Marzano on Homework

Robert Marzano is a firm advocate for the efficacy of homework in school. In chapter 3 of his book The Art & Science of Teaching, he cites several research studies that have determine homework to be one of the most effective practices for teaching.

There are some interesting criticisms of that research, as it is often difficult to determine whether "homework" means "homework assigned" or "homework completed", as well as the longitudinal length (is this an ongoing assignment stretched over many days like Grant Wiggins would suggest is most effective) and the nature of homework (is it reading? worksheets? exercises? high-order? low-order?)

Still, the research suggest that there is a positive correlation between homework and achievement at the secondary grades (0.25), but a very slight negative correlation at the elementary grades (-0.04). And, you can see that this troubles Marzano and other researchers, as they followed it up with additional studies to nuance what homework means.

Actually, Marzano and I are not that far apart on homework, even though I'm more adamant about major changes in homework policies for elementary grades and the types of homework given to secondary. What is very poignant are his list of conclusions he draws about homework.

• Homework should be structured to ensure high completion. If it's too long or difficult for students to finish, what's the point?
• While there's no magic amount, there is a law of diminishing returns with the amount of homework. Adding more will not result in more achievement. It should be limited.
• It needs to have a well-articulated legitimate purpose. As he states, "homework assigned for punishment or to demonstrate to the public that a school is a serious place of study is not very defensible".
• In the same vein, it should relate directly to learning goals.
• It should be designed so students can do it on their own. (Which reinforces the idea that homework is not for learning, it is for practice).
• This means parents shouldn't be required to do the homework for their kids. The school should have an articulated policy of parents' relationship to homework. Involved, yes. Responsible for, no.

Iowa Core: Back to Basics or Forward to the 21st Century?

High schools in Iowa will be completing their Iowa Core implementation plans next year (completion date = 7/1/2010). As they do, their staffs will have discussions about what is effective instruction and good assessment. But a major thrust will be the alignment of content.

Here's where the philosophical discussion starts. How will you look at the content in the Core?

Will you see the essential content as a call to go back to basics, to beef up instruction time and effort in the 4 core areas? Or will you see the core as limiting the amount of content, freeing teachers from having to cover a flood of objectives, allowing time for teachers to go deeper and incorporate higher thinking? Or, will you see the core as another piece of red tape, another hoop to walk through, ending with an implementation plan that will appease DE visitors but will not affect instruction?

Obviously, you should not even begin to think of the last option above, although that will be tempting for some of our most jaded educators. Administrators will need to be wary of backroom discussions and help everyone remind themselves their mission as educators.

But among the first two, I see open interpretation... one district could easily look at the content one way while another district could look at it the other way. Much like Marzano, whose work with a guaranteed and viable curriculum. Marzano lists both an increased focus on basic essentials and a paring away of too many "essentials" as benefits of the system.

As mentioned repeatedly, I am a proponent of the second option, that the best value of the Iowa Core is that is allows us to look at what we can seriously get rid of in terms of content. For my philosophy discussions, here is my synopsis of why and how we can narrow the curriculum... use it to help your school any way you'd like.

This is what the 21st century curriculum will be.

Connectivism: A Primer

George Siemens is an educational theorist working at the University of Manitoba, who noticed a major gap in the learning theories present. Neither Behaviorism, Cognitivism, nor Constructivism were able to take into account the changing world, especially the technological advances, according to Siemens. Rejecting those theories, he has developed the theory of connectivism.

In brief, the theory of connectivism uses the model of a network, such as a neural network. The individual in the center of the network is surrounded by nodes in the world, nodes such as a skill, an experience, or a concept. The key is for the individual to make connections to these nodes, just like the neural network has axons and dendrites to connect to the next nerve. Learning takes place when either a) more connections are made to new nodes, or b) the connection is reinforced in different, unique ways to become stronger. Siemens argues that the key is not what flows through the pipes of the connections, but rather the pipes themselves, how big they are.

Thus, to enhance learning, the educator needs to introduce an environment rich in stimuli to promote more connections. This would mean exposure to a variety of different ideas, thoughts, people and perspectives. The more connections a person has, the overall health of the network, the stronger it becomes to new challenges (much like the strength of a web being built with more strands of fiber).

But there is more. Controversially, Siemens suggests that learning can exist within the network that we have, that it is an entity that can exist outside of our minds. In essence, there is an element of potential here, just like "potential" energy being a different form than "kinetic" energy. When I'm faced with a new task in my life, my potential learning that exists in a solid support network of my delicious account, my twitter associates, and my email address book is what counts. In this respect, knowledge of the specific content is secondary to the knowledge that exists in strong searching skills or the presence of good connections that will provide me the answer.

It should be noted that Siemens doesn't feel every node is a person... that is just one example. What I personally like about Siemens model is that it is organic; its image of learning is one that grows, that ebbs and flows in different direction. Nodes are introduced into our experience all the time, and our connections are shaded on the basis of circumstances. For someone who learned all the state capitals under forced coercion by their elementary teacher, the connection to the node of "state capitals" is shaded by the connection of the "bad experience". This could hinder the connection and make the learning weaker, or it could strengthen the connection for those that associate with pain strongly.

What's key for me here is that we finally have a theory which can conceptualize forgetting. In behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, once you learn the concept, you really should remember it forever. But in connectivism, it is easy to conceptualize what is happening. The node (we'll say it is the thought "bugs are icky") exists in the network. But over time, many connections are made to other "icky" things (death, cheesy movies, taxes). If there isn't a connection between the "icky-ness" of these new items and the old, suddenly the connection to the old (bugs) becomes overwhelmed by the connections to the new, stronger ones. It is forgotten.

To avoid forgetting, one has to have more connections. In our example, one has to experience that "bugs are icky" in several different ways in order to strengthen the connection. Or, strengthen the connection that "bugs are like death", and "death is icky". For an educator, the key is not to drill the concepts over and over into the student, because while it makes a temporary connection, it will ultimately be replaced if not supported by diverse connections. The key is to provide the diverse connections. Teach that concept in as many different ways possible.

This, for good or for bad, has big implications to our schools. Marzano has advocated for the systematic "guaranteed and viable curriculum", but that isn't a very organic system. The introduction of a lot of nodes, even some of them conflicting, is required to build a strong network. If you stop and ensure mastery after each node is introduced, and introduce one node at a time, you aren't going to get very far. You have to be willing for students to not master all the nodes, that they will assimilate the ones into their network which they can. This is a huge leap of faith for educators, who insist that a student must learn "x, y and z". Indeed, the Iowa Core is somewhere in the middle... it is a pared down set of essentials that Marzano would idealize as the guaranteed and viable, but those essentials are conceptual skills that require a strong set of diverse nodes to support. It isn't just the simple node of learning the state capitals.

Once again, we are back to the point that Alan November made, the point of the digital curriculum, the point where we as educators need to connect our students more to that outside world and let them form their learning being in relationship with those perspectives out there. That is how we can assess our effectiveness.

Call For Action: Narrowing the Curriculum

I believe the buzz phrase is "a mile wide and an inch deep."

Having coordinated curriculum, I've been guilty of parroting that phrase as well. Much like every other curriculum director Robert Marzano groupie, I have lamented how much time we spend covering so much in such little depth. Marzano listed the narrowing of the curriculum as the top factor a school can do to improve achievement, with the key being the world "viable", as in making sure you actually have enough time to teach effectively what you say you will. And of course, every time the TIMSS comes out, we have the pleasure of hearing about our wide, shallow curriculum as well.

So, when the Iowa Core Curriculum quotes that phrase, we shouldn't get too nonplussed. Much like the statement "rigor" and "higher standards", the phrase is not revolutionary. Rather, how to achieve it is.

The basics of the argument are that, as educators, we have felt the need to cover every possible topic in a curriculum, not leaving things out. In so doing, we cover things way too quickly, and therefore ruin retention.

As no surprise, I fully agree with the Iowa Core's calling to narrow (and thereby deepen) the curriculum. But, I'd like to add some caveats of how this is to be done.

1. Identify the most important skills - This is what the Iowa Core is attempting to do, and as far as I can tell, are doing successfully. Even the research shows that teaching less math topics doesn't necessarily improve scores... Singapore teaches more than the U.S. They just happen to emphasize equations, which has the biggest impact.

2. Multi-Task - Maybe the biggest problem is that we follow Madeline Hunter too closely; introduce one skill at a time, then instruct, guided practice, individual practice, etc. Authentically, that's not the way we work. When we think, we use multiple skills together. Introducing and working on multiple skills/concepts at a time suddenly eliminates a lot of repetition.

3. Be OK with skipping concepts - There is a fear amongst teachers (at least there was for me) that "if I don't teach them this, they'll never get it in life". Hogwash. The fact is, people glean the information they need outside of school all the time (in fact, many have to relearn the concepts they supposedly learned in K-12). Perhaps more important is helping students be resourceful enough to develop the concepts on their own when asked to.

4. Compact - If you are a teacher and don't know this term, that is telling. Research shows American teachers woefully underuse compacting. The end result is a lot of time wasted re-teaching concepts the students already know. We need to arm teachers with diagnostic tools to help them find what they can eliminate.

5. Eliminate the thick textbooks - Textbooks have adopted throwing everything into it to meet every state's standards. That's not a problem. Teachers who can't teach without the textbook...? There's the problem. If I hear one more "Gosh, I'm so far behind, I've only got my classes on chapter 8" one more time...

The Iowa Core will require districts to do a thorough alignment of their curriculum, which should help define their scopes and sequences. But I think pushing some specific caveats such as the five above will go further to make a difference.