abusing research the study of homework and other examples

Ethics and Morality

Homework: an unnecessary evil, surprising findings from new research challenge the conventional wisdom (again).

Posted November 24, 2012

A brand-new study on the academic effects of homework offers not only some intriguing results but also a lesson on how to read a study -- and a reminder of the importance of doing just that: reading studies (carefully) rather than relying on summaries by journalists or even by the researchers themselves.

Let’s start by reviewing what we know from earlier investigations.[1] First, no research has ever found a benefit to assigning homework (of any kind or in any amount) in elementary school. In fact, there isn’t even a positive correlation between, on the one hand, having younger children do some homework (vs. none), or more (vs. less), and, on the other hand, any measure of achievement. If we’re making 12-year-olds, much less five-year-olds, do homework, it’s either because we’re misinformed about what the evidence says or because we think kids ought to have to do homework despite what the evidence says.

Second, even at the high school level, the research supporting homework hasn’t been particularly persuasive. There does seem to be a correlation between homework and standardized test scores, but (a) it isn’t strong, meaning that homework doesn’t explain much of the variance in scores, (b) one prominent researcher, Timothy Keith, who did find a solid correlation, returned to the topic a decade later to enter more variables into the equation simultaneously, only to discover that the improved study showed that homework had no effect after all[2], and (c) at best we’re only talking about a correlation -- things that go together -- without having proved that doing more homework causes test scores to go up. (Take ten seconds to see if you can come up with other variables that might be driving both of these things.)

Third, when homework is related to test scores, the connection tends to be strongest -- or, actually, least tenuous -- with math. If homework turns out to be unnecessary for students to succeed in that subject, it’s probably unnecessary everywhere.

Along comes a new study, then, that focuses on the neighborhood where you’d be most likely to find a positive effect if one was there to be found: math and science homework in high school. Like most recent studies, this one by Adam Maltese and his colleagues[3] doesn’t provide rich descriptive analyses of what students and teachers are doing. Rather, it offers an aerial view, the kind preferred by economists, relying on two large datasets (from the National Education Longitudinal Study [NELS] and the Education Longitudinal Study [ELS]). Thousands of students are asked one question -- How much time do you spend on homework? -- and statistical tests are then performed to discover if there’s a relationship between that number and how they fared in their classes and on standardized tests.

It’s easy to miss one interesting result in this study that appears in a one-sentence aside. When kids in these two similar datasets were asked how much time they spent on math homework each day, those in the NELS study said 37 minutes, whereas those in the ELS study said 60 minutes. There’s no good reason for such a striking discrepancy, nor do the authors offer any explanation. They just move right along -- even though those estimates raise troubling questions about the whole project, and about all homework studies that are based on self-report. Which number is more accurate? Or are both of them way off? There’s no way of knowing. And because all the conclusions are tied to that number, all the conclusions may be completely invalid.[4]

But let’s pretend that we really do know how much homework students do. Did doing it make any difference? The Maltese et al. study looked at the effect on test scores and on grades. They emphasized the latter, but let’s get the former out of the way first.

Was there a correlation between the amount of homework that high school students reported doing and their scores on standardized math and science tests? Yes, and it was statistically significant but “very modest”: Even assuming the existence of a causal relationship, which is by no means clear, one or two hours’ worth of homework every day buys you two or three points on a test. Is that really worth the frustration, exhaustion, family conflict, loss of time for other activities, and potential diminution of interest in learning? And how meaningful a measure were those tests in the first place, since, as the authors concede, they’re timed measures of mostly mechanical skills? (Thus, a headline that reads “Study finds homework boosts achievement” can be translated as “A relentless regimen of after-school drill-and-skill can raise scores a wee bit on tests of rote learning.”)

But it was grades, not tests, that Maltese and his colleagues really cared about. They were proud of having looked at transcript data in order to figure out “the exact grade a student received in each class [that he or she] completed” so they could compare that to how much homework the student did. Previous research has looked only at students’ overall grade-point averages.

And the result of this fine-tuned investigation? There was no relationship whatsoever between time spent on homework and course grade, and “no substantive difference in grades between students who complete homework and those who do not.”

This result clearly caught the researchers off-guard. Frankly, it surprised me, too. When you measure “achievement” in terms of grades, you expect to see a positive result -- not because homework is academically beneficial but because the same teacher who gives the assignments evaluates the students who complete them, and the final grade is often based at least partly on whether, and to what extent, students did the homework. Even if homework were a complete waste of time, how could it not be positively related to course grades?

And yet it wasn’t. Again. Even in high school. Even in math. The study zeroed in on specific course grades, which represents a methodological improvement, and the moral may be: The better the research, the less likely one is to find any benefits from homework. (That’s not a surprising proposition for a careful reader of reports in this field. We got a hint of that from Timothy Keith’s reanalysis and also from the fact that longer homework studies tend to find less of an effect.[5])

abusing research the study of homework and other examples

Maltese and his colleagues did their best to reframe these results to minimize the stunning implications.[6] Like others in this field, they seem to have approached the topic already convinced that homework is necessary and potentially beneficial, so the only question we should ask is How -- not whether -- to assign it. But if you read the results rather than just the authors’ spin on them -- which you really need to do with the work of others working in this field as well[7] -- you’ll find that there’s not much to prop up the belief that students must be made to work a second shift after they get home from school. The assumption that teachers are just assigning homework badly, that we’d start to see meaningful results if only it were improved, is harder and harder to justify with each study that’s published.

If experience is any guide, however, many people will respond to these results by repeating platitudes about the importance of practice[8], or by complaining that anyone who doesn’t think kids need homework is coddling them and failing to prepare them for the “real world” (read: the pointless tasks they’ll be forced to do after they leave school). Those open to evidence, however, have been presented this fall with yet another finding that fails to find any meaningful benefit even when the study is set up to give homework every benefit of the doubt.

1. It’s important to remember that some people object to homework for reasons that aren’t related to the dispute about whether research might show that homework provides academic benefits. They argue that (a) six hours a day of academics are enough, and kids should have the chance after school to explore other interests and develop in other ways -- or be able simply to relax in the same way that most adults like to relax after work; and (b) the decision about what kids do during family time should be made by families, not schools. Let’s put these arguments aside for now, even though they ought to be (but rarely are) included in any discussion of the topic.

2. Valerie A. Cool and Timothy Z. Keith, “Testing a Model of School Learning: Direct and Indirect Effects on Academic Achievement,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 16 (1991): 28-44.

3. Adam V. Maltese, Robert H. Tai, and Xitao Fan, “When Is Homework Worth the Time? Evaluating the Association Between Homework and Achievement in High School Science and Math,” The High School Journal , October/November 2012: 52-72. Abstract at http://ow.ly/fxhOV .

4. Other research has found little or no correlation between how much homework students report doing and how much homework their parents say they do. When you use the parents’ estimates, the correlation between homework and achievement disappears. See Harris Cooper, Jorgianne Civey Robinson, and Erika A. Patall, “Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?: A Synthesis of Research, 1987-2003,” Review of Educational Research 76 (2006): 1-62.

5. To put it the other way around, studies finding the biggest effect are those that capture less of what goes on in the real world by virtue of being so brief. View a small, unrepresentative slice of a child’s life and it may appear that homework makes a contribution to achievement; keep watching, and that contribution is eventually revealed to be illusory. See data provided -- but not interpreted this way -- by Cooper, The Battle Over Homework, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2001).

6. Even the title of their article reflects this: They ask “When Is Homework Worth the Time?” rather than “ Is Homework Worth the Time?” This bias might seem a bit surprising in the case of the study’s second author, Robert H. Tai. He had contributed earlier to another study whose results similarly ended up raising questions about the value of homework. Students enrolled in college physics courses were surveyed to determine whether any features of their high school physics courses were now of use to them. At first a very small relationship was found between the amount of homework that students had had in high school and how well they were currently faring. But once the researchers controlled for other variables, such as the type of classes they had taken, that relationship disappeared, just as it had for Keith (see note 2). The researchers then studied a much larger population of students in college science classes – and found the same thing: Homework simply didn’t help. See Philip M. Sadler and Robert H. Tai, “Success in Introductory College Physics: The Role of High School Preparation,” Science Education 85 [2001]: 111-36.

7. See chapter 4 (“’Studies Show…’ -- Or Do They?”) of my book The Homework Myth (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2006), an adaptation of which appears as “Abusing Research: The Study of Homework and Other Examples,” Phi Delta Kappan , September 2006 [ www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/research.htm ].

8. On the alleged value of practice, see The Homework Myth , pp. 106-18, also available at http://bit.ly/9dXqCj .

Alfie Kohn writes about behavior and education. His books include Feel-Bad Education , The Homework Myth , and What Does It Mean To Be Well Educated?

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

How Do We Know Foxfire Approach to Teaching and Learning Works?

Cite this chapter

Steven R. Williams &
Wilma Hutcheson-Williams

184 Accesses

I know why you are here. You’ve gotten this far in the book and you can see the value in the Foxfire Approach (fn) for your teaching. But you are concerned. Will your principal and colleagues at your school buy it? Will you be criticized if your students’ standardized test scores don’t go up? You’ve turned to this chapter for some assurance that Foxfire will make a difference in your students’ learning outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Please Take Your Time: A Research Perspective

Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches / sixth edition

Research Methods and Approach to Analysis Within Chapters

Anderson, L. W. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . New York, NY: Longman.

Google Scholar

Andre, M., & Anderson, T. (1979). The development and evaluation of a self-questioning study technique. Reading Research Quarterly , 14 , 605–623.

Article Google Scholar

Antonietti, I. (1997). Unlocking creativity. Educational Leadership , 3473–3475.

Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Chowne, A. (2007). Improving the effectiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: Effects on science attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 33 , 663–680.

Bartosh, O., Ferguson, L., Tudor, M., & Taylor, C. (2009). Impact of environmental-based teaching on student achievement: A study of Washington state middle schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 4 (4).

Batchelor, K., & Bintz, W. (2013, September). Promoting creativity in the middle grades language arts classroom. Middle School Journal .

Beane, T., Singer, H., Shorter, J., & Frazee, C. (1986). The effect of metacognitive instruction in outlining and graphic organizer construction on students’ comprehension in a tenth grade world history class. Journal of Reading Behavior , 28 (2), 153–169.

Bloom, B. H. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain . New York, NY: David Mackay Co.

Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity based elementary science on student outcomes: A qualitative synthesis. Review of educational Research, 53 (4), 449–518.

Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2010). The creativity crisis. Newsweek, 156 (3), 44–49.

Chuoke, M., & Eyman, B. (1997). Fair play and not just at recess. Educational Leadership, 54 (8), 53–55.

Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review , 24 (2), 205–249.

Collins, M., & Amabile, T. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cropley, A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom: The dark side. In D. H. Cropley, A. J. Cropley, J. C. Kaufman, & M. A. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity (pp. 297–315). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter Google Scholar

DeBono, E. (1995). Serious creativity. Journal for Quality and Participation, 18 , 12–18.

Ensminger, E., & Dangel, H. (1992). The Foxfire pedagogy: A confluence of best practices for special education . Focus on Exceptional Children, 24 (7).

Foxfire Fund Inc. (2015). Retrieved December 23, 2015, from http://www.foxfire.org/teaching.html

Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do about it . Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Gautreau, B., & Binns, I. (2012). Investigating student attitudes and achievements in an environmental place-based inquiry in secondary classrooms. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 7 (2). Retrieved December 23, 2015, from Georgia Department of Education.

Giaconia, R. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1982). Identifying features of effective open education. Review of Educational Research , 52 (4), 579–602. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170267

Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 , 933–940.

Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2011). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning (CL): A two year follow-up. Teaching Education, 1 , 63–78.

Goodson, L., & Skillen, M. (2010). Small-town perspectives, big-time motivation: Composing and producing place-based podcasts. English Journal , 100 (1).

Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results. Phi Delta Kappan, 70 (5), 390–393.

Hammar, C., Williams, G. J., & Senior, C. (2014). Group work as an incentive for learning – Students’experiences of group work. Frontiers in Psychology , 51–10. doi:10:3389/fpsyg.2014.00558

IBSA. (2009). The innovation and business industry skills council of Australia; Developing innovation skills: A guide for trainers and assessors to foster the innovation skills of learners through professional practice . East Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Education.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing students in groups: Promoting group responsibility and individual accountability . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kivunja, C. (2015). Exploring the pedagogical meaning and implications of the 4Cs “super skills” for the 21st century through Bruner’s 5E lenses of knowkedge construction to improve pedagogies of the new learning paradigm. Creative Education, 6 , 224–239.

Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: Why and how to let students decide. The Phi Delta Kappan , 75 (1), 8–20. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20405017

Kohn, A. (2006). Abusing research: The study of homework and other examples. Phi Delta Kappan , 88 (1), 8–22.

Kugelmass, J. (1995). Educating children with learning disabilities in Foxfire classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 28 (9), 545–553.

Lieberman, G., & Hardy, L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using environment s an integrating context for learning; Executive summary . San Diego, CA: State Education and Environment Roundtable.

McInerney, P., Smyth, J., & Down, B. (2011). “Coming to a place near you?” The politics and possibilities of a critical pedagogy of place-based education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (1).

Millis, B. (2012). IDEA paper no. 53: Active learning in higher education: Across the disciplines, across the academy . Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Nordgren, R. (2013). Pink’s “Motivation 3.0” and student-centered learning: Creating life-long learners for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Innovative Technology , 6 (1).

Oliver, J. (2011). The history and legacy of the Foxfire cultural journalism program (Unpublished dissertation). University of Georgia, GA.

P21. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning . Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

P21. (2015). Framework for 21st century learning . Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework .

Paris, C., Combs, B., Wooten, M., & Moore, A. (Eds.). (2005). The Foxfire course for teachers . Mountain City, GA: The Foxfire Fund, Inc.

Parsons, S., Nuland, L., & Parsons, A. (2014). The ABCs of student engagement. Phi Delta Kappan , 95 (8).

Patall, E., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin , 134 .

Perry, N., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Record , 106 .

Piascik, D. (2015). Preparing America’s students for college and career: Common core learning standards . Retrieved from http://www.mspiascik.weebly.com/common-core-learning-standards.html

Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us . New York, NY: Riverhead.

Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching the creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review , 26 , 216–222.

Schweinhart, L., & Welkart, D. (1998). Why curriculum matters in early childhood education. Educational Leadership , 55 (6), 57–60.

Secules, T., Cotton, C., & Bray, M. (1997). Creating schools for thought. Educational Leadership [serial online], 54 , 56–60. Retrieved December 24, 2015, from Education Source, Ipswich, MA.

Shemilt, D. (1980). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 , 4–14.

Simmons, A., & Page, M. (2010). Motivating students through power and choice. The English Journal , 100 (1).

Skinner, E., & Pritzer, J. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement . New York, NY: Springer.

Starnes, B., & Gray, C. (1988). Seeing through my own eyes and mind: Self-directed development of an experienced teacher . University of GA Foxfire Archives.

Starnes, B., & Paris, C. (2000). Choosing to learn . Phi Delta Kappan , 81 (5).

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times . San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Wigginton, E. (1985). Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience . Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/ Doubleday.

Zachlod, M. (1996). Room to grow. Educational Leadership , 54 (1), 50–53.

Zhao, Y. (2006). Are we fixing the wrong things? Educational Leadership , 63 (8), 28–31.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Piedmont College, Demorest, USA

Hilton Smith

Antioch University Los Angeles, USA

J. Cynthia McDermott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Williams, S.R., Hutcheson-Williams, W. (2016). Research. In: Smith, H., McDermott, J.C. (eds) The Foxfire Approach. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-564-7_18

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-564-7_18

Publisher Name : SensePublishers, Rotterdam

Online ISBN : 978-94-6300-564-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Log in to Witsby: ASCD’s Next-Generation Professional Learning and Credentialing Platform

Special Topic / The Case For and Against Homework

The Case for Homework

The case against homework, the dangers of ignoring the research, grade level, time spent on homework, parent involvement, going beyond the research.

Premium Resource

Special Topic / The Case For and Against Homework - table

Two meta-analyses by Cooper and colleagues (Cooper, 1989a; Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006) are the most comprehensive and rigorous. The 1989 meta-analysis reviewed research dating as far back as the 1930s; the 2006 study reviewed research from 1987 to 2003. Commenting on studies that attempted to examine the causal relationship between homework and student achievement by comparing experimental (homework) and control (no homework) groups, Cooper, Robinson, and Patall (2006) noted, With only rare exceptions, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant. Therefore, we think it would not be imprudent, based on the evidence in hand, to conclude that doing homework causes improved academic achievement. (p. 48)

In a third book, The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing (2006a), Kohn took direct aim at the research on homework. In this book and in a recent article in Phi Delta Kappan (2006b), he became quite personal in his condemnation of researchers. For example, referring to Harris Cooper, the lead author of the two leading meta-analyses on homework, Kohn noted, A careful reading of Cooper's own studies . . . reveals further examples of his determination to massage the numbers until they yield something—anything—on which to construct a defense of homework for younger children. (2006a, p. 84)He also attacked a section on homework in our book Classroom Instruction that Works (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).

Grades 4–6: ES = .15 (Percentile gain = 6)
Grades 7–9: ES = .31 (Percentile gain = 12)
Grades 10–12: ES = .64 (Percentile gain = 24)

The pattern clearly indicates that homework has smaller effects at lower grade levels. Even so, Cooper (1989b) still recommended homework for elementary students because homework for young children should help them develop good study habits, foster positive attitudes toward school, and communicate to students the idea that learning takes work at home as well as at school. (p. 90)

For students in the earliest grades , it should foster positive attitudes, habits, and character traits; permit appropriate parent involvement; and reinforce learning of simple skills introduced in class.
For students in upper elementary grades , it should play a more direct role in fostering improved school achievement.
In 6th grade and beyond , it should play an important role in improving standardized test scores and grades.

One of the more contentious issues in the homework debate is the amount of time students should spend on homework. The Cooper synthesis (1989a) reported that for junior high school students, the benefits increased as time increased, up to 1 to 2 hours of homework a night, and then decreased. The Cooper, Robinson, and Patall (2006) study reported similar findings: 7 to 12 hours of homework per week produced the largest effect size for 12th grade students. The researchers suggested that for 12th graders the optimum amount of homework might lie between 1.5 and 2.5 hours per night, but they cautioned that no hard-and-fast rules are warranted. Still, researchers have offered various recommendations. For example, Good and Brophy (2003) cautioned that teachers must take care not to assign too much homework. They suggested that homework must be realistic in length and difficulty given the students' abilities to work independently. Thus, 5 to 10 minutes per subject might be appropriate for 4th graders, whereas 30 to 60 minutes might be appropriate for college-bound high school students. (p. 394)

Cooper, Robinson, and Patall (2006) also issued a strong warning about too much homework: Even for these oldest students, too much homework may diminish its effectiveness or even become counterproductive. (p 53)

Parents receive clear guidelines spelling out their role.
Teachers do not expect parents to act as experts regarding content or to attempt to teach the content.
Parents ask questions that help students clarify and summarize what they have learned.

Good and Brophy (2003) provided the following recommendations regarding parent involvement: Especially useful for parent-child relations purposes are assignments calling for students to show or explain their written work or other products completed at school to their parents and get their reactions (Epstein, 2001; Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997) or to interview their parents to develop information about parental experiences or opinions relating to topics studied in social studies (Alleman & Brophy, 1998). Such assignments cause students and their parents or other family members to become engaged in conversations that relate to the academic curriculum and thus extend the students' learning. Furthermore, because these are likely to be genuine conversations rather than more formally structured teaching/learning tasks, both parents and children are likely to experience them as enjoyable rather than threatening. (p. 395)

Riehl (2006) pointed out the similarity between education research and medical research. She commented, When reported in the popular media, medical research often appears as a blunt instrument, able to obliterate skeptics or opponents by the force of its evidence and arguments. . . . Yet repeated visits to the medical journals themselves can leave a much different impression. The serious medical journals convey the sense that medical research is an ongoing conversation and quest, punctuated occasionally by important findings that can and should alter practice, but more often characterized by continuing investigations. These investigations, taken cumulatively, can inform the work of practitioners who are building their own local knowledge bases on medical care. (pp. 27–28)

Research-Based Homework Guidelines

Assign purposeful homework. Legitimate purposes for homework include introducing new content, practicing a skill or process that students can do independently but not fluently, elaborating on information that has been addressed in class to deepen students' knowledge, and providing opportunities for students to explore topics of their own interest.

Design homework to maximize the chances that students will complete it. For example, ensure that homework is at the appropriate level of difficulty. Students should be able to complete homework assignments independently with relatively high success rates, but they should still find the assignments challenging enough to be interesting.

Involve parents in appropriate ways (for example, as a sounding board to help students summarize what they learned from the homework) without requiring parents to act as teachers or to police students' homework completion.

Carefully monitor the amount of homework assigned so that it is appropriate to students' age levels and does not take too much time away from other home activities.

Balli, S. J. (1998). When mom and dad help: Student reflections on parent involvement with homework. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31 (3), 142–148.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effects of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 213–238.

Bennett, S., & Kalish, N. (2006). The case against homework: How homework is hurting our children and what we can do about it . New York: Crown.

Bloom, B. S. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to one tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41 (8), 4–18.

Cooper, H. (1989a). Homework . White Plains, NY: Longman.

Cooper, H. (1989b). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 47 (3), 85–91.

Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76 (1), 1–62.

Corno, L. (1996). Homework is a complicated thing. Educational Researcher, 25 (8), 27–30.

Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools . Boulder, CO: Westview.

Epstein, J. L., & Becker, H. J. (1982). Teachers' reported practices of parent involvement: Problems and possibilities. Elementary School Journal, 83 , 103–113.

Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987). Synthesis of educational productivity research [Special issue]. International Journal of Educational Research, 11 (2), 145–252.

Gill, B. P., & Schlossman, S. L. (2000). The lost cause of homework reform. American Journal of Education, 109 , 27–62.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Graue, M. E., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1983). School-based home instruction and learning: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 76 , 351–360.

Hattie, J. A. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36 (1), 5–13.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Burow, R. (1995). Parents' reported involvement in students' homework: Strategies and practices. The Elementary School Journal, 95 (5), 435–450.

Kavale, K. A. (1988). Using meta-analyses to answer the question: What are the important influences on school learning? School Psychology Review, 17 (4), 644–650.

Kohn, A. (2006a). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing . Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.

Kohn, A. (2006b). Abusing research: The study of homework and other examples. Phi Delta Kappan. 88 (1), 9–22.

Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning . Boston: Beacon.

Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2007). Response to Kohn's allegations . Centennial, CO: Marzano & Associates. Available: http://marzanoandassociates.com/documents/KohnResponse.pdf

Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (in press). Errors and allegations about research on homework. Phi Delta Kappan .

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Prisoners of time . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Paschal, R. A., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1984). The effects of homework on learning: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 78 , 97–104.

Perkins, P. G., & Milgram, R. B. (1996). Parental involvement in homework: A double-edge sword. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 6 (3), 195–203.

Riehl, C. (2006). Feeling better: A comparison of medical research and education research. Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 24–29.

Van Voorhis, F. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvement and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96 , 323–338.

Walberg, H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice research (pp. 75–104). Berkeley, CA: McCutchen.

Wallis, C. (2006). Viewpoint: The myth about homework. Time, 168 (10), 57.

• 1 For a more detailed response to Kohn's views on homework, see Marzano & Pickering (2007) and Marzano & Pickering (in press).

Robert Marzano is the CEO of Marzano Research Laboratory in Centennial, CO, which provides research-based, partner-centered support for educators and education agencies—with the goal of helping teachers improve educational practice.

As strategic advisor, Robert brings over 50 years of experience in action-based education research, professional development, and curriculum design to Marzano Research. He has expertise in standards-based assessment, cognition, school leadership, and competency-based education, among a host of areas.

He is the author of 30 books, 150 articles and chapters in books, and 100 sets of curriculum materials for teachers and students in grades K–12.

The late Debra J. Pickering consulted with schools and districts nationally and internationally as vice president of field services for Marzano Research Laboratory. She passed away in 2020.

In addition to her work with schools, Pickering coauthored (with Robert Marzano) educational books and manuals, including Dimensions of Learning , Classroom Instruction That Works , Classroom Management That Works , and Building Academic Vocabulary .

With a combination of theoretical grounding and more than three decades of practical experience, Pickering worked with educators to translate theory into practice. In later years her work continued to focus on the study of learning and the development of resources for curriculum, instruction, and assessment to help all educators meet the needs of all students.

Pickering had a master's degree in school administration and a doctorate in curriculum and instruction, with an emphasis in cognitive psychology.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action., from our issue.

HonorsGradU

Curating resources & sharing stories to empower teacher & student ownership, wonder, and daring.

6 Reasons the Homework Debate is a Mess

If you’re a teacher, chances are, you’ve experienced parents upset over both too much and too little assigned homework. Have you ever wondered why opinions on the issue tend to be emphatic, polarized, and emotional? So did we. We decided to do some serious digging, and we were shocked at what we found…

# 1: Today’s major homework scholars are are at odds

Harris Cooper’s name arises in most articles and news stories on homework. He has published two books on major analyses of homework, and is credited with the 10 minute rule (wherein 10 minutes of homework multiplied by grade level is recommended). Furthermore, he claims that children as young as second grade benefit from homework, stating, “Across five studies, the average student who did homework had a higher unit test score than the students not doing homework” ( Cooper ).
Robert Marzano is another proponent of homework. He focuses on the percentile gains between student homework and performance on standardized tests, particularly for older students. However, he cautions that “ill-structured homework might even have a negative effect on student achievement,” and has outlined Research-Based Homework Guidelines ( Marzano ).
Alfie Kohn is a prominent, progressive educational researcher who finds the work of Cooper and other homework supporters inconclusive, and in some cases, downright misleading. In his article, Abusing Research , he carefully evaluates what appear to be discrepancies in pro-homework research. For example, he delved into each of the “five studies” cited above, and found serious credibility issues, from extremely small sample sizes, to younger children not even being included in the research. Furthermore, he emphasizes the fact that all the pro-homework research hinges on standardized tests performance, and points out, “Homework studies confuse grades and test scores with learning.” (“Abusing Research”).

# 2: The research is limited

In Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement ?, Cooper expresses confidence in his “bottom line” that “all kids should be doing homework,” even despite his later statement that little research has been conducted “to assess whether a student’s race, socioeconomic status or ability level affects the importance of homework in his or her achievement” (Cooper).
Kohn examines this crucial point stating, “In fact, there are almost always other explanations for why successful students might be in classrooms where more homework is assigned – let alone why these students might take more time with their homework than their peers do. Being born into a more affluent and highly educated family, for example, might be associated with higher achievement and with doing more homework (or attending the kind of school where more homework is assigned)” (“Abusing Research”).
NO research supports non-academic benefits : This is another discrepancy Kohn examines in “Abusing Research;” that despite claims that homework teaches responsibility, work ethic, etc., the research simply has not been performed to substantiate such assertions.

# 3: General pro-homework public opinion perpetuates blanket acceptance of claims

One example of this is found in PTA.org’s Helping Your Child Get the Most out of Homework . This first sentence says, “Teaching and learning research indicates that children who spend more time on regularly assigned, meaningful homework, on average, do better in school.” The article proceeds to give tips on how to make sure a child completes their homework every day, but not a single one advises parents on how to identify whether homework is, in fact, “meaningful.” The lack of citations also suggests that their statement is an absolute fact for all students, despite all the disagreement and limitations on the research.

# 4: Parents are (sometimes bitterly) divided

A couple years ago, our grade level introduced homework projects to replace math worksheets for homework. We sent a survey after a few months, and while most parents loved the real-life application and student choice, a few became so distressed about abandoning daily math worksheets, that our administration asked us to reestablish worksheets as a homework option every week.
77% of voters reading this article on a homework-free school said they’d like their school to abolish homework, too.
When we looked at reviews of elementary schools who have banned homework, we consistently found both parents who appreciated the policy, and parents who found it ridiculous, such as for Christa Mcauliffe Elementary School in the Cupertino Union School District in California:

# 5: Negative anecdotal experiences for teachers, parents, and students are racking up

Students’ homework often exceeds time recommendations , and focuses on rote memorization.
The rationale for homework often strays from student learning to extraneous reasons like appeasing parents.
Stories like the Dad who did his daughter’s homework for a week are cropping up
Perspectives like the one below, shared by Jessica Lifshitz, resonate with many teachers:

A2: Kids who don’t get the concept, feel dumb when doing HW. Kids who get the concept, don’t need the extra practice & resent it. #iledchat — Jessica Lifshitz (@JessLifTeach) October 14, 2014

# 6: More effective options are available that make prior justification for homework less compelling

Hakan Forss LEGO recreations of hand drawn originals with unknown authors

Traditional Justification: Students need to practice

Modern Solution : Flipped learning compacts lectures into video format, allowing for more student practice in class. Added bonus: the teacher role evolves from delivering content to passive listeners to coaching efforts with engaged participants.
Modern Solution : Teachers can keep a class account for Facebook, Twitter, blogging , &/or Remind.com to update parents–and with emailed notifications, hashtags, RSS feeds, and texts, this can be much more efficient at actually reaching parents than a crumpled paper at the bottom of a backpack.
Modern Solution : As mentioned above, current research doesn’t actually back up that traditional homework encourages any of these things. However, there is evidence that allowing students to choose assignments that make schoolwork more personally meaningful (such as homework projects ) helps students “naturally seek out more knowledge.” ( The Homework Myth 181)

TIPS to Bring Clarity to Your Homework Practices:

Spread the word that homework research is lacking to encourage more specific studies
Homework projects
Flipped learning homework
Read Edutopia’s 5 Questions Every Teacher Should Ask [about the homework they assign], and really put those questions to the test in your personal practices.
Cooper, Harris, “Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?: If So, How much Is Best?” SEDL.org . Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
Greenfeld, Karl Taro. “My Daughter’s Homework is Killing Me” The Atlantic . Web. 30 Jan 2015.
Kohn, Alfie. “Abusing Research: The Study of Homework and Other Examples.” AlfieKohn.org/ . Phi Delta Kappan. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
Kohn, Alfie. The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing . Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Life Long, 2006. Print.
Marzano, Robert J. “The Case For and Against Homework.” ASCD : Responding to Changing Demographics 64.6 (March 2007): 74-79. Web. 30 Jan 2015.
Matthews, Jay. “Parents Saying No to Too Much Homework” The Washington Post . Web. 30 Jan 2015.
Robelen, Erik. “Is Homework for the Benefit of Students or Teachers?” Education Week . Web. 30 Jan 2015.

Photo Credit

Featured Image: Transformer18
Robert Plaskota
Hakan Forss & Unknown Author

Homework: An unnecessary evil? … Surprising findings from new research

Second, even at the high school level, the research supporting homework hasn’t been particularly persuasive. There does seem to be a correlation between homework and standardized test scores, but (a) it isn’t strong, meaning that homework doesn’t explain much of the variance in scores, (b) one prominent researcher, Timothy Keith, who did find a solid correlation, returned to the topic a decade later to enter more variables into the equation simultaneously, only to discover that the improved study showed that homework had no effect after all[2], and (c) at best we’re only talking about a correlation — things that go together — without having proved that doing more homework causes test scores to go up. (Take 10 seconds to see if you can come up with other variables that might be driving both of these things.)

Third, when homework is related to test scores, the connection tends to be strongest — or, actually, least tenuous — with math. If homework turns out to be unnecessary for students to succeed in that subject, it’s probably unnecessary everywhere.

Along comes a new study, then, that focuses on the neighborhood where you’d be most likely to find a positive effect if one was there to be found: math and science homework in high school. Like most recent studies, this one by Adam Maltese and his colleagues[3] doesn’t provide rich descriptive analyses of what students and teachers are doing. Rather, it offers an aerial view, the kind preferred by economists, relying on two large datasets (from the National Education Longitudinal Study [NELS] and the Education Longitudinal Study [ELS]). Thousands of students are asked one question — How much time do you spend on homework? — and statistical tests are then performed to discover if there’s a relationship between that number and how they fared in their classes and on standardized tests.

It’s easy to miss one interesting result in this study that appears in a one-sentence aside. When kids in these two similar datasets were asked how much time they spent on math homework each day, those in the NELS study said 37 minutes, whereas those in the ELS study said 60 minutes. There’s no good reason for such a striking discrepancy, nor do the authors offer any explanation. They just move right along — even though those estimates raise troubling questions about the whole project, and about all homework studies that are based on self-report. Which number is more accurate? Or are both of them way off? There’s no way of knowing. And because all the conclusions are tied to that number, all the conclusions may be completely invalid.[4]

This result clearly caught the researchers off-guard. Frankly, it surprised me, too. When you measure “achievement” in terms of grades, you expect to see a positive result — not because homework is academically beneficial but because the same teacher who gives the assignments evaluates the students who complete them, and the final grade is often based at least partly on whether, and to what extent, students did the homework. Even if homework were a complete waste of time, how could it not be positively related to course grades?

Maltese and his colleagues did their best to reframe these results to minimize the stunning implications.[6] Like others in this field, they seem to have approached the topic already convinced that homework is necessary and potentially beneficial, so the only question we should ask is How — not whether — to assign it. But if you read the results rather than just the authors’ spin on them — which you really need to do with the work of others working in this field as well[7] — you’ll find that there’s not much to prop up the belief that students must be made to work a second shift after they get home from school. The assumption that teachers are just assigning homework badly, that we’d start to see meaningful results if only it were improved, is harder and harder to justify with each study that’s published.

1. It’s important to remember that some people object to homework for reasons that aren’t related to the dispute about whether research might show that homework provides academic benefits. They argue that (a) six hours a day of academics are enough, and kids should have the chance after school to explore other interests and develop in other ways — or be able simply to relax in the same way that most adults like to relax after work; and (b) the decision about what kids do during family time should be made by families, not schools. Let’s put these arguments aside for now, even though they ought to be (but rarely are) included in any discussion of the topic.

2. Valerie A. Cool and Timothy Z. Keith, “Testing a Model of School Learning: Direct and Indirect Effects on Academic Achievement,” Contemporary Educational Psychology 16 (1991): 28-44.

5. To put it the other way around, studies finding the biggest effect are those that capture less of what goes on in the real world by virtue of being so brief. View a small, unrepresentative slice of a child’s life and it may appear that homework makes a contribution to achievement; keep watching, and that contribution is eventually revealed to be illusory. See data provided — but not interpreted this way — by Cooper, The Battle Over Homework, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2001).

7. See chapter 4 (“’Studies Show…’ — Or Do They?”) of my book The Homework Myth (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo, 2006), an adaptation of which appears as “Abusing Research: The Study of Homework and Other Examples,” Phi Delta Kappan , September 2006 [www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/research.htm].

8. On the alleged value of practice, see The Homework Myth , pp. 106-18, also available at http://bit.ly/9dXqCj .