BE LIKE LEBRON JAMES

Two years ago I wrote this blog post comparing Steph Curry’s impact on basketball to John Hattie’s impact on education. From the post:

Just as Curry has forced basketball players to strategically think about how they can more effectively make points for their teams, Hattie is helping educators rethink how to be more effective in the classroom. Every strategy has an effect (just like every made shot within the three-point line is two points)–what’s important is using precious instructional time to choose the strategies that reap the greatest rewards.

My goal was to begin a discussion of Curry’s gameplay in which he shoots as often as possible behind the three-point line because, well, three points are more than two points. I wanted to explore how this is similar to incorporating strategies in one’s teaching practice that data has shown provides schools with the best results in student learning.

I’d like to reopen this dialogue because of an article I read recently about LeBron James on The Ringer, but we’ll get to that in a bit. Before we discuss King James, I have a question: Why didn’t NBA, college, high school, and club coaches stress the importance of setting up an offense that fosters more shots behind the three-point line before Curry’s recent dominance? Practicing three-point shots is essential, but setting up plays that open up a shot from downtown changes the fundamentals of how a team operates. When I was in high school (late ’90s), the strategy was all about penetration, which included lay ups, dunks, jump shots around the key, and the occasional three. It didn’t occur to many coaches that preparing all players to be proficient at threes, while at the same time providing offenses with the most strategic opportunities to hit threes instead of twos, would defeat opposing teams–many of whom were primarily going for the low-hanging two pointer.

Here are a couple answers to the above question:

  1. Coaches were teaching players to do what they themselves were taught.
  2. Coaches were caught up in the zeitgeist of aerial gameplay over the practical philosophy of getting the ball in the hoop from a place on the court that provides the highest reward.

The first answer makes sense–we continue doing what we’ve been taught. It worked for us, or at least seemed to work for us, so it’s obviously the best path forward. The second answer is a little different; sometimes we hold on to the past while embracing the shiny new theory, strategy, gameplay, etc. We create a mishmash of what we know and what’s new. In the 90s, battling it out in the key and the dominance of Air Jordan made the three-point shot boring.

But winning isn’t boring, and Curry ushered in a new era in which a team can succeed by making three points for every two points the opponent makes. The truth behind this was apparent to everyone, including one of the best athletes of his generation.

We Are Witnessing the Future of LeBron James by Danny Chau discusses how James had to change his game in order to compete against a new threat. James came into the league right after Jordan exited, but he had the opportunity to play against Kobe and many other greats who have since retired. James did well against these opponents; he was able to compete against many players who modeled themselves after Jordan and Kobe. And then 2015 came, which is when the Golden State Warriors’s dominance began. James realized the old strategies and techniques would no longer work. His team could drive to the rim and hit jump shots around the key all night, but if Steph Curry and Klay Thompson were on fire at the three-point line, the Warriors would win.

This is why James worked hard to be as big a threat pulling-up behind the three-point line as when he’s driving to the basket for two. In order to compete, he had to make threes–and so did his teammates. So that’s what he did, and if you are watching him on the Lakers this year, that’s what he’s continuing to do.

The same lesson is true for education. Like LeBron James, we need to remember the past but not be beholden to the practices that, while may be effective, are not effective enough. We need to practice shooting threes–whatever that metaphor means at your school site. As a matter of fact, we need to reengineer our whole offense so we’re better equipped to take the threes.

In basketball, the current high-leverage strategy is to move the ball around the court in order to provide opportunities for pull-ups from the three-point zone. The technique of shooting the three is mastered individually by players who practice perfectly for thousands of hours. In education, the strategy I’m proposing is examining Hattie’s effect sizes and choosing which ones will provide our students with the most growth. We must then practice our technique, which is us getting better at using the strategies–whether they be collective or individual.

LeBron James is staying relevant by changing with the times. Steph Curry created the latest shift to which James adapted. As educators, are we aware and nimble enough to see the current shifts and make the necessary change?

#BeLikeLeBronJames

The Visible Project

“The human mind was just bad at seeing things it did not expect to see, and a bit too eager to see what it expected to see” (The Undoing Project, page 40).

I was pretty excited when I first heard Michael Lewis was publishing a book about the lives of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Kahneman wrote Thinking, Fast and Slow, which I’ve come to believe is required reading for anyone who finds value in recognizing cognitive biases. Lewis’s book, The Undoing Project, includes the riveting life stories of Kahneman and Tversky along with their important body of work in psychology, which birthed the field of behavioral economics.

After publishing Moneyball in 2004, Lewis began a correspondence with Kahneman. (Tversky unfortunately died in 1996.) Moneyball is about how Oakland Athletics’ General Manager Billy Beane used statistics and other unconventional means to draft or trade for players who were collectively believed to be “subpar” (i.e. cheap), but who nevertheless brought value to Oakland. Ultimately, Beane avoided the cognitive biases Kahneman researched for most of his professional life.

“Simply knowing about a bias wasn’t sufficient to overcome it… The mere fact that (the Houston Rockets) owned Kyle Lowry appeared to have distorted their judgment about him” (The Undoing Project, page 44)

In the field of education, much has been written about John Hattie’s Visible Learning research. He’s accomplished the important work of ranking 195 influences related to learning outcomes. Some of these influences have little positive impact on student learning, and others have a huge impact. Although the effect sizes have slightly changed throughout the years due to the addition of hundreds of meta-analysis, these influences are a valuable tool for educators–primarily because they give us the best advice available for making objective decisions regarding how to best teach kids.

“Theories for Amos were like mental pockets or briefcases, places to put the ideas you wanted to keep. Until you could replace a theory with a better theory–a theory that better predicted what actually happened–you didn’t chuck a theory out. Theories ordered knowledge, and allowed for better prediction” (The Undoing Project, page 151).

As stated above, Hattie’s effect sizes change as more research is conducted, and educators should use the effect sizes as Amos used theories: we don’t replace them until the data tells us there’s a more powerful effect size. This is important for a number of reasons.

  1. We’re getting the biggest bang for our buck in regard to instructional time.
  2. We’re avoiding our faulty and biased opinion when deciding large initiatives for schools and districts.
  3. We’re willing to change course when the data suggests it’s prudent to do so.

The way I see it, education has been in a dark room for decades. Hattie’s research has guided our hand to the light switch.

“You need to be so careful when there is one simple diagnosis that instantly pops into your mind that beautifully explains everything all at once. That’s when you need to stop and check your thinking” (The Undoing Project, page 216).

Of course, there’s no simple diagnosis. Effect sizes should guide our thinking, but there is still value in experienced intuition and heuristics. The lesson to be learned from The Undoing Project, and also from Kahneman’s work, is that it’s really difficult to be completely certain of anything–especially when it comes to how students learn best. The research must continue.

“There was a reason for this: To acknowledge uncertainty was to admit the possibility of error. The entire (medical) profession had arranged itself as if to confirm the wisdom of its decisions. Whenever a patient recovered, for instance, the doctor typically attributed the recovery to the treatment he had prescribed, without solid evidence that the treatment was responsible. Just because the patient is better after I treated him doesn’t mean he got better because I treated him, Redelmeier thought. ‘So many diseases are self-limiting,’ he said. ‘They will cure themselves. People who are in distress seek care. When they seek car, physicians feel the need to do something. You put leeches on; the condition improves. And that can propel a lifetime of leeches. A lifetime of over prescribing antibiotics. A lifetime of giving tonsillectomies to people with ear infections. You try it and they get better the next day and it is so compelling. You go see a psychiatrist and your depression improves–you are convinced of the efficacy of psychiatry'” (The Undoing Project, page 221).

We must use data to guide decision making while at the same time constantly question whether our strategies are what’s actually causing the positive outcome. Also, it’s important to touch upon a portion of the above excerpt: “So many diseases are self-limiting… they will cure themselves.” Are there any strategies we’re using in education that are the equivalent of leeches? Do we deploy initiatives because they make it easier for us to explain how we’re being effective?

“It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place” (The Undoing Project, page 230).

Billy Beane has found success with his statistical approach. The Boston Red Sox borrowed his strategies and eventually became world champions. In education, let’s adopt continual inquiry into our practice, along with Hattie’s research, so we can experience the same level of success for student learning.

Collective efficacy

Steph Curry shoots three-pointers like no one else. His consistency and excitement cultivate confidence within himself and his team. This confidence, or efficacy, helps both Curry and the Golden State Warriors stay motivated and resilient.

Collective efficacy is born as a result of experiencing success as a team, which positively influences the team’s belief that there will be more success in the future. We see this in sports all the time, as well as other organizations.

As I stated before, just as Curry has forced basketball players to think more strategically about how they can effectively make points and work as a team, John Hattie is helping educators rethink how to be more effective in the classroom. According to his research, collective teacher efficacy has an effect size of 1.57, which is quadruple the .40 necessary for one school year’s worth of growth.

As stated in Leading Impact Teams, collective teacher efficacy is when teachers work together to build the confidence that they can get all students to advance in learning. These teachers truly believe that collectively they have the capacity to promote successful student outcomes within their school. Like Curry, they have confidence because they’re using proven strategies that give them the biggest bang for their buck. Good results beget good results, which builds not only the professional capacity of the team, but also their collective efficacy (i.e. their belief they can promote student achievement).

I really enjoy drawing a parallel between the effectiveness of Steph Curry’s basketball strategy and the educational strategy of focusing on good teaching strategies and collaboration so collective teacher efficacy is fostered. Just as shooting threes instead of dunking the ball is an efficient tweak for scoring more points without changing the structure of the game (the game wasn’t made longer, they didn’t have to make a four-point shot, etc.), educators can make choices that allow them to truly work smarter, not harder, and help students achieve greater heights without large-scale and expensive educational reform.

Shoot more threes

Steph Curry has changed basketball by showing players and fans what should have been apparent all along: If you practice really hard and get really good, shooting a three-pointer is far more beneficial than taking a two-point shot.

Growing up in the late 80’s and 90’s, I thought the slam dunk was the most thrilling offensive move. But no matter how high a player could jump off the ground–no matter how acrobatic his trajectory–a dunk was only two points.

Of course, three-point shots have been around forever, and there have been many great shooters throughout the history of the NBA. Curry is different though. Not only has he perfected the three-point shot to almost superhuman proportions, he’s changing how other players approach the game. Further still, he’s influencing how this generation’s young people practice. Yeah, dunks still look cool, but the three-point shot is now even more cool. Better yet, you get three points instead of two.

I was thinking about this the other day in relation to education. There are a lot of two-point shots being taken. Maybe even some slam dunks and the occasional alley-oop. Looking at John Hattie’s ranking of effect sizes, these two-pointers could be any number of things:

  • homework
  • use of PowerPoint
  • summer school

These three random examples each have less than a 0.40 effect size, so according to Hattie’s research, you’re not getting a lot of bang for your buck by using them in the pursuit for student achievement.

Just as Curry has forced basketball players to strategically think about how they can more effectively make points for their teams, Hattie is helping educators rethink how to be more effective in the classroom. Every strategy has an effect (just like every made shot within the three-point line is two points)–what’s important is using precious instructional time to choose the strategies that reap the greatest rewards. According to Hattie, these “three-point shots” are:

  • teacher estimates of achievement (1.62)
  • collective teacher efficacy (1.57)
  • self-reported grades (1.33)

Teachers and administrators must shoot fewer two-pointers and begin shooting more three-pointers. Here and here are good places to start in this pursuit.