![]() ![]() ![]() Or what about the relatively low effect of co-or team-teaching that Hattie reports, but where you also have to read that there are hardly any quality studies (something we also found when writing the second Urban Myths book). This example was passed on to me by Tim Surma earlier this week and is, in my opinion, a valid example. These meta-analyses also broadly define the concept and are mainly based on Turkish studies. ![]() The latter brings the first danger I see: for example, who will read that the seemingly highly effective “constructive teaching” is based on only 3 Turkish meta-analyses. The element of time and location in which a study happened is mentioned, but….There is interpretation, but often briefer. the work is even more comprehensive and, at the same time, often more superficial than the original 2008 work.He has tried to make it a more coherent work rather than listing insights from meta-analyses.Hattie addresses the various commentaries and critiques of his work and meta-analysis as a method and source in general.I see a great danger popping up again and a new danger emerging.It’s again an enormous piece of work, but….Finally, I was able to go through the new version of Visible Learning for the first time and: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |