In a valiant effort to make the case for better homework, Annie Murphy Paul in her recent Op Ed piece in the New York Times simply fails to grasp the immensity of what she’s up against. She truly can’t see the forest for the trees.
Paul goes on about how the better way to approach homework can be found in some studies that show how to improve test scores and retention via some “new methods”. Those would be “trees”. The forest is a real education, real learning. Paul has no idea that better test scores are not an indication of better, or actual, learning, just as better retention (recall) is also not an indication of learning. Learning is most emphatically NOT remembering. That’s been addressed here before, so let’s not go there.
Great that she sees that most homework out there is busywork and of little value, but unfortunate that the solution is focused on improving test scores. Why is it so darn difficult to understand that learning is something different from retention as evidenced on a test? Is this such a radical idea? So thoroughly on the educational margin that it’s out of focus to most - strike that, it’s not out of focus, it’s out of sight. Sadly, some educators will jump on this latest “fix”, change-up their approach to homework, have a parent night about how this will repair things and “boy, have we got a great solution for your kids”…. and in 3-5 years they’ll move on to something else, having forgotten that THIS was supposed to be the fix. What a system: conceive, apply, fail, repeat.
However, those marginalia ideas are out there, and slowly, in little blips, they are making headway.
I agree, but have a different take. I tell parents that homework is absolutely necessary….in a conventional classroom. Of course they need homework, time in school is spent changing classes, taking roll, passing out this or that, giving tests, celebrating holidays/birthdays/pep rallys, etc…..so much time is wasted in conventional schools that they have to spend the time doing work at home. Students must work on all subjects separately which takes more time and, since many subjects overlap, is less efficient and does not reflect a real world experience. Each class, teacher and school has different rules, routines, expectations which is highly inefficient causing students to waste valuable time and resources adjusting to each 6 or more new educational environments a day.
In contrast Montessori schools do things differently:
1. We give our students the skill sets to be successful such as how to take notes, right papers, do research, etc…which allows them to more efficiently handle their academic tasks.
2. We have specified, uninterrupted work cycles designed to allow students to complete their academic tasks.
3. We combine all subject areas so that time spent on 1 project will involve several different academic fields of study.
4. Montessori classes have standardized routines with little variation. Teachers can teach in all subject areas over a 3-6 year age range so students only have to work so students remain with a single teacher and routine for a whole day and can be with them for several years.
The structure of our program is more efficient than conventional schools and allow students to work in a much more efficient manner which eliminates the need for homework and allows for more rapid and logical acquisition of knowledge and skills.
This is why Montessori, designed for students and not adults, is better.
Scott – right on! Thanks for the comment.
Since completing my first placement last month I wouldn’t go as far as saying there is a large discontinuity between learning and tests.
Indeed, if a student learned the material they are able to apply it in test to a larger degree. I’m a math teacher, so that would be writing down the steps in proper mathematical form and having a rational for each step to arrive at a reasonable answer
This can be contrasted to a student to a student who memorizes the material and regurgitates it to the best of his ability. He may get the right answer, maybe write down a few steps but the rational wouldn’t be there.
When is came to marking test I would look look for evidence of learning rather then memorization. However, I realize that one draw back from tests is that students learn at different paces. Just because I covered a unit last week doesn’t mean the students are ready for a test. Some math concepts takes time for a brain to comprehend and organize, and I think this is the where tests ultimately fail, regardless of education level.
In terms of test scores, i think this relates to a standardized test, rather then a unit test which I think is different and is absolutely useless. From what i observed at my school was a pressure from somewhere to improve the standardize tests, specifically EQAO for grade 9 as it is the only standardize math test.
The department has papers posted of past scores in comparison to other schools and just because the school is not at the top of the list indicates to the teachers that they need to improve the schools mark and I think having the mentality is more of a hindrance. Teachers always have this idea that they need a ‘better mark’ in the back of their mind when they teach their class.
To summarize, I think their is some relation between what one learned and the outcome of a test, however this type of assessment falls short quite a bit. But students, parents, schools, etc are looking for some way to quantify what one has learned…but is this truly possible?
David, thank you for this comment. Testing and assessment are complex things, to be sure.
If an intelligent test-creator makes a test that requires students to offer explanation, that is surely better than not. As you describe, having to offer a rationale for one’s answers gets closer to indicating “learning” as opposed to memorization.
Finally, you ask if it’s possible to quantify learning. I’m not terribly interested in quantifying it – I’m interested in seeing that it happens. Measuring learning is not so valuable. Knowing that it’s taking place is what’s of value. When we have an approach to learning that captures the style presented on this blog – experiential, student-lead, etc – then we can have learning take place, and take place according to each learner’s timetable (which you correctly note is unique to each student). All one needs to do then is observe the learner and the work he/she does. It will be clear whether or not “understanding” exists. With math- either the student knows how to work through the problems or she doesn’t. This mastery can be demonstrated outside of a testing context, so why is that necessary?