Whether or not you are using the Phonics International Programme, feel free to visit this informal 'Chat' forum!
Here you will find all sorts of interesting articles, links to research and developments - and various interesting topics! Do join in!
Thanks to John Walker for flagging this particular piece based on a 'conversation' with John Hattie. This is really worth reading if you are a teacher:
In this issue of In Conversation, we present a thought- provoking interview with internationally acclaimed educator and researcher Dr. John Hattie, whose influential book Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement has been recognized as a landmark in educational research.
We learn more about “visible learning” – not only what it is but also what it isn’t. We are also exposed to Hattie’s passion for learning. It is a passion that shines through this interview as Hattie articulates his beliefs and values about the mind frames that underpin the visible learning concept.
Hattie’s work represents the single largest analysis of evidence-based research ever undertaken into what actually works in schools to improve learning. It has in turn created considerable discussion among professional educators about the many traditional assumptions the research challenges.
I find it quite fascinating to contrast the numeracy intervention study (Catch-up numeracy) with a similar intervention for literacy (Switch-on reading). The effect sizes are similar (0.2-0.3) and yet the numeracy intervention seems ineffective because when students were assigned to the same level of support, but without the catch-up numeracy materials, they did equally well (slightly better, in fact). However, the literacy intervention had no such control; it was only measured against no intervention at all. The question therefore arises as to whether the effect is due to the Switch-on methodology or just down to the time spent in the intervention, reading rather than doing other things.
Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn – A Review
Posted on October 21, 2013 by Harry Webb
I approached this book with interest. I have often found Hattie’s data useful and informative; particularly the data as presented in the original ‘Visible Learning’ book. Yes, there are problems with some of the comparisons that are made, and with one particular statistic, the Common Language Effect size (or CLE) that appears to have been computed incorrectly. However, in providing some general indication of the relative effects of different interventions, the data has power.
I have not been as enthusiastic about Hattie’s commentary on his data. It does not always fit with the evidence that he presents and I found that this made his 2012 follow-up ‘Visible Learning for Teachers’, a frustrating read.
Hot on the heels of his keynote at Whole Education’s annual conference is this 20 minute John Hattie interview with Graham Newell where he talks about the importance and role of teachers in improving outcomes for young people.
Listen to the latest edition of the Going Beyond CPD podcast to hear John Hattie’s stance on:
*The need for teachers to work together, collaboratively.
*Video-based CPD as part of micro-teaching.
*How Ofsted should be judging teachers.
*The pitfalls of UK’s education system.
Can we trust educational research? ("Visible Learning": Problems with the evidence)
I've been reading several books about education, trying to figure out what education research can tell me about how to teach high school English. I was initially impressed by the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of John Hattie's book, Visible Learning, and I can understand why the view of Hattie and others has been so influential in recent years. That said, I'm not ready to say, as Hattie does, that we must make all learning visible, and in particular that "practice at reading" is "minimally" associated with reading gains. I discussed a couple of conceptual issues I have with Hattie's take in an earlier post--I worry that Visible Learning might be too short-term, too simplistic, and less well-suited to English than to other disciplines. Those arguments, however, are not aimed at Hattie's apparent strength, which is the sweep and heft of his empirical data. Today, then, I want to address a couple of the statistical weaknesses in Hattie's work. These weaknesses, and the fact that they seem to have been largely unnoticed by the many educational researchers around the world who have read Hattie's book, only strengthen my doubts about the trustworthiness of educational research. I agree with Hattie that education is an unscientific field, perhaps analogous to what medicine was like a hundred and fifty years ago, but while Hattie blames this on teachers, whom he characterizes as "the devil in this story" because we ignore the great scientific work of people like him, I would ask him to look in the mirror first. Visible Learning is just not good science.
