Helping Students Learn

“Helping students learn is the key to better results” read the headline in last weekend’s The Weekend Australian (February 18-19, 2012). Now while you may be thinking that this is a self-evident truth, there is a lot more than meets the eye in helping students learn.

The research indicates that improving learning through assessment depends on five, deceptively simple, key factors:

• the provision of effective feedback to pupils;
• the active involvement of pupils in their own learning;
• adjusting teaching to take account of the results of assessment;
• a recognition of the profound influence assessment has on the motivation
and self-esteem of pupils, both of which are crucial influences on learning;
• the need for pupils to be able to assess themselves and understand how to
improve.
(Black, P. & Wiliam, D. 1999. Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box, Assessment Reform Group, University of Cambridge, School of Education)

Arguments abound as to why certain countries outperform all other countries in measures of reading, mathematics and science. Some point to the amount of government expenditure on education and one would logically think that those countries that spend more on education would have higher results on international testing such as Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). The facts tell a different story though.

In 2001 Hong Kong students were ranked 17th in international reading tests among Year 4 students and Singapore ranked 15th. Both of these countries undertook significant reforms to the teaching and learning programs for reading and after five years, Hong Kong was ranked second and Singapore 4th. South Korea also made significant gains, while Australia slipped in the rankings for PISA testing of 15 year old students and is ranked 9th.

Interestingly, it is not the amount of money spent that has brought about radical improvements in some countries and decline in others, it’s more a reflection of the quality of teaching and learning programs than the dollar value per student spent. South Korea spends less per student than any other country ($US7430) per secondary student compared with $US9000 in Australia. The United States of America ranks 4th in the per capita expenditure on education, $US 12,000, but is well down on the PISA rankings, languishing at 17th place for reading, 23rd place in science and 31st place in mathematics.

So which countries/ city regions are at the top of PISA (2009) rankings? Shanghai, China is ranked top in reading, mathematics and science. The other countries in the mix of positions in the top five for reading, mathematics and science are: South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ontario, Canada and Finland. Why have these countries or regions outperformed their OECD counterparts like Australia, New Zealand, UK and USA?

There are a number of factors that have contributed to these improved and in some cases, skyrocketing results in PISA. In a nutshell, these countries and regions have focussed policies and expenditure in those areas that have proven to improve teaching and learning where it counts the most – in the classroom. Shanghai, Singapore, Ontario have all undertaken extensive reforms in teacher training, where the focus has been on improving practical skills in the classroom, setting goals, giving specific feedback and teacher mastery of pedagogy.

Other reforms in these regions have centred on school leadership, mentoring programs for teachers and a career structure that keeps the best teachers in the classroom rather than advancement through school leadership. Also most significantly, there is a greater emphasis on classroom observations and research conducted by teachers themselves, on those practices that yield the best student outcomes. In other words, teachers become researchers honing skills and sharing with colleagues the best teaching practices that have yielded significant improvements in students’ test scores in reading, mathematics and science.

Students learn best when they have clear learning objectives and goals and when they receive specific feedback about how they can improve their learning. In his outstanding book, "Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement", John Hattie brings all of the relevant research together in a profoundly revealing analysis of what really works in improving student achievement. To simply list the top strategies or techniques that see the greatest improvement in student achievement does not do justice to Hattie's conclusions, but like all educators, we want to know the evidence of what really works. I recommend that all teachers take the time to read this excellent book, which gives far greater analysis to each of the contributing factors improving visible student learning.

There is no one single factor that contributes to improved student learning, what Hattie calls visible teaching and visible learning. In fact, Hattie divides his analysis by the contribution from each of the following domains:

• the student




• the home
  



• the school
  



• the teacher and
  



• the curricular.

The student, not surprisingly has the greatest influence in visible learning through the self-report grades and Piagetian programs. As far as the teaching and learning is concerned, the following is attributed to the greatest size effect on visible learning:

• providing formative evaluation (teaching) - size effect (d) 0.90




• micro teaching teacher) d = 0.88




• acceleration through year levels (school) d = 0.88




• classroom behavioural environment (school) d = 0.80




• comprehensive intervention for learning disabled d = 0.77




• teacher clarity (teacher) d = 0.75




• reciprocal teaching (teaching) d = 0.74




• feedback (teaching) d = 0.73




• teacher-student relationships (teacher) d = 0.72




• meta-cognitive strategies (teaching) d = 0.69
  



• prior achievement (student) d = 0.67




• vocabulary programs (curricula) d = 0.67




• repeated reading programs (curricula) d = 0.67




• creativity programs (curricula) d= 0.65




• self-verbalisation/self questioning) (teaching) d = 0.64




• professional development (teacher) d = 0.62




• problem solving teaching (teaching) d = 0.61




• not labelling students (teacher) d = 0.6
  

At the other extreme are factors whcih have a negative impact on visible learning. The lowest ranking of 138 factors were: retention (school) d = -0.16; television (home) d = -0.18 and the very lowest ranking was mobility d = -0.34 .

(n.b. the effect size (d) = 1.0 indicates an increase of one standard deviation on the outcome -improving school achievement. a one standard deviation increase is typically associated with advancing children's achievement by two to three years, improving the rate of learning by 50%. When implementing a new program, an effect size of 1.0 would mean that, on average, students receiveing that program would exceed 84% of students not receiving that treatment.)

The research conducted by Hattie, coupled with the initiatives and reforms that many countries and provinces are putting into place are certainly making a difference to student learning. It is up to each educator now, and each school to take the very best research showing what works in improving student achievement and to put this into place within the classroom and the school. Teachers make a difference and contribute significantly to how students learn and how effectively they learn.

As the research shows:


The best teachers constantly monitor what is happening to students as they set about learning and investigate when things do not proceed as planned or expected. They also enquire their own practice so they might get better at ensuring that their students learn successfully. (Demos 2004. About learning, Report of the Learning Working Group, Demos, London)


Karon Graham