Are There Benefits to Homework?

Homework. It's a controversial subject in most schools. Some parents want more; others want less. Some teachers see its value; others don't.

The Orchard community recently watched the documentary Race to Nowhere, the result of which not surprisingly led to the Orchard community evaluating the pros and cons of homework.

But what does the research actually tell us about the value of homework?

For high school students there is a slight positive correlation between time spent on homework and grades on tests in class.

There is no correlation between homework and academic performance for elementary school and middle school students, except there are some benefits for elementary school students on understanding of math skills/concepts, e.g., place value.

And not surprisingly students who voluntarily read for pleasure at home score higher on the English sections of standardized tests.

A sobering fact is the negative correlation for middle school students between amount of time spent on homework and classroom academic performance (overall grades and test scores) when they spend more than 50 minutes a day on homework.

Alfie Kohn, the guru of progressive education and gadfly of traditional educaiton, in his book The Homework Myth, highlights the deleterious effects of homework on students.

He points out that most of the research studies show inconclusive results. "Their results ranged from homework having positive effects, no effects, or complex effects to the suggestion that the research was too sparse or poorly conducted to allow trustworthy conclusions."

Kohn brings up a number of reasons why research on homework is inconclusive,

First, he points out that "correlation doesn't prove causation."The fact that a student spends more time on homework, then receives an A in class or scores higher on standardized tests might be more indicative of the student's work ethic and effort than the benefits of homework.

In fact, when homework is compared with other variables in a classroom, like quality of instruction and student motivation, homework's influence is almost negligible.

Another issue with determining the value of homework is defining what student achievement is. In studies this usually falls into three categories: scores on a classroom teacher's test, grades in classrooms, scores on standardized tests.

Not surprisingly, when students were given homework that directly connected to the content and questions on a classroom test, students did better on the tests. But this leads to the question of how deep a student's understanding of the material was: was the student simply answering questions by rote?

Regarding an overall class grade, teachers may reward a student who completes all homework assignments: is a student's grade therefore a reflection of better understanding material by completing homework or pleasing the teacher? (I won't get into the subjectivity of grading in this blog, but parents need to keep in mind that grading in class is subjective, and not just in humanities courses.)

Kohn also explains that equating standardized test results with homework is a slippery slope. He points out that high standardized test scores are more an indication of "how skillful a student is at taking a standardized test" than "intellectual proficiency." Most standardized tests use multiple-choice format, and while these questions can measure deeper thinking and understanding (see Grant Wiggins Why We Should Stop Bashing State Tests), they don't allow for student creatively or explanation.

Another challenge of standardized tests is they typically are timed, meaning they put a "premium not on thoughtfulness but speed".

Kohn also points out that younger students can be easily confused by the format of standardized tests; hence, their scores are not reflective of their ability.

Finally, most standardized tests are norm-referenced, meaning their purpose is to distinguish and separate students. What's the best question on a standardized test: the one that about 50% answer correctly and 50% answer incorrectly.

To Kohn, there is a benefit to teaching to the test if the goal is to get higher test scores, yet this type of teaching does not help students "become critical, curious, creative thinkers".

While my position is not as strong as Kohn's, I always try to help parents see that more homework is not the solution. At Orchard we try to follow the 10 minute per grade rule. 10 minutes of homework in 1st grade, adding 10 minutes per year until getting to about 80 minutes in 8th grade (which includes reading time). I see homework as a time for students to become more confident and independent by practicing skills and concepts. Student also develop personal responsibility and time management. There's been a lot of talk about "flipped classrooms" where students use homework time to be exposed to content with classtime then devoted to deeper understanding via groups work and projects.

It's important for parents and teachers to work toergehter. It is not right for students to become overly stressed about homework or to spend inordinate amounts of time on homework.

Children in elementary and middle school still need time to be kids, to have free time, and to be able to explore their  other interests.

In addition to Kohn's book, another interesting read is Cathy Vatterott's book Rethinking Homework

Education: East Versus West

This week there was a story on NPR (Click for article) about how Asia (specifically China and Japan) and the United States approach student learning differently.

Jim Stigler, a UCLA psychology professor who has extensively studied this topic, identifies the key difference between Asia and United States as to what extent students are expected to struggle in school.

“I think that from the very early ages we in America see struggle as an indicator that you’re just not very smart. It’s a sign of low ability. People who are smart don’t struggle. They just naturally get it; that’s our folk theory. Asian cultures tend to see struggle more as an opportunity. In Eastern cultures, it’s just assumed that struggle is a predictable part of the learning process. Everyone is expected to struggle in the process of learning, and so struggling becomes a chance to show that the student has what it takes emotionally to resolve the problem by persisting through that struggle. They’ve taught them that suffering can be a good thing.” 

There has been much research and recommendations, e.g., Carol Dweck and Paul Tough, about the benefits of teachers and parents in the United States emphasizing work ethic over innate intelligence.  

It does seem that the pendulum of American education is slowly moving from its emphasis on achievement (product) to include more room for effort (process).

Still, more can and should occur. 

The over-arching goals of education are the development of a student's intellect, character, and social skills, yet these can be broken down into more specific needs, including students:

• Learning and mastering a core set of knowledge, skills, concepts, and procedures

• Developing a sense of self confidence and assurance even when facing hardships and challenges

• Developing habits that will help them be better students and eventually effective, contributory members of the workforce

• Developing communication (oral and written), problem solving (creative and analytical), and collaboration skills

The question for American education is whether or not these goals are best developed in students through a supportive, nurturing system that minimizes student difficulty and maximizes student self-esteem or one that pushes kids more, letting them learn through struggles and even frustration.

A number of year ago, I was observing a classroom in Ghana, Africa. Students were assessed by one-at-a time answering basic information they were asked to memorize at home. Whenever a student answered incorrectly, the teacher would berate—even humiliate—the student. As an American educator, I was shocked at how poorly he was treating his students. I felt he was destroying their self-confidence and self-esteem. Later when we talked about this, he told me that unlike American kids, Ghanaian students had scant opportunities to continue their studies in high school--let alone college. They couldn’t afford any missteps. When I also asked him why he was requiring only basic rote memorization answers and was not allowing his students to be more creative and imaginative, he responded that if they did not pass the high school entrance exam, which consisted of basic factual recall questions he was asking them in class, his students would not have the opportunity to attend high school. That day I learned that my (and his) beliefs as a teacher were shaped by the culture I had been educated, lived, and now taught in.

While changing a country’s culture is exceedingly difficult, the research does indicate that we in America need to give students more opportunities to struggle in academics. 

Countries like China and Japan recognize that their schools are not succeeding in developing creative, imaginative, and individualistic students, and they are looking to the Western educational system for guidance. 

In the same way, we need to look to the Chinese and Japanese educational system as an example of how we can give our students more chances to learn through failure. 

Video Games in the Classroom?

In the past two weeks there have been a number of articles that tout the benefits of using video/computer games in the classroom as effective learning tools.

Although most baby-boomers view video games as primarily a leisure activity that's for the most part frivolous, these articles from Phi Delta Kappan and Teaching Exceptional Children point to the positive ways in which video/computer games can help students learn.

The games they reference are ones that have been or are being developed for use in the classroom, not video games like Halo.

Video/computer games can offer the following for all students:

• They personalize learning
• They build conceptual understanding and motivation
• They can provide teachers with diagnostic information on stundets' learning needs
• They cultivate student persistence (in that one needs to demonstrate quantitative mastery before moving to the next level)

One game highlighted was called Refraction which helps students learn about fractions. I played it and liked it; you should try it too.

The Gates Foundation recently initiated GLASS (Games, Learning, and Assessment) to develop classroom games that "can serve as assessment tools, develop complex skills, and help transfer learning to different contexts."

Another article focused on the how teachers can use blogs to improve students' writing.

When I was a student, writing was rarely relevant for me. I wrote essays for a teacher who then read, commented on, graded, and gave them back to me. (I typically looked at the grade and ignored the teacher's written comments, but that's a topic for another blog.) The teacher would occasionally read to the class an example of an exemplary piece of writing, yet for most part writing was a more solitary exercise for my classmates and me. (It never occurred to me until I was in a small liberal arts college--where most assessments required writing--that writing could be fun, personal and a liberating way for me to express my ideas, thoughts, opinions and feelings.)

Blogs can provide relevance (in that students have an audience of more than one teacher), peer commentary and modeling, and a greater sense of egalitarianism (kids have a voice equal to the teacher).

Many of you have heard that classroom activities, assignments, and assessments need to be "authentic" for kids, and with blogging kids see the purpose and relevance of writing; after all, they are writing in real time for an audience that can add comments.

Teachers use sites like Edublogs that provide students with more--and enjoyable--opportunities to write with purpose and relevance. Sites like Glogster and Storybird use videos and photes to complement student writing.

Another article listed a number of sites where students can practice writing, enter writing contests, and publish their work for a larger audience.

In one of my blogs last year, I talked about how many educators remain skeptical of technology in the classroom. Although we need to help students be digitally literate and develop a sense of self beyond the digital world, the benefits far outweigh the negatives to me.

School, Whole Child Education, and Abraham Maslow

Tom Hoerr, Head of New City School in St. Louis and the team leader for Orchard's 2006 ISACS accreditation visit, recently wrote an article for ASCD entitled "The Whole Child and Maslow".

Tom is a great friend--and admirer--of Orchard.  He has said many times many times that the only school that matches New City School in terms of mission, program, practice, and outcomes is Orchard.

Here's the link to his article: Tom's article

His article reminded parents and teachers that a school must ensure certain needs (Maslow's hierarchy) for students to optimize their academic learning.

If you are unfamiliar with the work of psychologist Abraham Maslow, here's the link to the Wikipedia write-up on Maslow

Maslow believed that all humans must have a hierarchy of five basic needs satisfied before they can fully focus on, attend to, and succeed at academics.

1. Physiological--basic needs like eating and sleeping. Paul Tough in his new book, How Children Succeed, explains that children from low-income families all too commonly struggle in school not because of low cognitive ability but because they come to school without their most basic physiological needs being met.

2. Safety--This includes both physical and emotional safety. This is why Orchard devotes time through Responsive Classroom, conflict mediation, anti-bullying efforts to create a classroom environment where all students are known, valued, and respected as a unique individual.

3. Love/Belonging--While the previous need provides physical and emotional safety, this need ensures children know they are a part of a larger family, group, community. They see how they need to be supported by others and how they need to support others. For students in a school this includes having at least one adult advocate whom they can trust.

4. Esteem--With the first three needs met (one physical and the other two interpersonal), students can then focus on the next two needs, which are more intrapersonal. Schools strive to have students develop  true sense of intrinsic motivation beyond extrinsic rewards because  they want students to learn to push and challenge themselves and to see that success takes time, effort, perseverance, and patience. If this need is being fulfilled, students become adept at assessing their performance and recognizing what they must do to get better. They also will naturally challenge themselves and work assiduously.

5. Self-Actualization--To Maslow, this is the goal not just for students but for adults as well. This is about finding your passion/purpose in life and embracing personal responsibility for yourself (and, as a student, for your learning). This is why schools like Orchard and New City School provide a well-rounded education of academic disciplines, visual and performing arts, physical education, and outdoor education. Schools need to provide children with opportunities to find their passion and interest.

For Maslow to perform at one's best and to find meaning and purpose in life, all of the above needs must be provided for, especially the first three. To me, that's why schools like Orchard and New City are so successful: they strive to make sure the vital needs of a child are attended to and supported.

And that's not the case with all schools.