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 all research we are agnostic as to how ‘good’ the research is. (For a good critique of Hattie’s approach in particular and meta-analysis in education in general, read this.)
Fans of the book may be unaware that a brand new Hattie book has just been released entitled Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. In this slim but jam-packed book, Hattie takes us through the planning and teaching process, based on what works according to research. He provides a comprehensive set of checklists that reflect what best practice tells us we should consider in planning and teaching. And in an Appendix he provides a simple way for all teachers to gauge effect size of their teaching. Alas, the text is a bit too dense for the average teacher-reader, I think. But there are countless good pieces of advice, if one persists through the tiny print, lack of white space, and lots of data.(You can also hear and see Hattie discussing his research and its import here.)
As in Visible Learning, the (updated) rank order of those factors that have the greatest effect size in student achievement will be of interest to every teacher, administrator, and education professor.
Here is the rank-ordered list of the top effect sizes, with a half-dozen removed by me because they either refer to programs unknown outside of Australia & New Zealand – Hattie’s home base – or they refer to sub-sets of students (e.g. the learning disabled). And I am going to provide a bit of suspense with this list. I want you to guess which two factors come next after what is listed below; you’ll see why I wanted to add a bit of intrigue by the end. (I have also starred the factors that have an effect size of .7 or greater since these are significant gains):
- Student self-assessment/self-grading*
- Response to intervention*
- Teacher credibility*
- Providing formative assessments*
- Classroom discussion*
- Teacher clarity*
- Feedback*
- Reciprocal teaching*
- Teacher-student relationships fostered*
- Spaced vs. mass practice*
- Meta-cognitive strategies taught and used
- Acceleration
- Classroom behavioral techniques
- Vocabulary programs
- Repeated reading programs
- Creativity programs
- Student prior achievement
- Self-questioning by students
- Study skills
- Problem-solving teaching
- Not labeling students
- Concept mapping
- Cooperative vs individualistic learning
- Direct instruction
- Tactile stimulation programs
- Mastery learning
- Worked examples
- Visual-perception programs
- Peer tutoring
- Cooperative vs competitive learning
- Phonics instruction
- Student-centered teaching
- Classroom cohesion
- Pre-term birth weight
- Peer influences
- Classroom management techniques
- Outdoor-adventure programs
Can you guess the next two items on the rank order list?
“Home environment” and “socio-economic status.”
In other words, everything on the list has a greater effect on student achievement than the student’s background – despite the endless fatalism of so many teachers on this point (especially in the upper grades).
Co-incidentally, Jay Matthews in a recent Washington Post article discusses the remarkable gains in Arlington, VA, in which the achievement gap was greatly narrowed by sustained focused effort by district leaders. And the Gates Foundation released a preliminary report on its Measures of Effective teaching project that shows convincingly what any of us who have worked in schools for years knows: good teachers make a considerable value-added difference.
It is thus high time that we call teacher fatalism about their ability to achieve gains with poor or unmotivated students what it is: unprofessional, passive, and cynical thinking that has no place in school. It is a form of prejudice that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Beth Blaetz said:
I will be checking out Hattie’s books but to have this list at my finger tips will be a wonderful tool!!
llcullen said:
Thanks for the heads up on the book for teachers. I just bought it. I love VISIBLE LEARNING… I end up looking at it frequently as a type of resource manual. Thanks
Lori Cullen
http://attheprincipalsoffice.wordpress.com
Steve Hunsaker (@svh450) said:
Glad to see this. I had been hoping that you would weigh-in on Hattie.
Steve Hunsaker
Russ Goerend said:
HI, Grant,
Could you help me understand this further? I thought effect size was a measure of the effect a “technique” had when used with students. I thought it was a measure of the change from before student self-assessment, for example, to after using it. Is that not how it works? If it is, could you explain how “home environment” is measured in that way?
If that’s not how effect size works, would you mind explaining it a bit further?
Thanks.
grantwiggins said:
Good question, Russ. You are correct in the sense that when we do deliberate research or intervention we are looking at the net result of effect size. But Hattie was after something vaster – the effect size of any factor (as he put it “all influences on student achievement” – including factors that were neither deliberate nor under our control. Look at ETS’ own data on the SAT, for example: the effect size of SES of the parents is far greater than the effect size of the students’ GPAs in predicting SAT scores. Let me also paraphrase from Hattie: everything has an effect. Therefore the only thing that matters is the size of the effect. Here is a nice summary of effect size. Does that help?
Terry Heick said:
Hattie’s meta-analysis is fascinating in its sheer breadth. What still concerns me is the “fragmentation effect” it seems to encourage, at least as I’ve witnessed in being used. While noble in intent, by providing a check-list of “strategies that work,” it continues to de-center the more macro notion of instructional design.
S. Sims said:
“unprofessional, passive, and cynical”…
Wow! You sure are the sharp end of the corporate reformer stick. I bet that’ll inspire a lot of people to do better!
As someone who works in the trenches, I think you represent everything wrong about the corporate reform movement. As for your absolute certainty about home environment and socio-economic status not being important, check out the following:
http://educationnext.org/the-mystery-of-good-teaching/
“We found that the vast majority (about 60 percent) of the differences in student test scores are explained by individual and family background characteristics. All the influences of a school, including school-, teacher-, and class-level variables, both measurable and immeasurable, were found to account for approximately 21 percent of the variation in student achievement.”
I think all teachers want to make a difference, but not in an environment which is punitive and extremist.
grantwiggins said:
You clearly know little about who I am: 15 years of teaching kids, 30 years of working with teachers in schools all over the world including many schools in poor areas, and have no corporate bent; I vote Democratic and my views fit right in line with recent NY Times editorials on reform of teaching – hardly an ‘extreme’ newspaper. Some teachers are ineffective; some are fatalists. That’s a poor combination for kids. Unlike you I believe that kids matter more than the feelings of teachers – I have felt that way since I began teaching 40 years ago. BTW: your research says the same thing Hattie’s says so I miss your point. SES matters but it is not decisive.
A telling comment you make: “all teachers want to make a difference.” Sure they do! But that’s not why they are paid. They are paid to actually make a difference. I’ll bet you haven’t been to a school where poor kids really engage and learn or you wouldn’t say such stuff. I have: visit Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta or Central Park East back in the day. Doug Reeves in his 90/90/90 work. 30 years of research by Ron Edmunds and Larry Lezotte. “Extremist”? Hardly. It’s extremist to give up on kids and get away with it because the adults have the power. Why not do a little observing at outlier schools, then come back with your comments?
PS: today’s column from Nick Kristoff, hardly a corporate extremist:
A landmark new research paper underscores that the difference between a strong teacher and a weak teacher lasts a lifetime. Having a good fourth-grade teacher makes a student 1.25 percent more likely to go to college, the research suggests, and 1.25 percent less likely to get pregnant as a teenager. Each of the students will go on as an adult to earn, on average, $25,000 more over a lifetime — or about $700,000 in gains for an average size class — all attributable to that ace teacher back in the fourth grade.
Anonymous said:
While I continue to believe there is a better way of educating children than through current learning forms–and find it troubling that there are those that will misinterpret this kind of data to suggest that socio-economic status and initial literacy “don’t matter”–I know that’s not the point of the post, so I’ll get back on track because I’m interested in your thoughts about the findings.
I found some of the nomenclature difficult to understand or distinguish from other terms. I am unsure what “Piagetian programs” are (though I can imagine), nor “Quality Teaching” (.44 ES).
Also, while the “meta” function of the analysis is what makes it powerful, it also makes me wonder–how can Individualized Instruction only demonstrate a .22 ES? There must be “degrees” of individualization, so that saying “Individualized Instruction” is like saying “pizza”: what kind? With 1185 listed effects, the sample size seems large enough that you’d think an honest picture of what I.I. looked like would emerge.
Problem-based Learning a .15 ES? This makes me worry about how many may abuse this data–and that kind of brings me to the most significant issue with information like this: the same institutions (public schools) that are not able to conduct effective research of their own are now expected to re-interpret this incredible data load and apply it without compromising its integrity. I have personally witnessed PDs where, in the middle of a staff meeting, “Hattie” has been tossed down in the middle of every table in the library and teachers are told to “come up with lessons” that use those strategies that appear in the “top 10.” Then, on walk-throughs for the next month, teachers are constantly asked about “reciprocal teaching” (.74 ES after all), while project-based and inquiry-based learning with diverse assessment forms and constant meta-cognitive support is met with silence (as said administrator flips through Hattie’s book to “check the effect size of my strategies).
If you consider the analogy of a restaurant, Hattie’s book is like a big book of cooking practices that have been shown to be effective within certain contexts: Use of Microwave (.11 ES) Chefs Academic Training (.23 ES), Use of Fresh Ingredients (.98). The problem is, without the macro-picture of instructional design, they are simply contextual-less, singular items. If they are used for teachers to consider while planning instruction, that’s great, but that’s not how I’ve typically seen them used–not in schools I’ve worked in anyway. They are items to check, along with learning target, essential question, and evidence of data use–all available in a big binder that needs to be near the door so district and state folks can check for compliance when they buzz through. The same lack of careful attention and analysis that brought a school or community to a place where they need to be shown how to be effective educators makes this much data almost hurtful.
While I leave it up to Hattie and those left-brain folks way smarter than I am to make sense of the numbers, I wonder how the effect of problem-based learning cab be measured independently of other factors (assessment design, teacher feedback, family structure, and so on). Also, it can also be difficult to untangle on strategy (inquiry-based learning) from another (inductive teaching).
“Cooperative Learning” (.41 ES) less effective than “Direct Instruction” (.59 ES)–interesting. While I’ve always believed “lecture” (or what I call accountable talks) get a bad rap, clearly this data doesn’t imply to entirely forgo collaborative learning in favor of direct instruction, but that is a low-hanging mis-interpretation.
Also, Teacher Content Knowledge: .09? Thoughts here?
grantwiggins said:
Totally agree: caveat lector. We don’t know the quality of the individual research, we don’t know how study topics got categorized or labeled as they did, we don’t know what measures were used and how intellectually valid they are, and we don’t know what to do with vast numbers of very different studies on a vaguely-defined general element. That said, the weakness of meta-analysis is no different, really, than the weakness of fine little studies that follow 6 kids in something the author chooses to call “student-led discussion”. It’s not that Hattie’s work is the be-all end-all, any more than Marzano’s or Slavin’s or anyone else’s is. Rather, the trend in the data is clear: some things work better than others, there is a pattern to what works, and many things can overcome the SES of the family.
The next step, I think, is to do further finely-grained research on each of the squishy-sounding topics. A good example is studies of ‘feedback’. Anyone who has read my writing over the years knows that I believe most people use the term improperly. Feedback is DIFFERENT from advice. But hundreds of studies discuss ‘feedback’ as if it were advice. And far too many people think ‘feedback’ has to come from people when video games prove this to be false.
PS, I disagree with you on ‘lecture’. What a good meta-analysis can do it sort out ‘lectures’ from ‘good lectures’ by looking at effect size. So, while some specific approaches to lecturing may have a good effect, ‘lectures’ in general are not very effective. That is the kind of useful finding meta-analysis can give.
Great thoughts – thanks.
Terry Heick said:
My friend (who posted the above rant on the way schools can pervert sound thinking and practice in the name of homogeneity, but did so anonymously for obvious reasons) asked me to clarify for him that he was referring to “accountable talks” rather than a pure college-style lecture, claiming it to be a sound way to pitch an idea, standard, concept, or challenge to students in lieu of its teacher-centered-ness and reliance on a brief degree of sage-on-stage.
Thanks always for your willingness to support understanding, Grant.
Matt Seely said:
Very well said! I think you hit on the inherent problem of our reform-crazy system: anything that shows an effect size and is labeled “scientificly-based research” is embraced by policy-makers and administrators with mindless, surface-level implementation, which results in (as you stated) “compromising its integrity.” I have seen many examples where policy makers attempt to mandate the replication of effective practices on ‘ineffective’ schools or districts. This rarely, if ever works. Most cases of reform that work, work precisely because they are AUTHENTIC – invented, created, tested, and executed by the very educators who make them take flight. I am so tired of policy makers treating educational research as if it were a pill – if that pill worked for you, it must work for everyone. Every child holds with-in them thousands of variables that can play on their learning. Every educational community holds many variables within its culture, background, resources, etc. This makes pure replication elusive. I am not saying that teachers do not make a difference – they most certainly do. And many of them do make huge impacts by implementing effective practices such as Hattie promotes by his research – because they already have an inherent belief in the fundementals of the specific practice. But trying to force this mountain of data on the education system is what creates a mountain of unauthentic application = confusion.
Mountains of data exacerbate our problems – Finland is a great example in this respect. They do not need sheets and sheets of data because their teachers are well-trained, well compensated, and loop the grade levels so that the same teacher works with the same students for a number of years. These teachers then, do not need data sheets to tell them that Johnnie doesn’t have decent decoding skills. They know from years of working with Johnnie (sorry, I’m sure that’s not a very good Finnish name) what his strengths and weaknesses are.
Education policy makers and politicians seem to think that the more data we have the closer to perfection we will approach. . . ??? On the contrary. The more data we have seen, the more programs that are instituted in the name of “data-proven” research the more confusing and muddied the waters become. Leonardi DaVinci said it best: “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
Terry Heick said:
By the way, I wrote about some of these ideas a few weeks ago, where I basically made the case for “instructional design” over piece-meal grand-and-go planning. http://www.teachthought.com/?p=2108
Pingback: The Data Lies 2: the Evaluation and Application of Data | TeachThought
Richard Tong (@tongrj) said:
Still a little puzzled by the low ES ranking of SES. I totally support the corporate reform movement and consider myself part of that and I also fully agree with Grant/Hattie’s central message here. However, in my own parenting experience, I feel strongly about the SES beyond the school/district – role modeling of the parents/siblings, exposure to extracurricular activities, extra tutoring, availability of tools beyond what school can provide, etc. Aren’t those parts of the SES or closed correlated to SES? Would like to get some clarification and feedback from Grant.
grantwiggins said:
No, the SES ranking is HIGH – well above most educational interventions. But it is not the top. There are 30 interventions that have a greater effect – that’s the point. Another way of making both your and my point: in a typical school, where there is really very little best practice used, the SES will trump school effects. Only in a school dedicated to best practice will overcome its effects – and those are the outlier schools that show up in every accountability report in a district.
terryheick said:
I think that’s part of the “problem” with the work. It’s important to realize that the point is to let the data speak for itself, rather than interpreting the data as subjective recommendations. That said, the ES is “louder” here than the analysis of what actually constitutes the strategy or factor being measured. Thus some of the head-scratchers.
Pingback: Hottest 5: What are your Top Five learning and teaching strategies? | Chat with Rellypops
Nicoline Ambe said:
I think socio-economic status, background and home environment are fundamentally important to success and should not be discounted. The fact that certain types and subgroups of students perform better on tests when all students receive the same instruction from the teacher means that some students come to school with a certain mindset to learn, while others are unsure about the value of education in their lives.
grantwiggins said:
Not discounting them. Asking everyone to consider the fact that 32 interventions have a greater effect. We know they matter – but really effective teachers and schools overcome it, as the outlier schools and teachers all indicate in the TN value-added studies, teachers like Jaime Escalante, and the 90/90/90 schools that Reeves highlighted. Look at all the top schools in NYCF in bad neighborhoods – they are outliers that show what is possible by really excellent staff. My take on the SES data – including SAT data – is that all the SES data shows is that in general schools are not very effective. But all the outlier schools show what is possible when a truly team group of pros don’t take no for an answer. I continue to be puzzled why so few teachers think that their influence should be so minimal. I have seen dozens of great teachers in my career, in some of the worst schools in America, all making a difference that gets reflected in grad. rates and test scores. Why are so many educators unwilling to except the fact that SOME teachers trump SES while most do not?
Lorne Bucci said:
You say “really effective schools” overcome poverty, but you only name one school that is still in existence (Ron Clark). That school is extraordinarily well funded, it is highly selective of its students, and it is a private school. It seems like a wonderful school, but it is hardly proof that poverty can be overcome on a schoolwde level. I don’t doubt that poverty COULD be overcome, but it is pretty amazing that I’ve never yet found a school that actually did it. The other group of schools you mention (Reeves’s 90/90/90 schools; I don’t know what the “nycf” schools are) is also pretty unconvincing. I had a lot of trouble finding names of actual 90/90/90 schools, and so have other people (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_performance/2011/05/909090_schools_revisited.html). If you know of these miracle schools, we would all love to hear about them.
Hattie’s work is interesting, and I believe that good teaching and good schools are very important for poor kids, just as they are for rich kids, but you have not made a very convincing case here. Could you please list ten schools that neither cherry pick their students nor spend way more time or money than other schools and still educate mostly very poor kids to a very high level? I’d love to learn from these schools, but I am afraid they don’t exist.
grantwiggins said:
I thought it would be a good exercise to Google on outlier schools, in light of Lorne’s challenge. Here are some examples:
http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/129810153.html
http://www.minnpost.com/learning-curve/2011/09/what-are-successful-outlier-schools-doing-close-achievement-gap
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/September-2012/Poverty-and-Graduation-Rates-in-Chicago-and-the-US/
http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2011/06/what-did-cincinnati-public-schools-do-close-high-school-graduation-gap
http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectEnglish/Images/PDF/StudentAchievementReport.pdf
I challenge other readers to report on outlier schools they know of.
To repeat: I am NOT saying SES doesn’t matter. It matters more than most things. I am saying that there are outlier schools and teachers and it is from them we must learn, along with implementing Hattie’s data.
l hodge said:
Jumoke Academy in Hartford, CT has a high percentage of low income students and their standardized test scores are similar to the state as a whole. There are none of the usual signs of test score manipulation and they have a very long waiting list to get in (lottery admission).
The Mathews column on the Arlington District is extremely misleading. Over the last 10 years or so, the gap in Arlington narrowed by roughly the same amount as it did for the entire state. The main reason for the huge reduction in the gap is that Virginia made it much easier to pass the state tests. In fact, the gap in the passing percentages for the economically disadvantaged is larger in Arlington than it is for the state as a whole. It is of course possible that Arlington is doing a lot of great things in their schools that narrow the achievement gap that are not reflected in the standardized test results.
Data is here: https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/
Brenna Scanlon said:
What does student achievement even look like? What does that mean? What does learning look like? Is it the same for all kids everywhere? In every classroom? Teaching is essentially a human process and cannot be bottled up and sold or quantified or listed in order of importance.
Give every kid a 35 thousand dollar a year education with programs and curriculum that top private schools like Exeter, Friends, and Waldorf school use and don’t worry about test scores and silly measurements.
Brenna Scanlon said:
Ok, I’m going to break it down for you because it really is simple:
1) socio economic status matters. To say it is on the bottom of the totem pole shows how little you understand this segment of society. This is the same line Rhee and Duncan try to use and it is just ridiculous to hear. Really laughable.
2) just because socio-economic status and family background matters does not mean we should focus our energies on that. Rather, we create great schools like The Met in Providence or like private schools (the Met is a public school but what does it have in common with private schools? Small class sizes and collaborative learning!) and we take the focus off of testing.
3) we give meaningful tests to assess where our students are at but use it as only one small measurement of success of a school.
Michael said:
Very interesting article, thank you for sharing this information. This whole subject is new to me, as my question will most likely reveal.
If a school were to enact reform based on choosing interventions with the highest effect sizes, how could one project the combined impact these would have on student performance? For example, if all students were exposed to the same 3 interventions and one had an effect size of .5, another .3, and another .2 would the student population experience the same impact of an itervention with a effect size of 1.0, or would only the largest effect size be noticed? For example, let’s say a school were to set a new focus on formative assessment, combined with differentiated instruction and increased feedback. How would you project the impact of this: using just formative assessment which probably has the highest effect size of the three, or with the accumulated effect sizes of all three strategies?
Michael said:
I’ve been reading a little more on this and it sounds like I would use a weighted average to determined a general prediction for the combined effect. But how do you determine which weights to assign to each intervention? Any thoughts would be greatly appeciated.
Eric said:
There are greater differences among the skill set of teachers at any given school than there are between schools. This shows you how much teachers matter.
For the teachers who want to say that SES is more important than quality teaching, my question is simple: “How many public schools with 100% of their kids from poverty, that are high-performing, sending over 90% of their kids to college, do you need see or hear about before you admit the truth? I’m serious about this question. If there was only one school in the country, you could dismiss these schools as aberrations. But there are many of them. When any teacher tells me, “It can’t be done,” they are talking more about their own limitations than those of kids.
Strong teaching trumps low SES every time. Average teachers simply don’t have the skill sets to teach better classroom behaviors, induce stronger effort, upgrade student attitudes or build cognitive capacity. If you go years of not being able to perform a task, you’re pretty likely to think it can’t be done.
I’m not saying it’s easy. But it’s doable. If you tell me it’s hard to do it; I’d agree. But don’t post inaccurate information on Grant’s website such as, “SES matters more than teachers.”
All Grant’s saying is, weak teaching will lose out and strong teaching trumps low SES every time.
grantwiggins said:
Indeed, that is all I am saying. I think it is a sad ‘profession’ when many of its practitioners actually think that even the best among us cannot achieve success. No one said it is easy; no one said that ANY teacher ought to be able to succeed in schools of poverty. But the obvious fact that many teachers do succeed – side by side teachers in the same school who do not succeed – should cause all the naysayers to reflect carefully. Not only did Jaime Escalante succeed in AP Calculus, but after he left there were more passing kids at Garfield in AP Govt than there had been in math!
We were just in a turnaround middle school in a large urban system near Washington DC. We saw a few excellent teachers: total control of the kids, engaging work, fast-paced and lively culture. On the other hand we saw some horrific teaching – and yelling at kids. That to me is the tipoff: when there is quality control in any system, be it sports, manufacturing, glee club or ELA class you see minimal differences across teachers and outcomes. In a middle school it means you see few disciplinary problems and lots of good teaching across teachers. When there is NO quality control, you see vast ranges of quality. That tells me most of what I need to know when visiting schools – and about the fatalism of those who think SES trumps all.
HM said:
I always enjoy Googling the schools in some of the “leading education reformist” books and finding out they are selective admission, lottery, etc. OBVIOUSLY you’ll get better achievement. If you don’t, time to find a new profession. I also enjoyed the national conference I attended and had a “leading reformist” talk about a school, with his efforts, that improved performance. I used my smartphone to Google the school and, through various links, found out the state had renormed the test and all schools had seen increased performance and that the school he discussed had recently turned into one of those selective schools with smaller class sizes, lottery system, etc. So, just to be a jerk, I asked him, “were there any other happenings that may have influenced the research results or strictly, from what you can tell, just those events you’re describing.” He went on about the research and stated that nothing else meaningful, in his recollection, had occurred during the time of the research. It was then I pulled the ultimate trump card and asked if the websites I had on my phone were false. His response, noticeably angry, nervous, etc was, “well, I would have to see what you’re discussing but I am not aware of what you’re talking about.” Strangely, I wasn’t escorted from the conference. It’s these events that always make me question things. I believe an education SYSTEM can overcome poverty to an extent. I also believe poverty, given a desire to learn, has little consequence on education. I chuckle each time I see “student disposition to learn” with a smaller effect size than “feedback.” Given a student with little disposition to learn I’d love to see feedback actually helping them. In order for feedback to work, a teacher needs to GET PAST the STUDENT’S disposition NOT to learn. That’s the biggest key to student success in my view. If kids think you’re a tool, ain’t nothing gonna work!
Joe said:
What does this all mean for Inquiry based Education? Are Inquiry, Project based learning, Problem based learning dead?
grantwiggins said:
I was initially puzzled by this, too. But you need to read the whole book to see how he defines these terms. By problem-based learning he means it as a method of pedagogy used where the goal is still to develop content and skill knowledge. In other words, PBL is not ideal for learning basic skills – that’s what various studies show. But that doesn’t mean it has no value: its value is in developing problem-solving abilities and transfer of learning, things not typically tested, alas. Nor is he equating problem-based projects or inquiries with Problem-Based Learning (PBL) as used in med school and business school.
Kathleen McNamara Head of School Tuxedo Park School said:
Reblogged this on Kathleen McNamara, Tuxedo Park School and commented:
I just discovered this posting as we are working collaboratively on our paper at Columbia. Very interesting and succinct! Thanks, Tom Batty!
Pingback: “Replacement level” in education | 21st Century Science
Pingback: What works in education - Hattie's list of the greatest effects and why it matters | Learning Through Inquiry | Scoop.it
Pingback: Knowing less | nick daniels / edublogging
Pingback: Brick Walls | Blog