Evidence based teaching and learning Martin Valcke
[email protected] http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm
Slide 2 Structure Starter Effective instructional strategies:
Activity 1 Overview of some evidence based strategies Pairwise
discussion: activity 2 Making it more complex Applying frame of
reference: activity 3 Slide 3 Before we start: testing x Slide 4 As
a starter Do you consider to be educational research being of
relevant for teaching practice? Choose a number from 0 (not at all)
to 9 (extremely relevant) 0__1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9 Slide 5
Activity 1 Individually: Map a list of 5 key didactical strategies
that you consider or experienced to be effective. Develop list on
flip-over. Slide 6 What works in education?
http://www.sigo.be/sok/Kwaliteit%20in%20onderwijs.pdf What has an
impact on learning performance? Direct impact Indirect impact
(motivation, attitude, self- efficacy, ). Slide 7 Certain
intervention, process, variables, Attitude Self-efficacy Motivation
Beliefs . Better performance Slide 8 Examples 1.HomeworkHomework
2.Mind mapsMind maps 3.Giving feedbackGiving feedback 4.Web based
learningWeb based 5.Collaborative versus individual
learningCollaborative versus individual learning Certain
intervention, process, variables, Slide 9 Slide 10 Mindmap Slide 11
11 Slide 12 Slide 13 Slide 14 Examples: Strongest impact?
1.HomeworkHomework 2.Mind mapsMind maps 3.Giving feedbackGiving
feedback 4.Web based learningWeb based 5.Collaborative versus
individual learningCollaborative versus individual learning Certain
intervention, process, variables, Slide 15 Effect size Significant
impact of process, variable, . Integration research: meta-analysis
Summary measure: effect size (d). Rule of thumb: d = >.40 is
relevant impact. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis
of over 800 Meta- Analysis relating to Achievement. Milton Park,
Oxon: Routledge. Slide 16 Examples: Strongest impact?
1.HomeworkHomework 2.Mind mapsMind maps 3.Giving feedbackGiving
feedback 4.Web based learningWeb based 5.Collaborative versus
individual learningCollaborative versus individual learning Certain
intervention, process, variables, d=.29 d=.57 d=.73 d=.37 d=.59
Slide 17 Slide 18 Slide 19 Activity 2 Make a thinking pair Check
your own top 5 with the two tables (see print out Tables Hattie)
Discuss congruency and incongruency with colleague. What might
explains (in)congruencies? Slide 20 Maar even complexer maken
Akkoord met onderzoeken? Bijv. Huiswerk Slide 21 Slide 22
http://www.hisparks.com/MathHelpers/Homework_Research_and_Policy.pdf
Slide 23 Certain intervention, process, variables, Attitude
Self-efficacy Motivation Beliefs . Better performance
Characteristics teaching staff Characteristics learner Making it
more complex Slide 24 Complexer: frame of reference Slide 25 Slide
26 Making it more complex Activity 3: exemplify the frame of
reference Actors Learner + characteristics Teaching staff +
characteristics Didactical activity (objectives, content, media,
didactical strategy, evaluation) Context Slide 27 Look at the
impact.. Evidence about: Student characteristics Teaching staff
characteristics Teaching strategies Curricula Education institution
characteristics Context Slide 28 Learner characteristics Slide 29
1.Reducing anxiety 2.Diet 3.Gender 4.Personality 5.Self-concept
Slide 30 Learner characteristics 1.Reducing anxiety (d=.40) 2.Diet
(d=.12) 3.Gender (d=.12) 4.Personality (d=.19) 5.Self-concept
(d=.43) Slide 31 Teaching staff characteristics (gebaseerd op
Hattie, 2009, p. 109) Slide 32 Teaching staff characteristics
1.Expectations staff 2.Relationship staff memberstudent 3.Teacher
subject matter knowledge 4.Not labelling students 5.Professional
development staff (gebaseerd op Hattie, 2009, p. 109) Slide 33
Discuss with partner and select again 1.Expectations staff
2.Relationship staff memberstudent 3.Teacher subject matter
knowledge 4.Not labelling students 5.Professional development staff
(gebaseerd op Hattie, 2009, p. 109) Slide 34 Teaching staff
characteristics 1.Expectations staff (d=.43) 2.Relationship staff
memberstudent (d=.72) 3.Teacher subject matter knowledge (d=.09)
4.Not labelling students (d=.61) 5.Professional development staff
(d=.62) (gebaseerd op Hattie, 2009, p. 109) Slide 35 Conclusions
Slide 36 1.Look for the evidence 2.Approach the complex teaching
and learning setting 3.Consider interaction of processes/variables
in different actors in the educational setting Slide 37 Evidence
based teaching and learning Martin Valcke [email protected]
http://users.ugent.be/~mvalcke/CV/CVMVA.htm
