So I picked up a copy of Visible Learning for Teachers last year, and I actually read it.  That’s two unusual things for me – perhaps the latter more than the former.  I’m leading a chat about a topic close to my heart – reflection – and I think this book is a nice place to start that conversation.

Hattie covers a lot of ground in this book.  If you aren’t familiar, he did a huge study of studies – research on the research, if you will – and tried to come up with strategies that had the largest impact, based on statistical analysis.  He suggested that almost any teaching strategy will have some effect on learning; which ones, he asked, made the biggest difference?

The number one strategy is “self-reported grades.”  (If you want to see the full list, you can see it here, on Hattie’s website.)  Of course, to see huge effect sizes, you can’t just ask kids to grade themselves and leave it at that.  Here’s what Hattie says:

Student reflection of their performance alone makes no difference.  Emphasizing accurate calibration is more effective than rewarding improved performance.  The message is that teachers need to provide opportunities for students to be involved in predicting their performance; clearly, making the learning intentions and success criteria transparent, having high but appropriate, expectations, and providing feedback at the appropriate levels is critical to building confidence in successfully taking on challenging tasks.  Educating students to have high, challenging, appropriate expectations is among the most powerful influence in enhancing student achievement.  (53-4)

There are a lot of “big jobs” in this quote – it’s not so easy to do these things, especially in language arts, where criteria are often “fuzzy” and subjective.  (I’m thinking of special education goals for “correct writing sequences” here, where students who are struggling to express themselves in writing are assessed, and IEP goals are written, based on how many words they can string together into mechanically correct sentences, regardless of what the sentences mean or the overall cohesiveness or effectiveness of what they have written.  A rambling series of associations, written in correct sentences, meets this goal, even though it might be completely ineffective for any other purpose.)  This caveat aside, having kids appropriately “calibrate” their learning has a huge effect.

I should also add that Hattie mentions two groups who often underestimate their own achievement and struggle with accurate calibration: minority and lower-achieving students (53).

What about teachers?  What has the biggest effect on teacher effectiveness?  According to Hattie,

the differences between high-effect and low-effect teachers are primarily related to the attitudes and expectations that teachers have when they decide on the key issues of teaching – that is, what to teach and at what level of difficulty, and their understandings of progress and of the effects of their teaching.  It is some teachers doing some things with a certain attitude or belief system that truly makes the difference. (23)

I should add that we are all suspicious of terms like “high-effect” and “low-effect” teachers (measured how, exactly?), and I won’t repeat all of the criticisms here of the nature of educational research or how it might be exploited by profit-seeking entities.  To me, that doesn’t mean the research is useless; it means that we need to be careful.

To me, this quote is clearly a call for teacher reflection.  I think we’ve all heard the phrase “reflective teacher” – and of course, there’s a Marzano book about it (which I haven’t read).  Hattie offers five criteria for effective teaching – a model he purposefully calls “inspired and passionate teaching” because it requires the kind of probing, thoughtful, and deliberate self-analysis that comes from intrinsically motivated professionals:

1. Expert teachers can identify the most important ways in which to represent the subject that they teach.
2. Expert teachers are proficient at creating an optimal classroom climate for learning.
3. Expert teachers monitor learning and provide feedback.
4. Expert teachers believe that all students can reach the success criteria.
5. Expert teachers influence surface and deep student outcomes.  (25-7)

I like these criteria for a number of reasons.  First, they invite qualitative reflection – it’s hard to use “hard” data to prove #4, for example.  They also require the fusion of subject-matter expertise and knowledge of students and pedagogy.  What, fundamentally, should kids know at the end of a 7th grade physics unit?  What will be the hardest parts for them to learn?  How will I know that they understand these fundamental concepts by the end of my instruction?  These criteria both expect and respect the professionalism of teachers.  They aren’t too specific or redundant, the way that the Danielson framework feels sometimes.

I’d like to finish by saying that I’m not encouraging people to go out and buy this book.  It was long, and dense, and kind of overwhelming.  I appreciated the way that the book helped me think about what I do, and encouraged me to reflect on my own effectiveness.  I learned a lot from this book, and I’m learning more by returning to it.  But this isn’t the right book for everyone.  There are many excellent books about teaching – my next book of this type will probably be Jim Knight’s High-Impact Instruction, since it was recommended to me by teachers that I trust.  But I’m not positive that I’ll love that book yet.  Ask me next year.