I have spent a lot of time during this year involved in sessions organised by Macmillan based on John Hattie’s research A lot of this has been valuable, probing and at times uncomfortable for many educators present when they have to produce data that exposes heir school and themselves. Yet, what really grates me is the delivery method and the lack of visibility.
How can a conference that professes to educate attendees on visible learning only allow visibility to paying attendees? (Surely, this comes under Cooperative learning which has an effect size of 0.59 in Hattie’s top 150 and it could be argued, surely, that it provides a more extensive classroom discussion which has an effect size of 0.82 and gets into the top 10)
Where is the enabling, facilitating and promoting of shared practice around such valuable PD? (I can’t find this in Hattie’s top 150 effect sizes so I’m not sure it’s ever been measured)
Why would a leading researcher on education run every session largely in a lecture style with a booklet supplied that attendees follow? (This seems to come under the banner of Direct instruction which has an effect size of o.59)
And if we move away from Hattie’s research and perhaps concern ourselves with Alec Couros, George Couros and Steve Wheelers’ views then there is a major push for the benefits of open, connected learning that is shared outside of the walls of a classroom or conference room. So, I am left feeling a little let down by a delivery mode which in it’s archaic style,in my opinion, leaves a lasting impression on educators who attend:
The sharing on a global scale, in a connected world of professional development that elements of social media offers us, does not matter that much. Maybe book sales and bums on seats at a premium rate do