Posts by Ross Mason
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Here are a couple of paragraphs from the conclusion of Hattie's paper.
When addressing the issue of reducing class size, it seems important to investigate the underlying motivations for teachers and parents. For example, the synthesis of meta-analyses indicated that the presence of disruptive students (even one of them) in a class has the effect of decreasing achievement by 0.79—which is enormous. When I ask teachers if they would choose between a class size of 15 when I choose the students, or a reduction of 5 from their current class and they choose the students, they nearly always prefer the latter. For many teachers, it is the presence of a few disruptive students that often lead them to desiring smaller classes. There is a question also about the optimal class size; although there seems to be some “magic” in the literature and among policy makers around a class size of 15. When asked in a survey as to the optimal class size, New Zealand secondary teachers claimed that 16 was optimal for Year 13 (the final year of school), 19 for Year 12, 21 for Year 11, and 23 for Years 9–10 (which is not that different from the actual class sizes in NZ secondary schools)
.....
The argument in this paper is that those teaching practices that are conducive to successful learning are more likely to occur in smaller rather than larger classes, and these practices do not actually occur more in smaller classes because teachers have been prepared to, and indeed do, work with larger classes using more transmission practices and therefore they are not so equipped to adopt the more effective practices when they are given smaller classes. (A related argument is that research reviews and/or meta-analyses need not be based on finding a single effect-size which is somehow expected to speak for itself, but that previous research findings can be developed within a theoretically informed model of how the effects may be improved.)
It is conjectured that a way forward in this class size literature is to investigate the classroom and curricula attributes in various levels of class size, the nature of teaching excellence at each of these levels, and the necessity to dramatically alter the concept of teaching excellence when class sizes are changed. Without changing the teaching and ensuring rigor in the curriculum delivery then the effects of this most expensive policy is likely to be close to zero. Maybe identifying teachers who can adopt the nature of teaching that is excellent for smaller classes is the first step, as such teachers could make major and positive effects on student learning: whether this is from 50 to 30, or from 30 to 15. These teachers could work within current schools, although issues of fairness and workload for teachers and students would need to be addressed, and the contingencies for all teachers would need to move from working conditions alone to also embrace positive student learning outcomes in a very public defensible manner.
One of the dilemmas for policy makers, however, is that educational research such as outlined in this paper has had little effect on the lobbying by parents, teacher groups, and politicians for the reduction of class sizes (Achilles, Krieger, Finn, & Sharp, 2003). Further, it is common practice for private “elite” schools to advertise smaller classes as a bonus and feature of their schools, with clear market research showing that this is an attractive feature. Teachers and parents are more convinced that if the working conditions for teaching and learning appear optimal then it is “logical” that benefits must follow, and they seem less convinced of the evidence of the effects of these working conditions, often becoming dismissive of researchers who show evidence to the contrary. If a legislature decides to pour the millions (and cumulatively over a short time, billions) of dollars into reducing class sizes, there are two strategies that may add value to the learning outcomes well beyond the expected 0.13 standard deviation increase in learning outcomes (achievement or non-achievement). First, it is important to identify those teachers who employ excellent teaching methods optimal for smaller classes as outlined above, and provide them with smaller-sized classes (perhaps with many different cohorts of students per week). This introduces the concept of “specialist teachers of small classes.” At the same time it is important to acknowledge the excellence of teachers of larger-sized classes, and it likely that there are major issues of “fairness” that will need to be addressed. Second, it is important to identify 3–5 major innovations (e.g., reducing class sizes, reducing class sizes for teachers who teach in a manner as noted above, providing a day per week free for teacher planning and marking, introduction of reciprocal teaching and maximal feedback, etc. See Darling-Hammond and Miles (1998), and Odden (1990) for further possibilities), and set up a comparative research design to assess the effects of these innovations on student learning. Random assignment (as in Project STAR), comparative benefits (as outlined by Levin (1988) and Jamison et al. (1974) noted above), and the use of effect-sizes relative to costs and teacher workload, etc., could be powerful elements, particularly if the study is conducted as a public debate about the benefits of these innovations. Such a debate would inform parents and politicians of the relative effectiveness of the various innovations and it is extremely likely that they could be convinced by the results, thereby moving from seeking different conditions of learning to desiring optimal “effects” on their children. Perhaps the major way forward for any innovation that is as costly as reducing class-sizes is to move the debate from asking does it positively influence student achievement (as Table 2 above showed that almost everything can pass this test) to asking does it positively influence student achievement more than other interventions? The contingencies need to move from focusing not only on working conditions for teachers and students to also focusing outcomes deriving from these working conditions (Hanushek, 2005).
It is obvious that this paper has been influencial in the govts argument. I can't help thinking that if they had left it at enhancing the quality of teaching and teachers (and Hattie's argument of getting teachers to change their teaching of small classes) without having to find the treasury quid pro quo of "finding savings to justify it" then they would have had the buy in of all parties.
-
Hard News: Briefing, blaming, backing down, in reply to Russell Brown,
Can I just say that it's telling and admirable the way you've all gone for the actual policy issue, rather than pontificating about who won and lost?
I think it is a case of delving deeper than the kneejerks. Having a look at the list it is striking that of the top 15 or so "Quality Teaching" is about the only thing a politician (or Treasury nerd) could possibly suggest they might be able to do something about student achievement. Likewise looking down to the bottom of the list and working up it is fairly obvious that "Classsizes" stands out as something a politician might be able to do something about.
It was all rather obvious really........
Why didn't they pick "Calculators"? And remember the Nats were the ones that brought back the school pie and chips to school life. Number 41 and..well...now probably sunk even lower!!!
-
Most will not be able to access John Hatties paper on " The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes"
But here is the table that scores the best to worst for the influences on student acheivement.
Table 2. A sample of 46 influences on student achievement[ The 3 parts are Influence, No of studies and Effect size. Sorry tried formatting but failed .] Edit: "Retention" is holding kids back a year.
1 Feedback 13,209 0.81
2 Direct instruction 1925 0.81
3 Prior achievement 619 0.80
4 Lack of disruptive students 1511 0.79
5 Quality of teaching 808 0.67
6 Phonological awareness 429 0.66
7 Early intervention 30,275 0.64
8 Peer assessment 308 0.63
9 Challenging goals 959 0.59
10 Self-assessment 521 0.56
11 Mastery learning 1933 0.55
12 Interactive video 1008 0.54
13 Peer influences 366 0.50
14 Bilingual programs 1457 0.49
15 Study skills 3224 0.49
16 Socio-economic status 1899 0.48
17 Professional development 18,644 0.48
18 Tutoring 2101 0.47
19 Advance organizers 2106 0.46
20 Hypermedia instruction 317 0.46
21 Parent involvement 2597 0.43
22 Home environment 25,685 0.42
23 Self-concept 4925 0.40
24 Individual instruction 4747 0.39
25 Time on task 1680 0.37
26 Homework 558 0.35
27 Computer-assisted teaching 16,415 0.32
28 Acceleration 345 0.32
29 Testing frequency 2346 0.32
30 Calculators 238 0.20
31 Learning hierarchies 168 0.19
32 Desegregation 1590 0.19
33 Mainstreaming 1635 0.19
34 Finances 1634 0.18
35 Behavior objectives 157 0.18
36 Teacher questioning 476 0.17
37 Programmed instruction 801 0.14
38 Ability grouping 5078 0.14
39 Teacher expectations 912 0.14
40 Classsize 2559 0.13
41 Diet 255 0.12
42 Problem-based learning 41 0.06
43 Whole language programs 13 0.06
44 Open vs. traditional classes 3426 0.04
45 Summer vacation 269 −0.07
46 Retention 3626 −0.20
He hints at reasons for the small effect here:4. Why is this difference so small?
It seems ironic that the list of reasons as to why smaller classes are more effective is very long, but so little research is undertaken asking why the differences are so small? Further, the expected differences seem more related to quantity than quality (e.g., more on-task behavior, less student–student interactions), and there is little, if any, evidence that the fundamental nature of teaching differs when there are smaller classes (even when the same teacher is teaching small and large classes within the same day). Some of the arguments tend towards the reductive—that is, the effects must be obvious simply because there are fewer students. In the same manner, there must be less time on non-teaching administrative functions simply because there are fewer students. There is more time spent on instruction and less on discipline simply because in smaller classes there are 15 less students to be “naughty” than in a class of 30. But even if these “quantity” claims are correct, they do not explain why the effects are so small. There are three major interrelated reasons why this effect may be small:
•
it is difficult to find studies whereby the nature of classroom experiences are differentially related to classsize;
•
teachers tend to use the same teaching methods regardless of classsize; and
•
there may be greater attention to peer effects in smaller classrooms. -
Heh
-
Or we could join the good life by helping the Profit in his South Auckland Walled City devil-opment.
And:
Auckland councillor Dick Quax says Mr Tamaki's ambitious plans should be praised.
“He's looking at educating people, helping people with social problems,” says Mr Quax. “No problems with that whatsoever.”
Thanks Dick. It will have it's own university as well. PhD in Creation Science anyone?
In a couple of years time the taxpayers will be coping with broken families, ripped off home sellers and broken individuals as a result of this.
But the Life of Brian will certainly be enhanced. Do I see a Bigger boat? Bigger SUV? Bigger Harley?
-
Thank christ I'm old. I have spent my whole life worrying about one partner. More would just ...well...worry me more.
The Judd:
we have some top people working on solutionsIn the interests of balance, shouldn't you have some bottom people too?
Charmed I'm sure.
-
Years a go I had a wee book - literally(!) about 100mm x 70mm - that gave a neat potted history of news taxes and how the Brits controlled the news. I have 'misplaced' the bloody thing!!
I found this article that is close to what the book was about. As you will see taxes on knowledge are not knew and I am certain we can call the Sky rents another version be it a private one. The lack of a public service (future?) radio and imminent demise of a public TV service is just another way of controlling information. Not feeding the service is just another way of deminishing the 'clear and present danger'.
" The government announced that it hoped that this stamp duty would stop the publication of newspapers and pamphlets that tended to "excite hatred and contempt of the Government and holy religion."
Not forgetting that the old broadcasting house existed close to Parliament so that the Prime Minister's Dept could run over with today's news bulletins, the only way I can see that a "Public Broadcasting Service " could function is to have a special tax that is collected on a per capita basis and locked down in legislation given to an independent organisation to run the PBS services.
-
Hard News: Reading the Numbers, in reply to Kumara Republic,
I think I was having a snap at comparing the costs of TV today v broadcasting fee days. You are right, the collection is a nightmare . Not to mention the TV finder van and people like me who hid their TV in the cupboard.....
The BBC model has a lot going for it. But convincing both houses to adopt it won't have much traction while the hate/love/control relationship with the minority-questioning-NZ-media is living in both. The classic "ignore me " by Key of Radio NZ prior to the election is the case in point. It must have got up his craw that an organisation funded by him, the master, had the audacity to want to ask nasty questions. It reeks of a fear for the truth. We are the poorer for it.
-
that $70 million of the $79 million put up for TVNZ 6 and 7 by the last Labour government actually took the form of a special dividend from TVNZ itself.
I heard that over the weekend and it stunned me. I found this link to a 2007 Stuff article that says " that all taxpayers had contributed a share of the $79 million allocated to TVNZ to fund the new channels."
And this Philip Wakefield article about how Freeview was influencing Sky's response reminds us that Mediaworks was advantaged by the Govt paying for digital TV. It makes fascinating reading because Sky now has TV ads advertising that Freeview is now "free" on Sky whereas in this article they are actively fighting the switchover by offering cheap deals.
And this one talks about how much it will cost.
And just to remind us all what we could/can get (Stratos is a gonna) this Herald Chris Barton article tells all about it and the Sky Fight of 07.
But the telling bit in the articles I found all refer to the funding being Govt sourced and "given" to TVNZ to get Freeview and TV6 and TV7 on air. All the articles make it appear that it was all taxpayers money. Even DPF was sucked in.
There is no doubt it was a Labour deal with important bits missing but there is no doubt the Nats are having no probs making the point that the funding was for a short time only and why should the govt pay to keep it going.
Jeez. That broadcasting license fee ($35 per year if I remember right) looks a good deal from out here eh what?
We've been, are, and will be right royally screwed.
-
Hard News: Reading the Numbers, in reply to Steve Barnes,
I would ponder the possibility that there are more scientist who were attracted to the discipline by explosions than not.;-)
New employees who turn up here always get the treat of a lunchtime demo of my lemon gun shooting tennis balls to unearthly heights.
Not boring.