12/10/2014

1

An interpretation of the

Visible Learning story

0

Influences on achievement?

Decreased Enhanced Zero

So what is the typical effect across

1173+ meta-analysis

65,000 studies, and

¼ billion students

The typical influence on achievement N

o.

of e

ffe

cts

d=.40

Not who teachers are or necessarily what they do

Not subject matter knowledge

Not teacher education

Not student control over learning, enquiry, styles of learning, etc.

Not autonomy to schools or to students

Not yet technology

Not money – finances

Not structure of classrooms

What does NOT matter

Rank Influence Effect-size

159 Personality attributes .18

161 Adopted children .16

168 Diet .12

178 Gender (males-females) .12

176 Diversity of students in the class .11

189 Parental employment .03

189 Children of divorce or remarriage .03

191 Sleep .01

196 Diabetes -.17

200 Not Labeling students -.61

Not many attributes of the students d=.08

12/10/2014

2

Rank Influence Effect-size 140 Summer school .23

141 Finances .23

142 Religious Schools .23

147 Class size .21

159 Within class grouping .18

171 Ability grouping .12

177 Distance Education .11

179 Changing timetables .09

180 DeTracking .09

183 Charter Schools .07

185 Diversity of students .05

187 Multi-grade/age classes .04

192 Open vs. Traditional .01

194 Welfare Policies -.12

195 Retention (hold back a year) -.13

Not the structure of schools or classes d=.10

Rank Influence Effect-size

146 Teacher verbal ability .22

156 Co-/ Team teaching .19

170 Mentoring .15

175 Teacher education .12

178 Teacher subject matter

knowledge .09

189 Volunteers/Teacher Aides .03

Not who the teachers are d=.13

Rank Influence Effect-size 91 Inquiry based methods .31

136 Values/Moral Education Programs .24

139 Programmed instruction .23

143 Individualized instruction .22

144 Visual/Audio-visual methods .22

164 Matching style of learning .17

168 Problem based learning .15

169 Sentence Combining programs .15

182 Perceptual-Motor programs .08

184 Whole language .06

188 Homework in primary classes .05

Not some programs d=.16

Rank Influence Effect-size

117 CAI in mathematics .30

119 Mobile phones .29

128 Use of PowerPoint .26

138 CAI in Science .23

148 CAI in small groups .21

158 Web based learning .18

186 CAI in distance education .01

163 Web based learning .18

Not the technology (yet) d=.22

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

19

77

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

Computer related effect-size by year of publication

• When teachers SEE learning through the eyes of the

student

& when students SEE themselves as their own teachers

12/10/2014

3

Rank Influence Effect-

size

6 Response to intervention 1.07

8 Providing formative evaluation .90

11 Classroom discussion .82

Know thy Impact d=.93

Rank Influence Effect-

size

2 Collective teacher efficacy 1.57

9 Observing the impact of teachers on

students (video, observation)

.88

33 Direct Instruction .59

Teachers Collective Impact d=.88

Teachers Knowing Student prior learning d=.85

1 Student expectations 1.44

24 Prior achievement .65

35 Mastery learning .58

50 Keller's Mastery PIS .53

78 Teacher Expectations .43

49 Scaffolding based on prior knowledge .53

10 Cognitive Task Analysis 0.87

7 Teacher credibility 0.90

13 Teacher clarity 0.75

38 Worked examples 0.57

9 Cognitive Task Analysis .87

13 Teacher clarity .75

38 Worked examples .57

Emphasizing Success Criteria d=.77

14 Feedback .75

16 Teacher-Student relationships .72

20 Classroom behavioral .68

Feedback, Welcoming errors & Trust d=.72 High probability ES RANK Low Probability ES RANK

Conceptual change programs 1.16 5 Inquiry based teaching .35 101

Response to intervention 1.07 6 Online, digital tools .32 111

Cognitive task analysis .87 9 Homework .29 120

Classroom discussion .82 10 Teaching test taking & coaching .27 124

Reciprocal teaching .74 14 Use of powerpoint .26 128

Feedback interventions .73 15 Individualized instruction .23 138

Acceleration .68 17 Programmed instruction .23 140

Concept mapping .64 21 Matching style of learning .23 143

Problem solving teaching .63 22 Co-/ Team teaching .19 154

Direct Instruction .60 28 Problem based learning .15 164

Repeated Reading programs .60 29 Perceptual-Motor programs .08 176

Mastery learning .57 36 Whole language .06 180

Deep on top of Surface teaching d=.71

12/10/2014

4

17 Spaced vs. Mass Practice .71

22 Repeated Reading programs .67

64 Concentration/Persistence/Engagement .48

Teaching deliberate practice d=.62

19 Acceleration .68

53 Outdoor/ Adventure Programs .52

58 Goals (High challenge vs. Do your best) .50

High levels of challenge d=.57

The narrative of passion, teaching, and promoting the

language of learning

1. Teachers, working together, as evaluators of their impact .93

2. The power of moving from what students know now

towards explicit success criteria .77

3. Errors and trust are welcomed as opportunities to learn .72

4. Maximize feedback to teachers about their impact .72

5. Getting the proportion of surface to deep correct .71

6. The Goldilocks principles of challenge, and deliberate practice to

attain these challenges .60

Do you know your impact?

Learning strategies 90+% are surface

Teacher questions 90+% are surface

Lesson observations 90+% are surface

Test analyses 90+% are surface

Visible Learning 90+% are surface

We privilege a grammar

of surface learning

The three IMPACT questions

1. What is impact? What is the l

of your schools’ main message

Growth and Achievement

12/10/2014

5

Move debate away from only achievement

Hig

h P

rofic

ien

cy/

Ac

hie

ve

me

nt

Low

Pro

fic

ien

cy/

Ac

hie

ve

me

nt

Low Progress/ Growth High Progress/ Growth

Cruising schools/

students

Optimal schools/

students

Growth schools/

students

Progress to Proficiency

At risk

Hig

h P

rofic

ien

cy/

Ac

hie

ve

me

nt

Low

Pro

fic

ien

cy/

Ac

hie

ve

me

nt

Low Progress/ Growth High Progress/ Growth

Cruising schools/

students

Optimal schools/

students

Growth schools/

students At risk

Progress to Proficiency

Hig

h P

rofic

ien

cy/

Ac

hie

ve

me

nt

Low

Pro

fic

ien

cy/

Ac

hie

ve

me

nt

Low Progress/ Growth High Progress/ Growth

Cruising schools/

students

Optimal schools/

students

Growth schools/

students At risk

Progress to Proficiency

Progress and Proficiency

Based on Yr 9 Reading

Low Progress High Progress

Pro

fici

en

cy

Low progressLow Proficiency

Low progressHigh Proficiency

CRUISING

MUST CHANGE

OPTIMALSCHOOLS

HIGH PROGRESSNOW ATTAINMENTGrowth

Schools Growth

Schools/

Students

Optimal

Schools/

Students

Cruising

Schools/

Students 27% 45%

18% 10%

Progress and Proficiency

Low Progress High Progress

Pro

fici

en

cy

Low progressLow Proficiency

Low progressHigh Proficiency

CRUISING

MUST CHANGE

OPTIMALSCHOOLS

HIGH PROGRESSNOW ATTAINMENT

Growth

Schools

Zoe

Brislow

Drako

Ethan Sheldon

George Dan

Mary

Joanne

Zach

Joey

12/10/2014

6

A new grammar of schooling - Surface to Deep 2. What is magnitude of impact?

No

. o

f e

ffe

cts

d=.40

3. What is pervasiveness of impact?

Mind frame for Impact

I am an evaluator

Thanks