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.

Orchard School in 1926

Right before Fall Break, an Orchard parent gave me an old newspaper article from 1926 that highlighted on the unique attributes of Orchard School, which had been founded only four years earlier in 1922.

At that time, Orchard was located at 5050 N. Meridian—an old orchard on those grounds gave the school its name.

In 1926, Orchard had 80 students—15 to a class.

“(Orchard School) owes its existence to the desire of a small group of men and women to provide what they conceive to be a superior type of education.”

According to the article Orchard in 1926 had four main educational precepts:

• It “believes that the same teacher must inevitably impart stimulus and instruction more effectively to a small group than to a large one.”
• It “believes that the children need light, air, and room for play as much as they need instruction."
• It “believes that children, like adults, work to bets advantage when their interest in the task at hand has been fully aroused.”
• It “believes that teaching the student to think is a greater accomplishment than the imparting of information.”

The main reason Orchard was founded as--and has remained--an elementary-middle school is that the founders believed that by emphasizing the above precepts to children at a younger age, they would be prepared for a high school experience that would inevitably provide a more conventional, traditional way of learning.

In 1926, though, there were questions about Orchard’s program and teaching philosophy. Two misconceptions from the article follow:

“The first is represented by the very natural fear that pupils leaving this school might find themselves badly prepared for taking up the work of the public or other schools…It is now seems apparent, however, from the observation of such pupils as have changed schools, that they are more than able to hold their own (in other schools)…and that no misgivings need be felt on this score.”

“More widespread is the impression that pupils in schools of this type are not properly disciplined—that they are allowed to do as they please.”

“It is not physically possible to conduct a school of eighty children who are allowed to do as they please—the only result could be early and violent madness...Due, however, to smaller classes it is possible to permit and encourage a much wider range of interest and initiative…As interest grows, the necessity for the more obvious manifestations of discipline diminishes…There was headshaking enough when the birch rod was banished from the public schools, but there has appeared no necessity to recall it.”

The article goes on to explain Orchard’s belief in a well-rounded education that included physical exercise, recess, and music.

The article—written nearly 90 years ago—illustrates that Orchard’s founding precepts are still alive at Orchard and that people today can still have misconceptions and doubts about an child-centered education that strives to engage the child at his/her developmental level rather than be focused on the needs and desires of adults.

Although a lot has changed since 1926--Calvin Coolidge was president, the average car cost $380, and the average annual wage was a little over $1,000--the debate over education then is eerily similar to today.

Thank you, Kristy Sherman, for giving me the article!

The Homework Dilemma

This week I read an interesting article entitled  “Tackling the Homework Dilemma” in the most recent issue of Middle Ground.

The author posed the provocative question “Is homework a subject or a method”, asking what is the actual purpose of homework.

Many believe homework helps students learn self-discipline and personal organization while others feel its purpose is to help students increase their knowledge and understanding. If it’s the latter (as I believe it is), then homework should be used to help students better learn and understand the material rather than to be a daily, have-to chore.

In the article one teacher in Minnesota assigns but does not collect or grade daily homework. Instead, he gives a short daily quiz at the beginning of every class over the concepts and skills covered in the previous night’s homework. This teacher finds that his daily quiz does the following for his students:

• Students who know the content can skip the burden of doing redundant homework since the focus is on mastery, whether it comes from completing the homework assignment, paying attention in class, or background knowledge.
• Nothing is gained by copying another student’s homework or having a parent do the assignment. (Copying homework is a rampant problem in any middle and high school.)
• Lots of teacher time that would be used for correcting homework is freed up to do more effective, creative things for students

Homework remains a very controversial and divisive topic among and between parents and teachers. (I’ve written in other blogs of the lack of correlation between amount of homework and student performance.) When I shared this article with my wife (a high school math teacher), she dismissed the effectiveness of giving a daily quiz, which illustrates that two experienced educators can have drastically different feelings on this topic.

There can be value to homework in terms of seeing if students have truly mastered concepts and skills presented in class and if they truly understand those concepts and skills through work that demands higher-level thinking skills and critical and creative thought.

Similarly, it does help younger students practice and develop important habits and skills like personal responsibility, organization, and discipline.

Clearly reading, especially novels, is more easily done through homework than in class. (As an English teacher, I am more skeptical of at-home writing assignments because there is too great a possibility of adult assistance—hence, almost all my writing assignments are completed in class.)

There has also been much discussion of the “flipped-classroom” where students learn content at home and then use class time to demonstrate and deepen their understanding.

With the growing ubiquity of technology, homework is also becoming more collaborative and interactive with blogs, wikis, etc.

Nevertheless, it’s vitally important for teachers and parents to ensure that homework is necessary and needed and not overly repetitive and redundant for students. What I like about the teacher who gives a daily quiz over the previous night’s homework is he is empowering students to decide to what extent they need to complete the assignment depending on their understanding. He is respecting the fact that each and every one of his students brings to the classroom a range of abilities, motivational levels, and previous knowledge. His homework is not one-size fits all.

We must remember, also, that students—even in high school—are still kids who need free time, adequate rest, and unstructured opportunities to be creative and imaginative. 

Are Kids Today Smarter Than Their Grandparents?

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal the other day entitled "Are We Getting Smarter?"

Click for Article

The article's author James Flynn explains that the average IQ score has risen 3 points per decade since 1900. (I always thought I was smarter than my dad and grandfather; now I have quantitative evidence!)

To Flynn, one of the main reasons for this is back in the early 1900s, the world was simpler and required much less education. It wasn't unusual for someone to attain only an elementary school education and then either work in a factory or on a farm.

Additionally, the world back required less higher-level, abstract thought from the average person to be a productive--and gainfully employed--member of society. (If you read the article, note the difficulty people in a small town in Russia in the early 1990s had about interview questions that expected more than a literal response.)

Today's world demands much more from its citizens. We're expected to think more hypothetically, creatively, symbolically, and critically than in past generations. Jobs in today's world are not mechanical and demand we think in a much more abstract manner than in previous generations.

The rise in IQ scores (IQ test questions more often require higher-level thinking and problem-solving and pattern-recognition abilities) has resulted in schools and society in general devoting more time to developing in its students and citizens habits, skills, and attitudes that value more abstract thought.

As an example, when I compare my life as a student (45 years ago) to my career as a teacher, I provided my students much more open-ended classroom activities and assignments than I had as a student.

This goes hand in hand with the skills that are viewed as essential for success in the 21st century--skills like communication (oral and written), collaboration (the ability to work in groups with people who are different from you; the ability to peacefully resolve conflict and negotiate and compromise), critical and creative thinking (yes, we all need knowledge but today it's more what you can do with it, while before knowledge was often considered the end in itself), character (especially in a more impersonal digital age, we all need practice in developing responsibility, trustworthiness, empathy, honesty, and humility).

While the purpose of the article was not to comment on our current educational system, it made me reflect on how schools--in response to societal needs--are actually being more true to the founding principles of Orchard and the core precepts of progressive education from the early 1900s. I don't know if Dewey would be satisfied with all schools today--let alone using IQ tests as a measure of intelligence---but I think he would be pleased that schools today, especially schools like Orchard, are providing opportunities for kids to develop competencies and habits that allow for creative and innovative thought and have relevance and direct correlation with workforce needs.