It’s hard to know where to begin this post. Perhaps I should simply ask you to read “What works in education” by Grant Wiggins — including the comments. Wiggins discusses John Hattie’s extensive statistical studies that compare the effectiveness of many different interventions and techniques. Despite being a math teacher (or perhaps because I’m a math teacher) I am deeply skeptical of the idea of assigning a numerical “effect size” to an enormously wide range of ideas. Here’s Hattie’s list of effective techniques, as distilled by Wiggins, who has also starred the most effective ones:

• Student self-assessment/self-grading*
• Response to intervention*
• Teacher credibility*
• Providing formative assessments*
• Classroom discussion*
• Teacher clarity*
• Feedback*
• Reciprocal teaching*
• Teacher-student relationships fostered*
• Spaced vs. mass practice*
• Meta-cognitive strategies taught and used
• Acceleration
• Classroom behavioral techniques
• Vocabulary programs
• Repeated reading programs
• Creativity programs
• Student prior achievement
• Self-questioning by students
• Study skills
• Problem-solving teaching
• Not labeling students
• Concept mapping
• Cooperative vs individualistic learning
• Direct instruction
• Tactile stimulation programs
• Mastery learning
• Worked examples
• Visual-perception programs
• Peer tutoring
• Cooperative vs competitive learning
• Phonics instruction
• Student-centered teaching
• Classroom cohesion
• Pre-term birth weight
• Peer influences
• Classroom management techniques
• Outdoor-adventure programs

The zinger is what follows the odd list. Here’s how Wiggins puts it:

Can you guess the next two items on the rank order list?

“Home environment” and “socio-economic status.”

In other words, everything on the list has a greater effect on student achievement than the student’s background — despite the endless fatalism of so many teachers on this point (especially in the upper grades).

It just doesn’t ring true to me. Does it to you?

Categories: Teaching & Learning