Having a positive effect on every student in the class is at the heart of visible learning. Teachers need to have the attitude to promote intellectual demand, challenge, and learning because these are the more effective predictors of interest, engagement, higher level thinking, and conceptual understanding that enable students to want to reinvest in learning. Making education accessible to students so they can learn to become their own teachers is a crucial aspect of lifelong learning and the joy of learning that we want students to appreciate. This is referred to as being “Visible” in this context. Learning is the process by which we come to know and grasp something before acting to improve student learning.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the teacher to understand the type and extent of his or her influence on students’ learning. What does classroom visible learning look like? It entails influencing students’ enjoyment of learning, encouraging them to continue studying, and identifying ways in which students can improve their positive self-concept, regard for others, and regard for others—in addition to raising achievement. The daily lives of students who are active in learning, as well as the daily lives of teachers who prepare, begin, conduct, and evaluate lessons. When good learning and teaching take place, it is apparent in the classrooms of successful teachers and students as well as in the passion that the learner and teacher exhibit. As a result, the teacher needs to be aware of whether or not learning is taking place, when to experiment and when to use expertise to guide decisions, how to watch, desire for feedback, and supply it, as well as alternate teaching methods when the first ones aren’t working. Then, both learning and teaching are visible to both the student and the teacher.

To ensure that there is a cognitive change in the pupil, the act of teaching necessitates active interventions—awareness about learning intentions, success in attaining them, student’s prior understanding and to provide meaningful and challenging experiences for progressive development. Expert teachers that are able to connect the content of the present lesson to other areas in the curriculum integrate the introduction of new subject information with the students’ past knowledge. By altering, integrating, and adding to preexisting lessons in accordance with the needs of their students and individual learning objectives, expert teachers can also produce lessons that are distinctively their own (Hattie, 2012) . As a result, specialists are fast to identify classroom occurrences in sequence that have an impingement on the topic’s teaching and learning.

Shayer (2003) recommends two fundamental guidelines for educators. Teachers must first pay attention to how pupils are thinking before developing interventions for students with higher thinking levels and putting them into practice during a regular lesson. Second, because learning is collaborative and dialog-based, teachers must pay close attention to all facets of peer-to-peer construction and mediation (especially in whole-class discussions, by fostering and providing spaces for perspectives, exposition, and criticism). Teachers must therefore listen in addition to speaking. Knowing what students already know and how they think will help us move them closer to the lesson’s success criteria.

As a last phase in the lesson planning process, teachers select the instructional strategies and assess their influence on pupils. Therefore, pupils who struggle to learn do not require “more” instruction but rather “different” approaches. Acceleration, reciprocal teaching, problem-solving instruction, and self-verbalization/ self-questioning were the programmes that were most effective. These best practices focus on peer influence, feedback, open communication about learning objectives and success criteria, teaching numerous tactics or applying a variety of strategies, and paying attention to both surface and deep learning. Thus, there are two components to regulate instruction: the first is the strength of teachers cooperating to critique their planning, and the second is the strength of creating and assessing lesson plans (critical learning instructional pathways, CLIPs).

What the student already knows has the biggest impact on what they can learn. Confirm this and instruct him appropriately (Ausubel, 1968) . It is true that past performance is a very effective indicator of how well lessons will go. Therefore, challenge, commitment, confidence, high expectations, and conceptual understanding (SOLO taxonomy) are the five fundamental elements of the learning equation as they relate to learning objectives and success criteria.

Any lesson’s learning objectives must combine surface, deep, and conceptual learning; the exact mix is up to the teacher’s discretion, which in turn depends on how the lesson fits within the curriculum. The core of formative assessment is the clarity of learning intentions, which define what we want students to learn (Hattie, 2012) .

The requirement to explicitly teach pupils the learning objectives and success criteria is a major problem (Hastie, 2011) . Thus, we need more teachers with mastery approaches.

Steele (2009) claims that when teachers encounter the realities and difficulties found in schools and classrooms, they have four options available to them: quit, disconnect from their students, and perform the role of teacher, develop one’s skills so as to advance in the classroom, or discover the joy of inspired teaching. As a result, educators regularly monitor the type and quality of the impact they are making on each student.

Teachers must see themselves as positive change agents for the kids students and recognize that they have the largest influence on students’ academic success that we can affect. Therefore, visible learning should have solid proof that the majority, if not all, of our strategies, tools, and instruction have a beneficial impact on outcomes.

The concept of visible learning is applied to teacher education institution and the objectives of the study are:

1) To find whether learning is happening (visible learning inside) in University College of Education, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

2) To know the needs of Preservice Teachers (students) of University College of Education, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

The paper presents the reviews of earlier studies, the methodology adopted for the present study besides discussion. Later, recommendations drawn from the study and conclusions are given.

Survey method was adopted for the present study. To know the visible learning inside the institution, the preservice teachers pursuing Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) at University College of Education, Osmania University, Hyderabad were administered a Google Form on their WhatsApp group. The sample consisted of the preservice teachers of the 2018-2020 batch. Among them fifteen were female and nine were male students in the age group of 23 to 31 years. The data was collected at the end of second year examinations during May 2020.

The checklist consists of items related to starting the lesson; learning during the lesson; feedback during the lesson; at the end of the lesson; and mind frames of the teachers. This is adopted from the Checklist for “Visible Learning” developed by Hattie J (2012) . It consists of 11 items in section—1 of starting the lesson followed by 9 items in section—2 of learning during the lesson. Section—3, feedback during the lesson has 10 items while 7 items assess how teachers end the lesson. Mindframes of the teachers is section—5 and constitutes 8 items. The last section is open-ended which seek suggestions for improvement of the institution in terms of visible learning. Each item has 6 options—Strongly Disagree (SD), Generally Disagree (GD), Partially Disagree (PD), Partially Agree (PA), Generally Agree (GA), and Strongly Agree (SA). The responses on the checklist are scored as given in Table 1 below.

Research questions proposed for the study are:

1) How satisfied are the preservice teachers with the starting of the lesson?

2) Are the preservice teachers satisfied with the aspects of learning during the lesson?

3) How satisfied are the preservice teachers with the feedback during the lesson?

4) What is the opinion of preservice teachers regarding the aspects of ending the lesson?

5) How satisfied are the preservice teachers with the “mind frames” of their teachers in University College of Education?

6) What are the suggestions for teachers at University College of Education to practice visible teaching learning?

Out of the 100 students, twenty-four students responded to the google form (checklist) and these were used for analysis. The result tables display the opinion of students for each item along with frequency and percentage of responses to each of the type of opinion. The mean score is calculated for each of the item on a six-point scale. The opinion of students on “starting the lesson” is given in Table 2.

It is evident from Table 2, that 83.3% of the learners had visible learning in the institution and experienced classrooms dominated by dialogue. The mean score for this factor is 6.16 which indicates that the students were engaged in discussion and their opinion mattered in the classroom interaction. Other factors of this area scored less mean score and the least one (3.79) is for the factor dominated by student questions. 54.2% of the student sample had teachers who encouraged student questions.

The Opinion of Preservice teachers on “learning during the lesson” is shown in Table 3.

It is clear from Table 3, that the highest mean (5.08) that is, 95.9% of students is for the factor—teacher using “backward design” during the classroom. The all-other factors have close to the highest mean and the least one (4.37) with 91.7% of the students felt that learning was significant and efficient to all students gaining objectives of the lesson.

Table 4 gives the details of the Opinion of Preservice teachers on “feedback during the lesson”.

The highest mean (5.29) for feedback during the lesson is for awareness of the importance of praise. The lowest mean (5.08) is for the concern of how students receive and interpret feedback (Table 5).

Teachers invitation for students to understand learning intentions to learn effectively and attain success criteria scored highest mean (5.33) while the lowest mean (4.83) is for opportunities for assessment of student learning and use these for future decisions about teaching (Table 6).

Teachers’ belief to develop positive relationships in classrooms secured highest mean (5.37). Recognition of teachers as change agents and enjoy challenge to do their best received lowest mean (5.00).

Suggestions for the improvement of the institution are given below.

1) Prioritize teacher student relationship.

2) Teachers are cooperative for student’s development.

3) Qualitative writing of reports may be encouraged in the Enhancing Professional Competencies (EPC)/project work.

4) More practicality needed rather than the lengthy records which lack authenticity.

5) Proper evaluation methods for practical exams needed specifically for EPCs, and school internship.

6) Classes to be conducted regularly.

7) Encourage teacher trainees and build confidence in them to learn.

8) More coordination between students and teachers.