In general I’ve found it practically very useful for my own learning, which is reason enough for me.
The model itself fell out Hattie’s work trying to pull out all of the important meta studies in education, and understand the data—he found that by applying these 3 stages, he could better understand why certain interventions were effective in some cases and not others.
I would be very surprised if there are clear delineated boundaries between the 3, as such an abstraction rarely corresponds to reality so cleanly. And yet I still find it an incredibly useful model.
I would be very surprised if there are clear delineated boundaries between the 3, as such an abstraction rarely corresponds to reality so cleanly. And yet I still find it an incredibly useful model.
If there’s a continuum, then it should be expressed in terms of parameters for each of its dimensions. Using categories for things not separated into definite clusters is shoddy thinking.
Going by the words used, if anything, “transfer” should come first, because systems for new tasks are initialized by transfer from existing skills. It’s also ongoing at every stage of learning, not something that happens after learning is complete.
I don’t think I would describe hatties thinking as shoddy, he’s one of the more careful thinkers in educational theory, both dong a careful review of the literature, and then testing his insights through his work with implementing his insights into schools and being careful with the results. Of course when you want your material implemented there’s tradeoffs you make, between implementability and depth. But your assessment seems premature based on looking at my one comment
It’s true that you’re doing transfer with the previous skills that already went through the process while doing surface with new skills that are going through, but I dont think tht means it comes first. It comes last from those previous skills. If you want more specifics you can of course read Hattie.
In general I’ve found it practically very useful for my own learning, which is reason enough for me.
The model itself fell out Hattie’s work trying to pull out all of the important meta studies in education, and understand the data—he found that by applying these 3 stages, he could better understand why certain interventions were effective in some cases and not others.
I would be very surprised if there are clear delineated boundaries between the 3, as such an abstraction rarely corresponds to reality so cleanly. And yet I still find it an incredibly useful model.
If there’s a continuum, then it should be expressed in terms of parameters for each of its dimensions. Using categories for things not separated into definite clusters is shoddy thinking.
Going by the words used, if anything, “transfer” should come first, because systems for new tasks are initialized by transfer from existing skills. It’s also ongoing at every stage of learning, not something that happens after learning is complete.
I don’t think I would describe hatties thinking as shoddy, he’s one of the more careful thinkers in educational theory, both dong a careful review of the literature, and then testing his insights through his work with implementing his insights into schools and being careful with the results. Of course when you want your material implemented there’s tradeoffs you make, between implementability and depth. But your assessment seems premature based on looking at my one comment
It’s true that you’re doing transfer with the previous skills that already went through the process while doing surface with new skills that are going through, but I dont think tht means it comes first. It comes last from those previous skills. If you want more specifics you can of course read Hattie.
I’m curious about the down votes to these comments. Do people think they weren’t adding to the discussion?