25 september 2014 
What to make of this? John Hattie’s book is one of the most influential books on education to appear in the last few years. For some, it has almost the status of an education bible. If the statement “Half of the statistics in ‘Visible Learning’ are wrong”, can be sustained, what consequences does it have for our teaching practice?
In this and the next post, reblogged from Ollieorange2, the author, a British mathematician and math teachter finds out exactly what is wrong with Hattie’s statistics.
At the researchED conference in September 2013, Professor Robert Coe, Professor of Education at Durham University, said that John Hattie’s book, ‘Visible Learning’, is “riddled with errors”. But what are some of those errors?
The biggest mistake Hattie makes is with the CLE statistic that he uses throughout the book. In ‘Visible Learning, Hattie only uses two statistics, the ‘Effect Size’ and the CLE (neither of which Mathematicians use).
The CLE is meant to be a probability, yet Hattie has it at values between -49% and 219%. Now a probability can’t be negative or more than 100% as any Year 7 will tell you.
This was first spotted and pointed out to him by Arne Kare Topphol, an Associate Professor at the University of Volga and his class who sent Hattie an email.
In his first reply – here , Hattie completely misses the point about probability being negative…
View original post 315 woorden meer
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[…] Reblogged on WordPress.com […]
LikeLike
[…] publication of methodological flaws in Hattie’s research (see earlier posts on this blog here and here). In addition, he is critical of the connection between Hattie’s rsearch and the […]
LikeLike
[…] boeken van de laatste jaren is Visible Learning van John Hattie. Blogcollectief Onderzoek Onderwijs reblogt een post van blog Ollieorange2 waarin wordt beweerd dat de helft van de statistiek in het genoemde boek niet deugt! Effect Size en […]
LikeLike
[…] John Hattie admits that half of the Statistics in Visible Learning are wrong […]
LikeLike