Está en la página 1de 52

Visible Learning, Tomorrow’s Schools Schools, The Mindsets that make the difference in Education

John Hattie Visible Learning Laboratories University of Auckland

Influences on Achievement ?

0

Decreased

Zero

Enhanced

Reducing Class Size on Achievement?
What is the effect of reducing class size Hundreds of evaluations of reducing class size ….
0

Decreased

Zero

Enhanced

Effect Eff t on Achievement over time? A hi t ti ?
Reducing Class Size

0
Decreased

.20 20

1.0
Enhanced

Zero

An effect‐size of advancing achievement % improving rate of learning % improving rate of learning r variable & achievement % of students with treatment exceeding those  not treated not treated

.20 9 mths 10% .10 8

1.0 3 yrs 45% .45 34

The typical influence on achievement
So what is the typical effect across    800+ meta-analysis meta analysis 50,000 studies, and 200+ million students

Effect Eff t on Achievement over time? A hi t ti ? Typical Effect Size 0 Decreased Zero .20 .40 1.0 Enhanced .

Distribution of effects 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 No. of Effe ects .

Rank these 12 effects: Answers 1 Acceleration (speed up a year) 2 Feedback 3 Student-teacher relationships 4 Teaching study skills 5 Reading Recovery 6 C Cooperative l ti learning i 7 Homework 8 Individualized instruction 9 Ability grouping 10 Open vs. traditional classes 11 Retention (hold back a year) 12 Shifting schools .

50 .29 .Rank these 12 effects: Answers 1 Acceleration (speed up a year) 2 Feedback 3 Student-teacher relationships 4 Teaching study skills 5 Reading Recovery 6 C Cooperative l ti learning i 7 Homework 8 Individualized instruction 9 Ability grouping 10 Open vs.12 . traditional classes 11 Retention (hold back a year) 12 Shifting schools .34 .41 41 .22 22 .88 88 .01 -.72 .59 .16 -.73 .

09 .12 -..16 16 -.05 . Traditional Summer vacation On Welfare Policies Retention R t ti Television Mobility Studies Effects ES 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 10 94 65 315 39 8 207 37 181 23 72 38 333 62 8 2675 540 540 .09 -.The Disasters .04 ..18 -.04 . Rank Influence College halls of residence Multi-grade/age classes Student control over learning Open vs.34 .01 -.

09 09 .09 .12 .15 .12 .09 . Rank Influence Mentoring Teacher education Ability grouping Gender Diet Teacher subject matter knowledge Distance Education Out of school curricula experiences Perceptual-Motor programs Whole language Studies Effects ES 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 74 85 500 2926 23 92 839 52 180 64 74 391 1369 6051 125 424 1643 50 637 197 .The Disasters .12 ..08 ..12 .06 .

15 . Rank 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 116 118 119 Influence Learning hierarchies Co Co.18 .16 .16 .Team teaching Web based learning Family structure Extra-curricula Programs Teacher Immediacy y Within class grouping Home school Home-school programs Problem based learning Sentence Combining programs Studies 24 136 45.19 .17 ..17 17 .19 .16 .The Disasters ..3 845 102 16 129 14 285 35 Effects 24 47 136 1733 68 16 181 14 546 40 ES .15 15 .

Rank 100 101 101 03 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Finances ( ) Illness (Lack of) Religious Schools Individualized instruction d dua ed st uct o Visual/Audio-visual methods Comprehensive Teaching Reforms Class size Charter Schools Aptitude/treatment interactions Personality Influence Studies 189 13 71 638 359 282 96 18 61 234 Effects 681 13 71 1185 85 231 1818 785 18 340 1481 ES .22 ..23 .20 20 .22 .23 .19 .23 .22 .21 .Not Worth it yet ..19 19 .

28 .28 .28 . yp g y Rank 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 96 98 99 Influence Exercise/Relaxation programs Desegregation Mainstreaming Teaching test taking & coaching Use of calculators Values/Moral Education Programs Competitive vs.24 24 .24 .23 . individualistic learning Special College Programs Programmed instruction Summer school Studies 227 335 150 275 222 84 831 108 493 105 Effects 1971 723 370 372 1083 97 203 108 391 600 ES .27 .24 ..27 .23 23 .Typical “average teacher” territory ..

33 33 .29 29 .34 ..32 .Typical “average teacher” territory .30 30 ..33 .32 32 .33 33 . average teacher Rank 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Influence Decreasing disruptive behavior Drugs Simulations Inductive teaching Ethnicity Teacher effects Inquiry based teaching Ability grouping for gifted students Homework Home visiting Studies 165 467 361 97 9 18 205 125 161 71 Effects 416 1839 482 103 9 18 420 202 295 52 ES .31 .29 .

Closer to Average … Rank 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 Time on Task Computer assisted instruction p Adjunct aids Bilingual Programs Principals/ School leaders Attitude to Mathematics/Science Exposure to Reading Drama/Arts Programs g Creativity Frequent/ Effects of testing Influence Studies 100 4899 73 128 491 288 114 715 21 569 Effects 136 8914 258 727 1257 664 293 728 447 1749 ES .38 .36 .34 .35 .35 .37 .36 .37 .37 .36 .

Average Rank R k 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Influence I fl Mathematics programs Behavioral organizers/Adjunct questions Cooperative learning Science Social skills programs Reducing anxiety Integrated Curricula Programs Enrichment Career Interventions Studies S di 706 577 306 884 540 121 61 214 143 Effects Eff 2404 1933 829 2592 2278 1097 80 543 243 ES .41 .40 40 .41 .40 .40 .39 39 .43 .38 38 .39 .

44 .44 .45 .46 .Average Rank 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 9 Motivation Early Intervention Questioning Pre school programs Quality of Teaching Writing Programs Expectations School size Self-concept S f Influence Studies 327 1704 211 358 141 262 674 21 324 Effects 979 9369 271 1822 195 341 784 120 2113 ES .47 .43 .43 43 .48 .43 43 .

.52 .50 .51 .48 48 .49 ..50 . Rank 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Influence Keller's PIS Peer i fl P influences Classroom management Outdoor/ Adventure Programs Interactive video methods Parental Involvement Play Programs Second/Third chance programs Small group learning Concentration/Persistence/ Engagement E t Studies 263 12 100 187 441 716 70 52 78 146 Effects 162 122 5 429 3930 1783 70 1395 155 587 ES .53 .Let’s have them ..52 .53 53 .52 52 .

Rank 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Influence Worked examples Home environment Socioeconomic status Concept mapping Challenging Goals Visual-Perception programs Peer tutoring Cooperative vs.55 . competitive learning Pre-term birth weight Classroom cohesion Studies 62 35 499 287 604 683 767 1024 46 88 Effects 151 109 957 332 820 5035 1200 933 136 841 ES .53 .57 57 .57 .56 .54 .57 .54 .Exciting ….55 55 .57 .

59 ..60 .58 . Rank 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Influence Problem solving teaching Not labeling students Teaching strategies Cooperative vs.61 .61 .58 .58 ..58 .59 .59 . individualistic learning Study skills Direct Instruction Tactile stimulation programs Phonics instruction Comprehension programs p p g Mastery learning Studies 221 79 5667 774 668 304 19 447 415 377 Effects 719 79 13572 284 2217 597 103 5990 2653 296 ES .Among the Winners .

The Winners .. Rank Influence Studies Effects ES 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Teacher-Student relationships Spaced vs.67 .72 .69 .67 67 ..65 65 .67 .71 .64 .62 62 . Mass Practice Meta-cognitive strategies Prior achievement Vocabulary programs V b l Repeated Reading programs Creativity P C ti it Programs Self-verbalization & Self-questioning Professional d P f i l development l t 229 63 63 3607 301 54 685 113 537 1450 112 143 9209 800 156 837 1150 1884 .

74 ..88 .75 .28 .44 1..90 . Rank R k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Influence I fl Self-reported grades Piagetian programs Providing formative evaluation Micro teaching Acceleration Classroom behavioral Comprehensive interventions for learning disabled students g Teacher clarity Reciprocal teaching p g Feedback Studies St di 209 51 30 402 37 160 343 na 38 1287 Effects Eff t 305 65 78 439 24 942 2654 na 53 2050 ES 1.88 .77 .73 .80 .The Winners .

Identifying what matters Percentage of Achievement Variance Teachers Students Home Peers Schools Principal P i i l .

Visible Teaching – Visible Learning .

Teachers/ Leaders as Evaluators A disposition to asking … p g • • • • • • • • How do I know this is working? How can I compare ‘this’ with ‘that’? H I ‘thi ’ ith ‘th t’? What is the merit and worth of this influence on learning? What is the magnitude of the effect? What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? What evidence would convince you that you are wrong? Where is the evidence that shows this is superior to other programs? Where have you seen this practice installed so that it produces effective results? Do I share a common conception of progress? p p g .MINDSETS – 1.

The use of Effect-sizes Average post .Average pre _______________________ spread (sd) Effect-size = or Average class1 – Average class 2 Effect-size = _____________________________ spread (sd) .

2. not the kids! Don’t blame the kids Social class/ prior achievement is surmountable All students can be challenged Strategies not styles Develop hi h student expectations D l high t d t t ti Enhance help seeking Develop De elop assessment capable st dents students The power of developing peer interactions The power of critique/error/feedback Self-regulations and seeing students as teachers . It’s about the teacher’s/leaders mindset.

3. immutable and fixed Teaching as an enabler not a barrier Engage in the total learning and not break into steps and chunks The Power of learning intentions The Power of success criteria . Teachers/Leaders as change agents Achievement is changeable and enhanceable vs.

inquiry or discovery based provider of engaging activities . passionate for their subject and for learning.The Contrasts  An active teacher. a change agent OR  A facilitative.

Activator or Facilitator ? An Activator Reciprocal teaching Feedback Teaching students self-verbalization Meta-cognition strategies Direct Instruction Mastery learning Goals .challenging Frequent/ Effects of testing Behavioral organizers A Facilitator Simulations and gaming Inquiry based teaching Smaller class sizes Individualized instruction Problem-based learning Different teaching for boys & girls Web-based learning Whole Language Reading Inductive teaching .

60 FACILITATOR .56 .06 .46 .72 .67 .15 Different teaching for boys & girls .Activator or Facilitator ? An Activator Reciprocal teaching Feedback Teaching students self-verbalization T hi t d t lf b li ti Meta-cognition strategies Direct Instruction Mastery learning Goals .12 W eb-based learning W hole Language Reading Inductive teaching .41 A Facilitator Simulations and gaming Inquiry based teaching Smaller l S ll class sizes i Individualized instruction Problem-based learning g ES .57 .challenging Frequent/ Effects of testing Behavioral organizers ES .31 .21 21 .17 .32 .59 .20 .09 .06 ACTIVATOR .74 .67 67 .

.4..  Where am I going?  How am I going? g g  Where to next? . Teachers/Leaders gaining feedback about themselves .

 strengths.5. Assessment as feedback – to teachers/leaders  Who did you teach well. achieved. to be achieved h h hi d b hi d  Levels and Progress Levels and Progress  Developing a common conception of progress Developing a common conception of progress . not so well  Wh Where are the gaps. who not so well  What did you teach well.

School profiles .

Individual Learning Pathways .

Curriculum Level Report .

Target Setting/ Expectations g g p Teacher or student target Polynomial regression target .

6. 6 Challenge or “Do your best” Do best Maintain the challenge not break it down Power of learning intentions Power of success criteria .

7. and What’s next h l d h ’ Peer teaching. It’s about “not knowing”/error Relationships in classrooms The importance of error and not knowing … Build trust and rapport Student more than teacher questioning Teacher clarity. learning It’s more about the learning than the teaching . support. assessment.

more than “do your best” Teachers who welcome e o .MINDSETS – 1. don’t blame the kids don t Teachers as Change Agents more than facilitators Teachers gaining feedback about their effectiveness & progress Teachers need to challenge. Teachers as Evaluators Teachers being responsible. and build trust among peers in classrooms Teachers who see assessment as informing them more than kids Teachers as Evaluators (of themselves more than of students) . a d bu d t ust eac e s o e co e error.

While more income leads to higher individual gains Less evidence it leads to higher economic growth at aggregate level. it can seen what the longer term implications of “more schooling” . When age is factored in.

Singapore .

South Korea .

50% secondary (2030).Pakistan under four models Fast Track – 99% primary (2015). 60% tertiary (2050) Global education trend – on historical trend data Constant Enrolment rates – assumes rates frozen at 2000 level Constant Absolute rates – the no of students frozen at 2000 level .

Narrow those gaps .

But the gap is not there … .

4 5. By empowering 2800 schools to be mini-markets. there is much wastage.Tomorrows’ Schools: Yesterday s Yesterday’s News The quest for a new metaphor 1. 3. Schools need to stop competing with each other other. 7. 7 8. teachers 6. Schools need to become the unit of evaluation. Adequacy more than Equity. There is no agency responsible for improvement. . The Th need f more i d d for independent evaluation of i iti ti d t l ti f initiatives. 4. Tomorrow’s Schools is having a negative effect on the career path of teachers. 2. The effects on student learning have been minimal.

determine optimal career paths for teachers and school leaders. is needed to devise a new metaphor that will • • allow different more regional/cluster models of schools to develop. resources . g p remove even further any disparities between schools and between ethnicity achievements. • • • • • • allow schools to become the major units of evaluation. and measure success more in terms of teaching and learning effects as well as on equity of resources. • • ensure all have adequate resources and teaching to attain appropriate outcomes. dependably assess and esteem quality teaching and teachers. further reduce competition between schools and allow more sharing of improvements particularly before schools are deemed to be failing failing. identify and reduce wastage. or some like process. create an agency responsible for evaluations of various initiatives.A Royal Commission.

What some teachers/leaders do!  Clear learning intentions  Challenging success criteria  Range of learning strategies  Know when students are not p g progressing g  Providing feedback  Visibly learns themselves .

Such that students …  Understand learning intentions  Are challenged by success criteria  Develop a range of learning strategies  Know when they are not progressing  Seek feedback  Visibly teach themselves .

visiblelearning.nz/staff/j.hattie@auckland.ac.nz www.education.co.nz .auckland.j.ac.hattie/ www.