recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : meta-analysis   5

'The Cult of Hattie': 'wilful blindness'? - Darcy Moore's Blog
[via: https://twitter.com/alfiekohn/status/996382167772160000 ]

"Since the original publication of John Hattie’s book, Visible Learning, there have been questions raised about the statistical methodology underpinning his research and representation of ‘what works best for learning’. By 2014, the year Professor Hattie became the Chair of AITSL, it was clear, even to tertiary statistics students, that serious mathematical errors had been made. There continues to be a steady flow of journal articles contesting Hattie’s ideas. By 2017, concerns about flawed use of statistics and how the politics of education works in Australia sees many practitioners not really needing to read a journal article to know all about “the cult of Hattie” in our schools.

Hattie continues to rank the “195 Influences And Effect Sizes Related To Student Achievement” without acknowledging the concerns raised by statisticians. After reading the latest paper which derides the methodology, I decided to see what some influential educators thought."
2017  johnhattie  meta-analysis  darcymoore  education  teaching  pedagogy  schools  policy 
may 2018 by robertogreco
School leadership and the cult of the guru: the neo-Taylorism of Hattie: School Leadership & Management: Vol 37, No 4
"As one of the central institutions of society, schooling is subject to significant public interest and scrutiny. Fads and fashion successfully developed elsewhere are often rebadged and relaunched in education for the purpose of improvement. Such interventions are often quickly identified as intruders and frequently fade into obscurity, but what of internal interventions, the education research that becomes widely accepted and promoted? In this paper I argue that contemporary thought and analysis in Australian school leadership has submitted to the cult of the guru. Specifically, I contend that dialogue (much less debate) has settled on the work of John Hattie’s meta-meta-analysis giving rise to the Cult of Hattie. This paper is not an attack on Hattie as a person, or even his work, rather an argument about the conditions which have facilitated the rise of a guru. I argue that the uncritical acceptance and proliferation of this cult is a tragedy for Australian school leadership."
johnhattie  neo-taylorism  taylorism  2017  meta-analysis  education  pedagogy  teaching  learning  schools  visiblelearning 
may 2018 by robertogreco
Update: Opportunity Knocks Again, And Again, And Again … / Reflections of a Reluctant Writer
"What interests me is the work that has been done to shine a spotlight on the short-comings of using meta-analysis and effect sizes to validate all manner of commercial and educational activity and supposed policy legitimacy. For example, back in 2011 Snook et al wrote a critique of Visible Learning. Of particular note were their concluding concerns. After picking apart the methodological inconsistencies, the authors noted that “politicians may use his work to justify policies which he (Hattie) does not endorse and his research does not sanction”. They go on to state that “the quantitative research on ‘school effects’ might be presented in isolation from their historical, cultural and social contexts, and their interaction with home and community backgrounds”.

Beyond a schools choice to adopt strategies which anchor themselves in meta-analysis, there is the bigger question of how far up the system chain does the acceptance of intervention effectiveness go and how wide does the sphere of influence extend? Simpson (2017) has noted that our preoccupation with “‘what works’ in education has led to an emphasis on developing policy from evidence based on comparing and combining a particular statistical summary of intervention studies: the standardised effect size.” The paper suggests that research areas which lead to the array of effective interventions are susceptible to research design manipulation – they stand out because of methodological choices. It also asserts that policy has fallen victim to metricophilia: “the unjustified faith in numerical quantities as having particularly special status as ‘evidence’ (Smith 2011)”. Dr Gary Jones does a great job of highlighting this and other worries in his blog post about how this paper puts another ‘nail in the coffin’ of Hattie’s Visible Learning. Similarly, Ollie Orange ably dismantles the statistical concerns of Hattie’s meta-analysis.

The seductive rhetoric of Hattie’s work can be found almost everywhere and certainly seems compelling. With questions being asked of the methodological credibility upon which all else gushes forth, shouldn’t we be questioning how much we buy in to it? Surely we cannot ignore the noise, not necessarily because of its message, but because the noise is becoming a cacophony. As Eacott (2017) concludes,
“Hattie’s work is everywhere in contemporary Australian school leadership. This is not to say that educators have no opportunity for resistance, but the presence and influence of brand Hattie cannot be ignored. The multiple partnerships and roles held by Hattie the man and the uptake of his work by systems and professional associations have canonised the work in contemporary dialogue and debate to the extent that it is now put forth as the solution to many of the woes of education.”
"
jonandrews  2017  johnhattie  meta-analysis  policy  education  schools  research  manipulation  garyjones  ollieorange  neo-taylorism  scotteacott  edugurus  cultofpersonality  skepticism  visiblelearning  measurement  certainty  uncertainty  silverbullets  ivansnook  johno'neill  johnclark  anne-marieo'neill  rogeropenshaw 
may 2017 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read