Distance Learning

Effect Size was d = 0.09, has slightly risen to 0.14

Hattie has added "Technology In Distance Education" d = 0.01

In Hattie's many public presentations he labelled Distance Education a DISASTER, e.g., Hattie's Nuthall lecture,

An example of one of Hattie's lectures where he used these disaster slides - here.

School Closures - COVID-19

In a Blog post shared with Kansas MTSS Hattie has done a remarkable turnaround!

'The effect of distance learning is small (.14) but that does not mean it is NOT effective—it means it does not matter whether teachers undertake teaching in situ or from a distance over the internet (or, like when I started in my first university, via the post office). What we do matters, not the medium of doing it... 

Distance learning shows a very low effect size, but that means that it does not matter whether you are distant or not and should not be interpreted as “distance is disastrous.”'

This totally contradicts Hattie's claims in Visible Learning that the effect size determines "what works best".

After widespread peer review critique of his work, Hattie has slowly moved to "the story" narrative. E.g., in an interview with Ollie Lovell (June 2018),

"What's the story, not what's the numbers..."

"that’s why this will keep me in business to keep telling the story…" (Audio here).

Hattie then admits his rankings are misleading and does not rank anymore! (Audio here).

"it worked then it got misleading so I stopped it"

We should all be concerned with Hattie switching between these two contradictory positions (he has a huge financial conflict of interest (see here); 

1-the effect size determines what works best, and 

2- it's not the numbers its the story.

To an audience knowledgeable of the significant peer review critique of his average effect size number he will focus on "the Story", to an audience ignorant of this critique he will go back to the number, e.g., after this interview with Lovell, his widespread webinar series with Corwin, to gain a U.S.A audience, Hattie goes back to his simplistic rankings and emphasises the numbers - not the story!

Also, Hattie's commercial arm "Visible Learningplus", which Hattie claims he has complete control over (Knudsen (2017)) still advertises "what does/does not work",

Hattie's "the story" is HIS story, not anyone else's and certainly not teachers!

In an interview with Hanne Knudsen (2017), he states,

"almost every teacher wants to get up and talk about their story, their anecdotes and their classrooms. We will not allow that, because as soon as you allow that, you legitimise every teacher in the room talking about their war stories, their views, their kids" (p. 3).

A Back Flip, with Pike & Twist

In Hattie's recent publication "Real Gold vs Fool's Gold" (2020), he has done a complete back flip on his earlier work, of promoting an effect size of 0.40, as the hinge point for "what works best". He states,

"Our analysis of the Visible Learning database shows, very generally, that a small effect size is <0.20, a medium effect size is 0.40, and a high effect size is >0.60, but these adjectives need to be treated with so much care that they are close to useless. Context matters.

As we state in our first Gold Paper, “As Good as Gold?,” what may be “small” may be life-saving (e.g., the effect of taking aspirin to reduce heart attacks is d < 0.01, but the side effects are low and it could be the difference between life and death). What may be small may be cheap and worth adding, but what may be “high” may be too expensive and we may need to look for alternatives. Smaller effects may have more impact on what may be very hard to change (whole systems) than what may be easier to change." (p. 4).

Context Matters

Teachers have been responding to Hattie's simplistic notions of effect size for years, with the counter claim, that teaching and learning are complex and that experience shows, "context matters".

Perhaps someone will listen to them now?