Effective Math Lessons

  In my last post I talked about Dr. John Hattie's 15 year study comparing meta analysis studies on student achievement.  He averaged the "effect size" scores and then compared them on a continuum from high to low as to what methods or ideas worked best.  In the area of types of teaching, Direct Instruction (0.59 - effect size) was at the top with the exception of Reciprocal Teaching (0.74) which is more adaptive to other topics like reading.  Small group instruction (0.49) which has become very popular with the differentiated instruction push did not do as well.  Now here is another surprise.  After Common Core Standards came onto the scene other types of teaching were being pushed:   inquiry-based teaching (0.31), computer-assisted instruction (0.37), web-based learning (0.18), visual/audio-visual methods (0.22), simulations (0.33), programmed instruction (0.24) and with the COVID19 outbreak distance education (0.99).   Although I do support and see the great advantages

  John Hattie A group of researchers headed by John Hattie began a project in 1990, mostly based in Australia to synthesize educational research in a mammoth way that had never been done before.  Fifteen years later the results were published under the title of Visible Learning by Professor John Hattie.  The study focused on student achievement.  What worked best and what didn't work so well were ranked from multiple meta analysis studies. What makes this so impressive is the size of the study.  There  were over 800 meta-analysis analyzed and synthesized.  This included 50,000 studies and many millions of students.  Each topic (e.g. class size, retention, teacher clarity etc.) was given a combined effect size score so all efforts toward student achievement could be compared to others as to their effectiveness.     With a study this large teachers can see at a glance how some of the methods they are using in the classroom stack up to other competing methods.  Plus, we can examine di