“This is the problem with any measure that uses ages. The age-old grade problem of saying a five-year-old has a reading age +5 implies that this five-year-old is actually an 11-year-old in reading level, which is not necessarily the case (but could be). I use the notion of speeding up the rate of learning by a factor of 2 or 3 – to help reduce this impressing that a five year old is working at the same level as an 11 year old – which is often impossible as the five year old has not been EXPOSED to the powerful content that is needed between five and eleven to make this the case. So, yes, the person is right to be cautious, but there are factors that speed up the rate of learning and this is our focus” (John Hattie, personal communication, October 20, 2018).
Articles in this section
- Why does the Visible Learning research use effect sizes?
- Why do you use an effect size of d=0.40 as a cut-off point and basically ignore effect sizes lower than 0.40?
- What is the preferred timescale over which an effect size can be calculated?
- Is there a bias when using effect sizes in favor of lower achieving students?
- What caution should I take when calculating an effect size?
- Why are effect sizes used when conducting meta-analysis?
- Why can an effect size of 0.40 be gained in a shorter timeframe?
- Can effect sizes be added (or averaged)?
- How accurate are the conclusions drawn from meta-analysis?
- How can the variability associated with each influence be evaluated?