1. Doug Fisher www.fisherandfrey.com Follow me: dfisherSDSU

2. Every student deserves a great teacher, not by chance, but by design.

4. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error =
Rank: /136
Number of meta-analyses:
Number of studies:
Number of participants:
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

5. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error = n/a
Rank: 136/136
Number of meta-analyses: 7
Number of studies: 207
Number of participants: 13,938
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

6. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error = (low)
Rank: 125/136
Number of meta-analyses: 2
Number of studies: 92
Number of participants: n/a
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

7. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Std. error = (low)
Rank: 88/136
Number of meta-analyses: 5
Number of studies: 161
Number of effects: 295
Number of participants: 105,282
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

8. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error = (high)
Rank: 58/136
Number of meta-analyses: 8
Number of studies: 674
Number of participants: n/a
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

9. This is the hinge point –
a year’s worth of growth for a year in school.

10. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error = n/a
Rank: 136/136
Number of meta-analyses: 7
Number of studies: 207
Number of participants: 13,938
Retention: d =
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

11. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Std. error = (low)
Rank: 88/136
Number of meta-analyses: 5
Number of studies: 161
Number of effects: 295
Number of participants: 105,282
Homework: d = .29
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

12. Small group learning: d = 0.49
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error = n/a
Rank: 48/136
Number of meta-analyses: 2
Number of studies: 78
Number of participants: 3,472
Small group learning: d = 0.49
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

13. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error = n/a
Rank: 48/136
Number of meta-analyses: 2
Number of studies: 78
Number of participants: 3,472
Study Skills: d = 0.59
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

14. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error =
Rank:
Number of meta-analyses:
Number of studies:
Number of participants: 5,028
Repeated Reading: d = 0.67
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

15. Teacher-Student relationships: d = 0.72
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error =
Rank:
Number of meta-analyses:
Number of studies:
Number of participants: 5,028
Teacher-Student relationships: d = 0.72
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

16. Classroom Discussion: d = 0.82
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error =
Rank:
Number of meta-analyses:
Number of studies:
Number of participants: 677
Classroom Discussion: d = 0.82
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

17. 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.2
Medium
0.8
0.1
High
0.9
Low
0.0
1.0
Teacher effects
1.1
-0.1
Developmental effects
Negative
1.2
-0.2
Reverse effects
Zone of desired effects
Standard error = (Medium)
Rank: 3/136
Number of meta-analyses: 2
Number of studies: 30
Number of participants: 3835
Teacher Clarity: d = 0.90
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement.
New York: Routledge.

18. TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
“I do it”
Focused Instruction
Guided Instruction
“We do it”
“You do it
together”
Collaborative
“You do it
alone”
Independent
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

19. TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
“I do it”
Focused Instruction
“You do it
alone”
Independent
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

20. TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
“You do it
alone”
Independent
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

21. TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
“I do it”
Focused Instruction
Guided Instruction
“We do it”
“You do it
alone”
Independent
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY

22. TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
Focused Instruction
“I do it”
Guided Instruction
“We do it”
“You do it
together”
Collaborative
“You do it
alone”
Independent
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
A Structure for Instruction that Works
(c) Frey & Fisher, 2013

23. The established purpose
focuses on student learning, rather than an activity, assignment, or task.

25. Three Questions What am I learning today? Why am I learning this?
How will I know that I have learned it?

26. TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
Focused Instruction
“I do it”
Guided Instruction
“We do it”
“You do it
together”
Collaborative
“You do it
alone”
Independent
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
A Structure for Instruction that Works
(c) Frey & Fisher, 2013

27. Comprehension and Collaboration
1. Prepare for and participate in collaborations with diverse partners, building on each others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.

28. K-2 Features Following the rules of discussion
Moving from participation to turn taking
Sustaining discussion through questioning
Adult support

29. 3-5 Features Preparation for discussion Yielding and gaining the floor
Posing and responding to questions
From explaining own ideas to explaining the ideas of others

30. 6-8 Features Using evidence to probe and reflect
Collegial discussions include goals and deadlines
Questions connect ideas from several speakers
Acknowledge new information

31. 9-10 Features Use prepared research in discussion
Voting, consensus, and decision making
Ensure hearing full range of opinions or options
Summarize and synthesize points of disagreement

32. 11-12 Features Civil, democratic discussions
Questions probe reasoning and evidence
Resolving contradictions
Determine what additional info is needed

33. Group Work Examples TTYPA Think-Pair-Square Carousel Novel Ideas Only
Opinion Stations

34. Productive Group Work Examples
Conversation Roundtable
Numbered Heads Together
Literature Circles
Reciprocal Teaching
Jigsaw
Walking Review
Collaborative Poster

35. Difficulty v. Complexity
A measure of effort required to complete a task.
In assessment, a function of how many people can complete the task correctly.
A measure of the thinking, action, or knowledge that is needed to complete the task.
In assessment, how many different ways can the task be accomplished.

38. Marc Umile is among a group of people fascinated with pi, a number that has been computed to more than a trillion decimal places. He has recited pi to 15,314 digits.

39. Differentiate according to difficulty, not complexity.

40. Low Difficulty High Complexity High Difficulty High Complexity
More Complex
Low Difficulty
High Complexity
High Difficulty
High Complexity
Easy
Hard
Low Difficulty
Low Complexity
High Difficulty
Low Complexity
Less Complex

41. Thank you!