Somehow, someway, we are already on episode 9 of season 2 of the Progressively Incorrect podcast!
Today I have the absolute pleasure of talking with the incredible Nate Joseph, the author of the Scientific Principles of Teaching (check out this page for all his books) Nate is a fan of secondary meta-analysis, a methodology popularized by Dr. John Hattie in his book Visible Learning. For many educators, Hattie’s research has become the first and most direct entry point into the evidence-based education movement, which I definitely support. However, in recent years, Hattie’s methods have come under a lot of fire and criticism. For example, listen to this quote from the late Robert Slavin’s blog:
A meta-analysis cannot be any better than the studies that go into it. Hattie’s claims are deeply misleading because they are based on meta-analyses that themselves accepted studies of all levels of quality. Evidence matters in education, now more than ever. Yet Hattie and others who uncritically accept all studies, good and bad, are undermining the value of evidence. This needs to stop if we are to make solid progress in educational practice and policy.
No matter how you slice it, it seems problematic to mush a bunch of crummy studies together to create an effect size, and say that this is definitive proof that something works better than something else. In our discussion, Nate addresses many of the criticisms of Hattie’s work, while supplying ways that his approach to secondary meta-analysis improves upon, and eliminates many of the flaws, of some of Hattie’s earlier work. The best part of our discussion, however, is how Nate is able to leverage his experience as a teacher to tell the story behind the evidence that constitutes the science of reading and math.
So sit back, relax, and enjoy Season 2 Episode 9 of the Progressively Incorrect Podcast, featuring Nate Joseph.