Thanks for digging into this and pointing these issues out. I’ve always approached Hattie ready for fireworks and found nothing but smoke and mirrors...
Some common criteria for selecting suitable studies well explained and applied to Hattie's example. It still surprises me how many people quote Hattie, despite his neglect of methodological rigour and scientific argument.
@@kkpb19 there are many peer reviews showing Hattie neglects methodological rigour. Even in this case of Feedback why were so many studies removed in the re-analysis? This in itself must indicate lack of rigour in the original work in Visible Learning.
Very interesting. This is what my gut-feeling has been telling me all along. But now I have another important question. This video was put up 2 years ago. Today is 12 October 2022 and there really hasn’t been a song and dance made about the information contained in this video? Why not? Why does it seem that these findings aren’t being considered when it comes to Hattie’s theory on using Feedback to positively impact on student learning? Why hasn’t someone picked it up and run with it? It’s just that, in Education, Hattie is being promoted on his theories & teacher performance is being judged on teachers’ abilities to put put Hattie’s theories into practice? What if what Hattie claims ist the real truth, what if we’re all barking up the wrong tree. Very concerning.
I have used Hattie to understand why my methods are so much more effective than real math teachers. I started with the literature of quality and applied it to math instruction. I have been keeping records for 20 years and every lesson every semester is a better iteration than last year/ last semester. (Sometimes I improved and then rewrote a lesson at lunch time so I could try it out 5th period.) When you add that all up, there have been over 5000 tiny iterations of improvement. I knew it worked (the AGA/Math Lab methodology), but I didn't really understand why. With Hatties' list, I can make the next iteration more focused on what is likely to work.
Being "critics" is easy. Why don't you all critics take a similar number of studies (currently more than 1,600 meta-analyses) with more than a 500 million student population and DO YOUR HOMEWORK??? Try to replicate, if you can, what Professor Hattie and his team have done. When you surpass those numbers, then I will maybe listen to you. PERIOD
It's our duty to be critical of sloppy research. Being a critic doesn't behoove us to do Hattie's work for him. The burden of proof is on him. He needs to take the criticism seriously and go back to the drawing board.
His own data shows that there are hundreds of variables he studied where no students were involved yet he publishes as an effect size. How can that be valid?
To cite Hattie, great teachers aren't about hard work, it's about efficient, efficacious teaching that transfers the joy and skills of learning to all students. That's why I suggest researchers take a leaf out of both books and concentrate on the 435 (or however many now) worthwhile studies on educational feedback.
