eyes of students.
Tutoring Tactics in United States
ReplyDeleteWelcome to Tutoring Tactics, Get the best online tutoring services for kids in the United States. We provide the best online tuition's services for kids in the United States. Contact us now - +855-888-6711
to get more - https://www.tutoringtactics.com/