A much anticipated copy of John Hattie’s “Visible learning A synthesis of over 800 meta - analyses relating to achievement” was sitting in the corridor in its yellow bubble wrapped Amazon envelope waiting for me to get home from the Pakuranga Schools TOD yesterday. I have been hanging out to read the book that summarises 15 years of his research and thinking about influences on student achievement.
I will admit here that Hattie is one of my most favourite educational thinkers. I regard him, as I do Illich, as someone who has brought an unusual and much needed clarity to my own teaching and learning.
For example, take Hattie's thinking on class size effects on student learning.
It seems plausible to claim that reducing class sizes will improve learning outcomes, and for as long as I can remember this has been the claim of lobbying by teachers and teacher unions for improving working conditions. Refer the Scoop piece from the NZEI. And until I read John's take on this a while back I had never challenged the assumption. It seemed highly plausible.
However, Hattie notes that although reducing class sizes might improve the probability that the environments for improving learning will occur; he has research that shows that it does not improve student learning outcomes per se.
Teachers get very agitated by this claim. But if they listened carefully to Hattie’s argument and read his research they would understand why he can validly claim that class size has minimal effect of learning outcomes.
Improving student learning outcomes through reducing class sizes requires that teachers moving to smaller class sizes “reconfigure the interaction, curricula, and strategies” they used with large classes to change the student interactions happening within the smaller classes.
And the provocative bit is that Hattie’s research shows that in many instances this does not happen.
We continue to use the same interaction, curricula and strategies with the students in our care regardless of how many students there are. If as teachers we do not change our practice when working with smaller class sizes , the quality of teaching, student learning and student interaction does not change when class sizes change.
It reminds me of the way I used to explain collision theory when I taught science. The student text put it like this:
A reaction occurs when particles collide. Not all collisions between particles result in a chemical reaction. If a reaction is to occur, the particles must collide with sufficient energy for a reaction to occur. They must also collide in the correct orientation (or position).
Finally, it is a fact that the more frequently effective collisions occur, the faster the rate of reaction. There are four factors that affect the rate of a reaction, by affecting the frequency (and possibly the energy) with which collisions occur. These factors are concentration of reacting solutions, surface area of solids, temperature and use of catalysts.
As a consequence I used to teach the kids to talk about increasing the rate of effective collisions rather than simply increasing the rate of collisions.
I have to unpack the analogy a little more but it starts with “learning happens when teachers interact with students. Not all interactions between teachers and students result in learning. If learning is to occur, the teacher and students interactions must be of sufficient quality for learning to occur. They teacher student interactions must also occur with .... ”
So Hattie’s argument is that not all collisions between teachers and students will result in learning. Simply increasing the frequency of those collisions without attention to changing the teaching and learning equivalent of the orientation of the collision and possibly the energy of the collision does not guarantee a reaction or improved learning outcomes.
As a consequence as teachers we need to talk about increasing the rate of effective interactions with students rather than simply increasing the rate of interactions.
Hattie's work alerts us to re-look at ourselves and our practice. To ask how can we assess and improve the quality of our teaching?
Opening “Visible learning” was an experience that reminded me of clasping one of those famous double scoop icecreams whilst standing in the sunshine on the banks of the Waikato River overlooking the power station in Huntly on Wednesday afternoon.
The dilemma of where to start when dealing with a rapidly melting double scoop chocolate ice-cream cone was not unlike the dilemma I faced when deciding where to start reading Visible Learning.
There was so much that I wanted to read that I was
made momentarily uncertain ...about where to begin.
I decided on a strategy of selecting pages at random; and of reading whatever text first caught my eye as the book splayed open. And this is a book that splays well. I was immediately rewarded by the following statement.
Constructivism is a form of knowing, and not a form of teaching, and it is important not to confuse constructing conceptual knowledge with the current fad of constructivism (Bereiter, 2002; Small 2003). Excerpt from Visible Learning “The empirical quest for explanations” on p243.
Hattie notes that his meta analyses findings back those of Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006); (researchers I’ve blogged about before) who reviewed minimal guidance during instruction teaching methods and found them wanting.
I liked the text clarifies the assumptions within inquiry and problem based learning approaches.
Assumption 1: Setting authentic problems leads to students constructing their own solutions.
Assumption 2: Knowledge is best acquired through experiences based on procedures of the discipline.
And I liked how the text explains that these assumptions are not supported by the data.
“...each new set of advocates for these approaches seem either unaware of uninterested in previous evidence that unguided approaches have not been validated.” P243
Hattie affirms that claims of engagement and enjoyment are not evidence of student learning.
All that “I know this works because “my students’ enjoy” or “the
class is so engaged”, when we do [discovery learning, problem based learning or
inquiry learning]” that I hear when working in schools.
Inquiry and problem based learning are not evidence based practice because the evidence that they work is lacking.
A key understanding from p243 in Visible Learning is that believing that students construct conceptual knowledge DOES NOT REQUIRE us to adopt minimally guided methodologies like inquiry learning and problem-based learning.
Forms of knowing are not forms of teaching.
If we believe that students learn through constructing conceptual knowledge, and that this is an active, social process where learners need “to create and recreate knowledge of themselves”, then direct and active teaching for this learning is the smart solution - both possible and appropriate.
Just look at the effect size data Hattie provides.
Table 11.1 Effect sizes of teacher as activator and teacher as facilitator
|
Teacher as activator |
d |
Teacher as facilitator |
d |
|
Reciprocal
teaching |
0.74 |
Simulations
and gaming |
0.32 |
|
Feedback |
0.72 |
Inquiry
based teaching |
0.31 |
|
Teaching
students self verbalisation |
0.67 |
Smaller
class sizes |
0.21 |
|
Meta-cognition
strategies |
0.67 |
Individualised
instruction |
0.20 |
|
Direct
instruction |
0.59 |
Problem-based
learning |
0.15 |
|
Mastery
learning |
0.57 |
Different
teaching for boys and girls |
0.12 |
|
Goals-challenging |
0.56 |
Web based
learning |
0.09 |
|
Frequent/effects
of testing |
0.46 |
Whole
language – reading |
0.06 |
|
Behavioural
organisers |
0.41 |
Inductive
teaching |
0.06 |
|
Average activator |
0.60 |
Average facilitator |
0.17 |
Table 11.1 from Visible Learning (2009) Page 243
The data in the table provides a powerful insight for teachers who want to make a difference to student learning; teachers who want to know where they should best put their energy.
When shared outside of the classroom it will also provides powerful argument for parents, Boards of Trustees, schools and communities who want to work together to improve student learning.
And what I like best is that, students learn significantly more when teachers adopt direct, active teaching methods.
Hattie’s effect size data resolves all that ambivalence between offering “deliberate and purposeful acts of teaching” or adopting that currently much acclaimed role of being a “guide on the side”, that stepping back and overseeing student inquiry.
And the question Hattie tackles in the next few pages (p244 to 247) is to explain the active teaching and learning strategies that teachers might work to improve their practice. Things like improving the way we use backward design, learning strategies for surface deep and constructed knowledge, feedback, helping students know where they are going, how they are going and where to next etc.
The effect size data and the elaboration on how we might improve the direct active teaching methods we adopt will undoubtedly help thoughtful teachers who like John Updike find that teaching takes all their energy and makes them doubt themselves.
I must continue reading.
Recent Comments