Blind spots in visible learning: A critique of John Hattie as an educational theorist

References

• Allerup, P. (2015). Hatties brug af effect size som rangordning af paedagogiske indsatser [Hattie’s use of effect sizes as ranking educational interventions]. Paideia: Tidsskrift for Professionel Paedagogisk Praksis, 9, 42–51.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, M. A. (1982, April 17–20). Class size is not the issue [Paper presentation]. National School Boards Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bergeron, P.-J., & Rivard, L. (2017). How to engage in pseudoscience with real data: A criticism of John Hattie’s arguments in visible learning from the perspective of a statistician. McGill Journal of Education, 52(1), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.7202/1040816ar
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blatchford, P., & Russell, A. (2019). Class size, grouping practices and classroom management. International Journal of Educational Research, 96, 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blichfeldt, J. F. (2011). Om gyldig forskning og bruk av forsknings- og testresultater [About valid research and the use of research and test results]. Bedre Skole, 4, 12–17.
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Carboni, M. (2013). Forskere: Nytaenk lektierne [Researchers: Rethink homework]. http://www.skoleborn.dk/juni_2013/side-3.html
   Google Scholar
• Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379232
   Google Scholar
• Eacott, S. (2017). School leadership and the cult of the guru: The neo-Taylorism of Hattie. School Leadership & Management, 37(4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1327428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekecrantz, S. (2015). Feedback and student learning—A critical review of research. Utbilding & Lärande, 9(2), 15–34.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, D. (2012, September 14). He is not the messiah. Times Education Supplement.
   Google Scholar
• Frymier, A., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship of teachers’ use of humor in the classroom to immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 30, 46–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, O., Lekhai, R., Nordahl, T., Persson, B., & Qvortrup, L. (2015). Leder—temanummer om John Hattie [Editorial—special issue about John Hattie]. Paideia, 9, 4–8.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (1987). Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 187–212.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2010). Commentary on being a “critic and conscience of society”: The role of the education academic in public debates. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 45(1), 85–96.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers—Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. A., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. [Database] https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., & Yates, J. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Honneth, A. (1996). Struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Honneth, A. (2008). Reification and recognition: A new look at an old idea. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudsen, H. (2017). John Hattie: I’m a statistician, I’m not a theoretician. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2017.1415048
   Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. (1973). The technological paradigm of psychological research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 3(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916273X00136
   Google Scholar
• Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J. (1980). Classroom reinforcement. Evaluation in Education, 4, 115–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-765X(80)90038-5
   Google Scholar
• Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Instructional effects of cues, participation and corrective feedback: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019004559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue (2nd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mansell, W. (2008, November 21). Research reveals teaching’s Holy Grail. Times Education Supplement.
   Google Scholar
• Mathis, W. J. (2017). The effectiveness of class size reduction. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 5(1), 176–183.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, K. (2016). Learning from a social-ontological perspective. In M. Wiberg & A. Quotrup (Eds.), On the definition of learning (pp. 141–161). Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donohue, W., & Kitchener, R. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of behavorism. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Overview. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/47/34990905
   Google Scholar
• Polanin, J. R., Maynard, B. R., & Dell, N. A. (2017). Overviews in education research: A systematic review and analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 172–203. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316631117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qvortrup, L. (2015). Baggrund for og diskussion af visible learning med saerligt henblik på laerings- og vidensbegrebet [The background for and a discussion of visible learning with a special focus on its concept of learning and knowledge]. Paideia, 9, 22–33.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B. (Ed.). (1989). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Rømer, T. A. (2019). A critique of John Hattie’s theory of Visible Learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(6), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1488216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner—Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, A. (2017). The misdirection of public policy: Comparing and combining standardised effect sizes. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1280183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, A. (2018). Princesses are bigger than elephants: Effect size as a category error in evidence-based education. British Educational Research Journal, 44(5), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snook, I., O’Neil, J., Clark, J., O’Neill, A., & Openshaw, R. (2009). Invisible learnings? A commentary on John Hattie’s book Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 44(1), 93–106.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. L. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321–363. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topphol, A. K. (2012). Kan vi stole på statistikkbruken i utdanningsforskinga? [Can we trust the use of statistic in educational research]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 95(06), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1504-2987-2011-06-06
   Google Scholar
• Travers, R. M. W., Van Wagenen, K. R., Haygood, D. H., & McCormick, M. (1964). Learning as a consequence of the learner’s task involvement under different conditions of feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(3), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wentling, T. L. (1973). Mastery vs. non-mastery instruction with varying test item feedback treatment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationships between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/036452042000228054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2006). A relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning: A meta-analysis. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 149–168). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wrigley, T. (2018). The power of ‘evidence’: Reliable science or a set of blunt tools? British Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y. (2018). What works may hurt—Side effects in education. Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar