This report is written at a fairly theoretical but is actually concerned with a very practical question: "If retrieval practice is so powerful, why is (John) Hattie's score for retrieval practice only 0.54?" It's a good question, but what really valuable here is this discussion of the difference between individual studies, meta-analyses, and meta-meta-analyses (which is what Hattie does). It's especially important to note the requirements for good meta-anayses: consistency in learning outcomes measured, consistency in learning strategies studied, and inclusion of recent studies. These requirements are the greatest strength of meta-analyses, but also the greatest weakness. The only way to measure outcomes, for example, is to include "studies that measured student learning and transfer of knowledge in similar ways, i.e. using exams," which creates a very narrow and one-dimensional focus. Via 3-Star.
Today: 4 Total: 18 [Direct link] [Share]
