The title is correct and than again a bit misleading, as it’s not about that the insights are per se wrong. Still I hope there will come a reaction by Hattie on this.
At the researchED conference in September 2013, Professor Robert Coe, Professor of Education at Durham University, said that John Hattie’s book, ‘Visible Learning’, is “riddled with errors”. But what are some of those errors?
The biggest mistake Hattie makes is with the CLE statistic that he uses throughout the book. In ‘Visible Learning, Hattie only uses two statistics, the ‘Effect Size’ and the CLE (neither of which Mathematicians use).
The CLE is meant to be a probability, yet Hattie has it at values between -49% and 219%. Now a probability can’t be negative or more than 100% as any Year 7 will tell you.
This was first spotted and pointed out to him by Arne Kare Topphol, an Associate Professor at the University of Volga and his class who sent Hattie an email.
In his first reply – here , Hattie completely misses the point about probability being negative…
View original post 315 more words