Staff from the six Te Atatu schools involved in the Koru Project (Enhancing Higher Standards Across Schools) – a Ministry of Education funded initiative, were greatly excited by Professor Hattie’s address at the 2008 Project Koru Conference on the influences on student achievement. Hattie and his researchers synthesized over 500,000 studies on student achievement. Several myths were challenged and there was great surprise at the relative value of various influences on school achievement. The debate and conversation in schools both formally and informally, has continued.

However, there is a danger of over simplifying what he was saying, of misquoting or of plain misunderstanding Hattie’s address and the implications of his research. His reporting continues and there are differences between his 2003 work and his 2007 findings.

2003 2007
Feedback 1.13 Self Report Grades 1.44
Students Prior Cognitive ability 1.04 Absence of disruptive pupils .86
Instructional quality 1.00 Classroom behaviourial .80
Direct Instruction .82 Quality of teaching .77
Remediation .65 Reciprocal teaching .74
(class size – .05) (class size .21)

The top five influences of 2003 are no longer the top five in 2007.

In 2007 Feedback goes from 1 to 8
Prior cognitive ability from 2 to 6
Instructional quality from 3 to 4
Direct instruction from 4 to 20

The importance of the various influences are indications only – they are not set in stone. From them, we can identify some important trends eg: that teachers really do make a difference.

However, it would be entirely wrong and a disservice to Hattie’s research, for teachers to jump on one characteristic as being particularly powerful or particularly useless. Some will choose to pick selective influences to “arm their cause.” In fact, all they may do is illustrate their ignorance. A good example of this is from the 2007 research of Hattie where class size comes in at a lowly position 72 on Hattie’s Hot Hundred with a size effect of just 0.21 – not making any significant difference to student achievement. Teacher training comes in at position 87 with an effectiveness scale of just .11. Billions of dollars are spent on teacher education and on lowering class sizes, the latest being the 2008 implementation of 1:18 for new entrant classes. If Hattie’s influences are viewed in isolation then there is absolutely no basis to reduce class sizes and maybe we could dispense with teacher training as we know it.

Certainly, the billions of dollars put into these two areas could be better spent in other areas of education or social services. Matipo Primary School has been pursuing inquiry based learning over the last five years. Educational author and consultant, Mark Treadwell, describes our approach as being in the “top five percent of the world’s schools.” Yet inquiry based teaching, taken in isolation from Hattie’s research comes in at 56 with an effectiveness scale of just .31. To some detractors, this was music, indeed a symphony, to their ears. “So inquiry based learning is not good, I told you so and now we have the evidence to prove it!”

This is the great weakness of those who don’t have the ears to listen, the eyes to see or the ability to think. When schools combine inquiry learning with lower class sizes, quality teachers, strong teacher – pupil engagement, good use of feedback and a good classroom tone, then the combined effect leads to powerful teaching and learning and better student achievement.

A great little truism is:
“to engage the brain before you engage the tongue.”
I strongly urge all teachers to take the time to read and consider Hattie’s research in full.