“Visible Learning is agnostic with respect to curriculum choice although it would help if there was a curriculum with a basis on cognitive complexity (like SOLO or Web’s Depth of Knowledge – and not Bloom or just content methods). A major advantage of the Visible Learning work is that is more about collective impact of the teachers and less about the details of HOW we teach, and WHAT we teach (but of course there are implications). Hope this helps” (John Hattie, personal communication, February 19, 2017).
Articles in this section
- How much do we need to advocate for teacher professional development and Pre-service training in the area of phonemic awareness? When we ask teachers and most new graduates cannot define nor teach it.
- Why is phonemic awareness tied up with phonics when it is a totally different construct? Does combining the two indicate that they are the same construct?
- When new graduate teachers cannot define phonemic awareness as different than phonics, does it mean that their professors disregard the difference and the importance of phonemic awareness?
- I can’t find a ranking of phonemic awareness as a construct alone. If it is rolled up into phonics, then there must be a ranking or effect size as a single construct. Would you kindly point me to a resource?
- I am wondering if your research is aligned to a specific program or curriculum that can be purchased by our school?
- You state that bilingual programmes have an effect size of 0.36, so not so significant. What do you define as bilingual progammes and where, around the world, was this data taken from? Why do you think the effect size is so low?