Ensure you have time to read this post from 2012 because the debate is current and relevant in 2014 – sadly… I need to think on the number of points made and not just by Grant but by the many discussion contributors.
I’ve never felt like I belonged to the teaching ‘norm’ and paid an enormous emotional (mostly) price over the years, sticking up for my students rights to be ‘allowed to learn’ in such a manner that suited them, their passions and way of working – regardless of where they came from!
Also, I do not believe we train teachers for teaching and learning but for a job – this is a problem. Hattie’s research, as examined by Grant in his blog, deserves to be thought through, the implications and affect that Hattie’s research has on our pedagogical thinking and practice does ultimately filter into and effect the lives and learning of our students.
Just as an aside – how does working with and through technology play a part in all of this ? Don’t have the answer right now but willing to continue to learn, to think and to examine it.
Thank you Grant and others – food for pedagogical thought.
I have been a fan of John Hattie’s work ever since I encountered Visible Learning. Hattie has done the most exhaustive meta-analysis in education. Thanks to him, we can gauge not only the relative effectiveness of almost every educational intervention under the sun but we can compare these interventions on an absolute scale of effect size.
Perhaps most importantly, Hattie was able to identify a ‘hinge point’ (as he calls it) from exhaustively comparing everything: the effect size of .40. Anything above such an effect size has more of an impact than just a typical year of academic experience and student growth. And an effect size of 1.0 or better is equivalent to advancing the student’s achievement level by approximately a full grade.
The caveat in any meta-anlysis, of course, is that we have little idea as to the validity of the underlying research. In a summary of…
View original post 599 more words