Worked Examples

Hattie only used ONE meta-analysis for this influence where d=0.57 (Hattie's Rank = 30)

Crissman, J., (2006) The Design and Utilization of Effective Worked Examples, A Dissertation, University of Nebraska.

An effect size of d=0.57 is high in Hattie's frame of reference - more than a year's progress.

This study used a more robust design that enabled effect size to be calculated using a control and experimental group - method 1 (see effect size). So it was actually measuring a change in student achievement - unlike self-report grades and Piagetian programs.

Also, the subjects were mostly college students. Using the benchmarks calculated for different age groups (see a year's progress ?) this could be interpreted as a much higher rank than Hattie's.

This is the technique used by most math's textbooks and the most popular YouTube math's channels.

This study is worthwhile reading as it goes into a range of different ways in which teachers can use worked examples.

VERDICT: my experience would indicate that, worked example are a much more effective strategy for teaching maths than self-report or Piagetian programs. A deeper analysis of Hattie's evidence also shows this.

So Hattie's rankings are misleading and distracting from effective strategies in this circumstance.