A great blog:
http://leading-learning.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/making-learning-visible-john-hattie.html
looking again at John Hattie:
Making learning Visible (John Hattie)
Auckland University Professor John Hattie
has recently authored a study, based on research into 83 million
students, studying effective teachers around the world and has come up
with some reassuring results for creative teachers. It's all about trusting relationships and 'oodles of feedback'. Note - it is not about national testing, our government's highly unoriginal plan.
A link For more undated thinking about Hattie
It seems hard to avoid the brief press releases of Auckland
University Professor John Hattie's research in our newspapers. It is a
shame that the papers haven't done more in depth research of their own
into Hattie's findings.
Most teachers by now will know the main findings of Hattie's research from his previous papers
and creative teachers will be reassured that his research backs up
intuitive ideas gained from their experience. For such teachers Hattie's
findings will be obvious and common sense; unfortunately common sense
is not so common! A quick glance through Hattie's book provides
definitive evidence of what works and what doesn't.
What doesn't 'work' includes class sizes,homework and school type and he doesn't even mention our current governments
misguided focus on national testing.
I have my doubts about the importance of school type but as he states in
his book ' this is not a book about what cannot be influenced in
schools.... critical dimensions about class, poverty... are not
included.. not because they are unimportant, indeed they may be more
important than many of the influences discussed in this book. It is just
that I have not included these topics in my orbit'.
He also says that his book is not about qualitative studies. It only includes studies that were based on statistics.
Thankfully his finding give support to the intuitive ideas gained by creative teachers through their lived experience. Hattie does say his message is a positive one for teachers and that 'many teachers already think in the way the book argues'.
Although I appreciate his exclusion of the socio -economic dimensions
the effect of the environment students students come from has to faced up to. If not faced up to it places a impossible responsibility on schools and teachers in such areas.
Hattie's research also includes little criticism of the archaic industrial aged structures of secondary schools
which work against many of the relationship issues he found to be most
important. Although this is understandable, in light of Hattie's study,
it is a also a shame - a bit like patching up a sinking ship. In
previous paper he has written that his research would assist 'restoring
faith in the public school system'.
Elsewhere he mentions that effective practices are more often to be seen in primary schools.
If out of date school structures are not faced up his effective
teaching findings could well be simply cosmetic - getting better at a
bad job. And, indeed,
Hattie's development of better testing in
literacy and numeracy has had the effect of schools focusing on literacy
and numeracy and diverting valuable teachers energy away from other
equally important areas. Such thoughts would seem to place Hattie as an educational conservative unlike future orientated thinkers such as
Guy Claxton,
David Perkins,
Howard Gardner,
Robert Fried and Elliott Eisner etc, and creativity expert
Sir Ken Robinson.
To his credit he quotes that, for all the reforms, in many respects some
aspects of education are 'hardly different than 200 years ago' and that
his 'meta analysis' of research provides the potential to make real changes as its conclusions are 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
The big challenge of Hattie's findings, if implemented, would
mean 'a change in the conception of being a teacher...it necessitates a
different way of interacting and respecting students'. This brings us back to the writings of Guy Claxton and our current curriculum's emphasis on 'key competences'.
Hattie's meta analysis ( a synthesis of 50000 previous studies)
found that overwhelmingly student teacher interaction came out on top.
Hattie's book is about the power of directed teaching, focusing on 'what happens next' through feedback and monitoring. This is an approach that also informs the teacher about the success or failure of their teaching;
making learning for both teacher and student 'visible'.
Number one is teaching where the students know exactly how well
they're doing and can articulate this, and what they need to know, to
their teacher. Hattie says that teachers should ask themselves,
"how many of the kids in your classroom are prepare to say, in front of
class, 'we need help', we don't know what's going on', or ' what have
you learned?" This sort of trust, he says, is rare.
The most effective strategy of all is giving regular feedback
and fostering an atmosphere of trust - these are qualities within the
reach of every teacher to improve on.
I have to agree with the head of the secondary teachers union who has said , in response to Hattie's finding that,
'it is not rocket science'
but I disagree that it it would be common practice in our stressed
secondary schools. Hattie, in his book, commends the work of University
of Waikato's Russell Bishop study of the experiences of Maori students
which asks for a considerable change of approach in teacher student
relationships.
It is however not 'rocket science' for those creative teachers, past and present, found in our primary schools.
I liked Hattie's reference to philosopher Carl Popper's 'three worlds' ( a favourite of the late National Art Adviser Gordon Tovey, mentor to creative teachers in the 50 and 60s).
The first world of surface knowledge,
the second of thinking skills ( 'key competencies'), and
the third
creating deep concepts about what is worth learning. Tovey called the
'third world' the creative products resulting from learning. It places
'key competencies' in perspective for me.
Hattie writes that the major source of student variance lies
within 'the person who gently closes the door of the classroom door and
performs the teaching act'. His research focuses on
the difference between the 'expert' or 'excellent' teachers and the 'accomplished' or simply 'experienced'.
I would prefer the use of the phase 'creative' rather than 'expert'
because it is the 'artistry' of such teachers that make all the
difference.
Identifying and sharing such teachers quality teaching attributes is the focus of Hattie's research.
'While teachers', he says, 'have the power - few do damage, some
maintain a status quo in growth of students achievement,and many are
excellent'.
We need to identify, esteem, and grow those who have powerful influences on student learning.'
Papers are available on the Internet which outline all Hattie's ealier findings but
the
top teaching influences are : feedback, instructional quality, direct
instruction, remediation feedback, class environment and challenge of
goals.
'Expert' (or 'creative') teachers, Hattie found, had real respect for their learners as people with ideas of their own. They are
passionate about teaching and learning, able to present
challenging learning tasks ensuring 'deep learning' ( able to be transferred) and
show more emotionality about successes and failures in their work. They are able to
make lessons their own,
invite students to 'engage',
integrating and combining new learning with students prior knowledge. Their expertise ('artistry') allows them to
'read' their classrooms and to be
more responsive to learners.
Such creative teachers,Hattie writes, are very context bound and find it hard to think out of the specifics of their classroom.
They are extremely flexible and opportunistic, improvising to take advantage of contingencies and new information as it arises.
They are 'greater seekers and user of feedback'.
Interestingly research indicated that such teachers did not have
written lesson plans but all could easily describe mental plans for
their lessons. They were able to work intuitively and focus their energy
on the creative act. Creative teachers indeed!
Interestingly
it was pedagogical knowledge ( 'the art of teaching') rather than content knowledge that distinguished the 'expert' teachers.
The three things that separated 'expert' from 'experienced' teachers were: the
degree of challenge presented,
depth of student processing of knowledge and representation of what was worth finding out about, and
ongoing monitoring and feedback.
Five areas covered in Hattie's latest book are;
Students to develop: a 'positive learning disposition'
and to be 'open' to new learning. They need to develop 'engagement' with
learning goals so as to become 'turned on' so as to gain worthwhile
learning. Claxton's 'learnacy' or the NZ Curriculum's 'key
competencies'.
Homes to be helped develop 'positive parental expectations and aspirations' as 'positive parent alignment' with school is vital.
Schools to provide a positive , optimistic,
invitational, trusting and safe learning climate. One that welcomes
student errors and develops positive peer influences; that gives both
teachers and learner's respect as learners.
Teachers who are seen by their students as quality
teachers. Who provide clarity of expectations and a belief that all can
learn. Teachers who are 'open' to new ideas, who develop positive
learning climate, and who value the importance of student effort to
improve.
A curriculum that is explicit to learners and that provides challenging in depth experiences.
Hattie's work probably deserves greater consideration than I have given it as it is important. If teachers are to make the difference Hattie believes is possible then we need more than 'press releases'.
Hattie's on going research has identified teacher effectiveness ( or creativity) 'beyond doubt' and faces up to the fact that not all teachers are equal.
If the ideas Hattie has identified are known by all teachers
then all our students could do far better than is currently expected.
Applying such ideas is preferable to wasting teacher time and energy on the failed concept national testing.
Somewhere
in the deep dungeons of most ELT publishing houses, someone whose name
we don't know, but at a random guess he's not a socio-linguist, has done
some kind of very-necessary-to-show-on-the-page-so-it-feels-and-looks-like-Headway-because-the-teachers-might-be-afraid-if-it's-different kind of breakdown which goes -- well, if I knew the plot points I'd tell you.
