Cooper H. (1989). Homework
Jemima Torguson
A poll conducted for the Associated Press in January 2006 found that about 57% of parents felt their child was assigned about the right amount of homework. Another 23% thought it was too little, and 19% thought it was too much. A survey conducted by MetLife in 2007 found that 87% of parents saw that helping their child with homework was an opportunity for them to talk and spend time together. More than three fourths (78%) did not think homework interfered with family time, and nearly as many (71%) thought that it was not a source of major stress.
But opinions cannot tell us whether homework works; only research can. My colleagues and I analyzed dozens of homework studies conducted between 1987 and 2003 to examine whether homework is beneficial and what amount of homework is appropriate for our children (Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006).
Why might that be? Younger children have less developed study habits and are less able to tune out distractions at home. Studies also suggest that young students who are struggling in school take more time to complete homework assignments simply because these assignments are more difficult for them.
These recommendations are consistent with the conclusions reached by our analysis. Practice assignments do improve scores on class tests at all grade levels. A little amount of homework may help elementary school students build study habits. Homework for junior high students appears to reach the point of diminishing returns after about 90 minutes a night. For high school students, the positive line continues to climb until between 90 minutes and 2.5 hours of homework a night, after which returns diminish (Cooper, 1989; Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006).
My feeling is that homework policies should prescribe amounts of homework consistent with the research evidence, but they should also give individual schools and teachers some flexibility to take into account the unique needs and circumstances of their students and families. In general, teachers should avoid either extreme.
The literature on homework for students with learning disabilities is reviewed. First, a summary of Cooper's (1989a) synthesis of research on homework for students without disabilities is presented, including (a) a definition of homework, (b) a model of the homework process, (c) the results of a meta-analysis of homework studies, and (d) generic policy guidelines. Next, special education research on homework conducted after 1985 is described. The literature is divided into studies that manipulated homework conditions and homework-related surveys of teachers and parents. The results of the literature review suggest that homework policies and practices for students with learning disabilities should emphasize (a) simple, short assignments; (b) careful monitoring by and prominent rewards from teachers; and (c) parental involvement, especially to provide structure, conducive environments, and immediate rewards.
The purpose of this research study was threefold: to determine if a relationship existed between homework and student achievement in students from a rural high school in the foothills of North Carolina; to determine if a relationship existed between two specific types of homework (preparation and practice) and student achievement; and to determine stakeholder perceptions (teachers, students, and parents) regarding the impact of homework on student learning, personal development, and family relationships.
The conceptual framework of this study was based on research conducted by Cooper (1989), Lee and Pruitt (1979), Foyle (1984), and from an extensive literature review that revealed three categories associated with the positive and negative impacts of homework (student learning, personal development, and family relationships).
Third, this study added to the research on homework by determining perceptions of teachers, students, and parents on the impact of homework in three areas: student learning, personal development, and family relationships.
However, parent involvement can also hurt student learning. Patall, Cooper, and Robinson (2008) found that students did worse when their parents were perceived as intrusive or controlling. Motivation plays a key role in learning, and parents can cause unintentional harm by not giving their children enough space and autonomy to do their homework.
OECD, the developers of the international PISA test, published a 2014 report looking at homework around the world. They found that 15-year-olds worldwide spend an average of five hours per week doing homework (the U.S. average is about six hours). Surprisingly, countries like Finland and Singapore spend less time on homework (two to three hours per week) but still have high PISA rankings. These countries, the report explains, have support systems in place that allow students to rely less on homework to succeed. If a country like the U.S. were to decrease the amount of homework assigned to high school students, test scores would likely decrease unless additional supports were added.
Walker, J. M., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Whetsel, D. R., & Green, C. L. (2004). Parental involvement in homework: A review of current research and its implications for teachers, after school program staff, and parent leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
A fair number of meta-analyses have been conducted on homework, spanning a broad range of methodologies and levels of specificity, as well as using effect sizes based on standard deviation or correlation coefficients. Some of the most significant studies are compared in my book (particularly those by Harris Cooper and colleagues as well as John Hattie), but I will further explain some of the less regularly cited studies below.
One finding to note was that time spent doing homework and its frequency were less impactful, in terms of effect sizes, than completion and effort, which had a larger effect. Interestingly, and unlike many other studies, they found that the attainment relationship in maths and science was stronger for elementary (primary) pupils than for middle school (KS3) pupils, whereas high school (KS4/5) pupils still showed a positive relationship. One suggestion put forward by the authors for the modest effect between homework and attainment for elementary pupils is that maths assignments were often short whilst other subjects were longer; this may account for differences with other analyses as their study focused on maths and science only. Lastly, the analysis also showed the effect to be more positive amongst US pupils than Asian pupils.
It is interesting that effect sizes do not increase for higher education, despite the assumption that older pupils are more inclined or willing to partake in homework. Nonetheless, the number of studies included here were quite low and included only 2 for the higher education settings.
Despite some mild discrepancies, all of the meta-analyses mentioned above suggest that homework impacts on attainment to some extent. Although the effect sizes for most are small, I do not think they should be discounted. Granted, we know that there are various competing variables affecting any straightforward conclusions here, but if these small effects are being detected, we must assume that homework is still a worthy pursuit.
There is no conclusive evidence that homework increases student achievement across the board. Some studies show positive effects of homework under certain conditions and for certain students, some show no effects, and some suggest negative effects (Kohn 2006; Trautwein and Koller 2003).
Some researchers believe that students from higher-income homes have more resources (such as computers) and receive more assistance with homework, while low-income students may have fewer resources and less assistance and are therefore less likely to complete the homework and reap any related benefits (McDermott, Goldmen and Varenne 1984; Scott-Jones 1984).
A national study of the influence of homework on student grades across five ethnic groups found that homework had a stronger impact on Asian American students than on students of other ethnicities (Keith and Benson, 1992).
Certain nonacademic benefits of homework have been shown, especially for younger students. Indeed, some primary-level teachers may assign homework for such benefits, which include learning the importance of responsibility, managing time, developing study habits, and staying with a task until it is completed (Cooper, Robinson and Patall 2006; Corno and Xu 2004; Johnson and Pontius 1989; Warton 2001).
While research on the optimum amount of time students should spend on homework is limited, there are indications that for high school students, 1 to 2 hours per night is optimum. Middle school students appear to benefit from smaller amounts (less than 1 hour per night). When students spend more time than this on homework, the positive relationship with student achievement diminishes (Cooper, Robinson, and Patall 2006).
Some research has shown that students who spend more time on homework score higher on measures of achievement and attitude. Studies that have delved more deeply into this topic suggest, however, that the amount of homework assigned by teachers is unrelated to student achievement, while the amount of homework actually completed by students is associated with higher achievement (Cooper 2001; Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, and Greathouse 1998).
Studies of after-school programs that provide homework assistance have found few definite links to improved student achievement. Several studies, however, noted improvements in student motivation and work habits, which may indirectly affect achievement (Cosden, Morrison, Albanese, and Macias 2001; James-Burdumy et al. 2005).
Most teachers assign homework to reinforce what was presented in class or to prepare students for new material. Less commonly, homework is assigned to extend student learning to different contexts or to integrate learning by applying multiple skills around a project. Little research exists on the effects of these different kinds of homework on student achievement, leaving policymakers with little evidence on which to base decisions (Cooper 1989; Foyle 1985; Murphy and Decker 1989).
aa06259810