I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the article that Hattie suing in return is authoritarian - either Stephen's claims have valid evidence behind them or not, and if they do then that will be seen in court. Perhaps I am naïve. But it could be a slightly less exciting Wagatha Christie trial.
I listened to both of the podcasts. Thanks. I found one more convincing than the other. The researcher was unemotional and was merely presenting a case.
The evidence I've seen is pretty convincing. But I am worried for Stephen who is an important voice, I think. He's worth following if you want to see the evidence.
I’m pretty sure something like “self reported grades” was the biggest effect size, but everyone seemed to latch on to “feedback” and claim that it was the champion. That’s just my bit of feedback on paragraph 1…
This podcast has a researcher who absolutely dismantles the evidence behind the effect sizes used in his research. The following podcast is John Hattie's rebuttal to it, which to me is thoroughly unconvincing. https://open.spotify.com/episode/3EFlXD02mvjuOuXAuTQIAt?si=tmZlp51mRUSARYwHGcBoig
I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the article that Hattie suing in return is authoritarian - either Stephen's claims have valid evidence behind them or not, and if they do then that will be seen in court. Perhaps I am naïve. But it could be a slightly less exciting Wagatha Christie trial.
I listened to both of the podcasts. Thanks. I found one more convincing than the other. The researcher was unemotional and was merely presenting a case.
The evidence I've seen is pretty convincing. But I am worried for Stephen who is an important voice, I think. He's worth following if you want to see the evidence.
I’m pretty sure something like “self reported grades” was the biggest effect size, but everyone seemed to latch on to “feedback” and claim that it was the champion. That’s just my bit of feedback on paragraph 1…
Yes I remember that. I also remember thinking it was probably silly and illogical.