John Hattie. Overview of Visible Learning Result of 15 years’ research and synthesises over 800 meta-analyses relating to the influences on achievement.

John Hattie

Overview of Visible Learning Result of 15 years’ research and synthesises over 800 meta-analyses relating to the influences on achievement in school-aged students Identifies 138 influences on learning

Meta-Analyses results provide a “standard” from which to judge effects It is a comparison based on typical, real-world effects rather than based on the strongest cause possible, or with the weakest cause imaginable.

Meta-Analyses Based on Six Major Contributors to Learning: Contribution# of Studies Student11,101 Home2,211 Schools4,150 Teacher2,225 Curricula7,102 Teaching25,860 TOTAL52,649

Meta-Analyses Based on Six Major Contributors to Learning: Contribution Student Prior knowledge of learning Expectations Degree of openness to experiences Emerging beliefs about the value and worth to them from investing in learning Engagement Ability to build a sense of self from engagement in learning

Scale 138 factors Effect Standard deviations (SD)

Standard Deviation

1 Standard Deviation Students do better than 84% of students not in that initiative Typically represent 2 years growth in one year

Focus What is effective? What you can impact?

Hattie’s “Barometer of Influence” 0.0 Negative © John Hattie Visible Learning 0.15 0.4 Medium 1.2 High Reverse Effects Developmental Effects Teacher Effects 0.7 1.0 Desired Effects d=0.4+ Influences that have greatest impact on student achievement outcomes d=0.0 and d=0.15 What students could probably achieve if there was no schooling. d=below 0.15 Can be considered potentially harmful and probably should not be implemented -0.2 Low d=0.15 and d=0.40 Influences in this zone are similar to what teachers can accomplish in a typical year of schooling.

Rank Order of Influences on Learning Based on 138 Influences © John Hattie Visible Learning

Overview of Visible Learning Result of 15 years’ research and synthesises over 800 meta-analyses relating to the influences on achievement in school-aged students Identifies 138 influences on learning

Meta-Analyses results provide a “standard” from which to judge effects It is a comparison based on typical, real-world effects rather than based on the strongest cause possible, or with the weakest cause imaginable.

Meta-Analyses Based on Six Major Contributors to Learning: Contribution# of Studies Student11,101 Home2,211 Schools4,150 Teacher2,225 Curricula7,102 Teaching25,860 TOTAL52,649

Meta-Analyses Based on Six Major Contributors to Learning: Contribution Student Prior knowledge of learning Expectations Degree of openness to experiences Emerging beliefs about the value and worth to them from investing in learning Engagement Ability to build a sense of self from engagement in learning

Scale 138 factors Effect Standard deviations (SD)

Standard Deviation

1 Standard Deviation Students do better than 84% of students not in that initiative Typically represent 2 years growth in one year

Focus What is effective? What you can impact?

Hattie’s “Barometer of Influence” -0.2 0.0 Negative © John Hattie Visible Learning 0.15 Low 0.4 Medium 1.2 High Reverse Effects Developmental Effects Teacher Effects 0.7 1.0 Desired Effects

Rank Order of Influences on Learning Based on 138 Influences © John Hattie Visible Learning

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.73 0.7 1.0 Desired Effects Feedback

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.06 0.7 1.0 Whole Language Curricula Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.59 0.7 1.0 Direct Instruction Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.21 0.7 1.0 Class Size Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.61 0.7 1.0 Not labeling students School Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.17 0.7 1.0 Family Structure Home Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = - 0.34 0.7 1.0 Mobility School Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = - 0.09 0.7 1.0 Summer Vacation School Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.35 0.7 1.0 Drama/Arts School Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = - 0.16 0.7 1.0 Retention School Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.20 0.7 1.0 Charter Schools School Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.59 0.7 1.0 Coop. vs. Indv. Learning School Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.43 0.7 1.0 School Size School Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.51 0.7 1.0 Parental Involvement Home Desired Effects

S e = 0.4 0.15 0.0 -0.2 Teacher Developmental Reverse 1.2 Negative Low High Medium © John Hattie Visible Learning Feedback d = 0.57 0.7 1.0 Socio-econ Status Home Desired Effects