The Master Teacher Blog

Homework has been a part of formal education for as long as anyone can recall. As such, it is assumed to play a crucial role in learning. Yet, research on the effectiveness of homework as it is typically employed is mixed. Some educators and researchers argue that the practice of assigning homework should be abandoned. Others note that homework is expected by most parents, and it is seen as a key component of learning outside of the classroom. Still others advocate for better designed homework and confining it to specific tasks and roles.  

Obviously, such variation of opinion presents a dilemma. As teachers, we face expectations that homework be assigned, but we also want the time and effort students give to homework to be worthwhile. Here are some cautions and options to consider regarding the design and role of homework, should we decide to assign it. 

Homework that is not done does not result in learning. When students are unable or choose not to complete homework, no learning reinforcement occurs. We need to design homework that students will do if we hope to have it contribute to learning. Assignments need to be purposeful, realistic, interesting, useful, and accessible to maximize the probability that they will be completed.   

Assigning more homework does not necessarily generate more learning. Lengthy homework can overwhelm students, leading to increased stress, frustration, and resentment. The quality of time and effort students give to homework is more important than how long they spend doing it. In most cases, when homework is designed as reinforcement, practicing a relatively small number of tasks or solving a few problems can solidify understanding and build adequate confidence. Assigning more items and activities will generate negligible, if any, further confidence or learning.   

When students are confused or uncertain about a skill or concept, homework can reinforce errors and solidify misconceptions. Assigning homework before students fully understand and are confident in their learning risks students being unaware of their misunderstanding and making confusion-based mistakes. Unfortunately, the more times students repeat mistakes and practice incorrect processes, the more those errors become embedded in their learning and memories. Consequently, efforts to clear up confusion and help students grasp correct information and processes become even more challenging than if they had done no homework in the first place.  

Homework can reinforce and magnify existing inequities. When homework is dependent on technology, transportation, adult involvement, or other resources for completion, students without these supports can be at a significant disadvantage. Further, when homework assumes prior knowledge and experience that is not shared by all students, it can require significantly more time and effort for completion. Having to search for, learn, and apply information and skills not previously possessed can be a major disincentive for students to complete work.  

Grading homework does not necessarily increase learning. Many believe that if homework does not count for a grade, students will not do it. It makes sense that if students do not see value in the work they are asked to do and there is no accountability, some students will not do the work. Of course, we typically design and decide what homework to assign. If we cannot create homework that is engaging, useful, and accessible, we might consider not assigning it. Further, homework should be practice, not performance. Rather than assigning a grade, we might ensure that homework completion is instrumental to successful participation in class discussions and other activities. We might provide feedback on homework without assigning a grade. Or we might keep a record of homework completion to use as data to investigate should students struggle to make progress.     

The decision to assign homework deserves more than identifying which problems to solve or tasks to complete. Homework that matters is thoughtfully and purposefully designed, calibrated to reinforce learning, interesting and engaging, and can be completed by the students to whom it is assigned. 

As human beings, it is inevitable that we sometimes make decisions that seem logical and right in the moment only to discover later that we sacrificed something important and necessary. In these cases, and with varying degrees of intentionality, we neglect to consider long-term consequences and how we might actually be undermining the very outcomes we seek.

Consider the multi-decade trend to reduce the focus on—and support for—the arts in the school curriculum, “the arts” encompassing the many various branches and presentations of creative activity and expression. It may have seemed that placing greater focus on and giving more time to academics would lead directly to higher test scores and greater student academic success, yet progress has been a struggle and greater pressure has not led to expected levels of achievement. Meanwhile, student behavior seems to have become more challenging and traditional consequences have become less effective.

It's time to reconsider the role of the arts and explore how the presence of arts education in the core curriculum can help us to achieve our goals of increasing academic performance and building learning and life skills. Rather than defaulting to the perception that the arts are extraneous “nice-to-haves” or simply scheduling add-ons, we should consider what multiple research studies tell us about the impact of the arts on learning and life skills. Here are ten areas of impact to consider:

• Better critical thinking. Experiences in the arts can increase students’ abilities to closely observe and remain focused. They nurture analytical skills. The arts ask students to practice introspection and interpretation, and engagement in the arts encourages exploration from multiple perspectives.
• Stronger communication skills. The arts offer multiple ways to express oneself. They are a means for connecting with others, reinforcing the importance of communication while broadening its application. The arts value rich descriptions, interesting images, and varied expression, all of which support the development of crucial communication skills.
• More effective problem-solving skills. The arts often present interesting questions and beg for creative responses, thus inviting novel ideas and innovative approaches to resolve a dilemma or address an issue. Students are free to try multiple approaches and discover unexpected answers. Rather than attempting to calibrate a response to a predetermined outcome, the arts invite risk and exploration in resolving conflicts and solving problems.
• Greater willingness to take initiative. The arts are less driven by templates and restrictions than some other areas. Students are encouraged to develop ideas and create products that are meaningful to them. As a result, students are freer to follow their preferences, express themselves, and take initiative than in many other formal learning contexts.
• Improved self-discipline. The arts reinforce the importance of practice, persistence, and progress before becoming proficient. For example, learning to play an instrument or master a certain visual technique is not necessarily self-reinforcing in the early stages of skill development. Goal pursuit, progress monitoring, strategy selection, and aligned effort are key elements for success in the arts.
• Greater responsiveness to constructive criticism. The arts typically tolerate multiple responses or answers to a challenge or idea. Since there is no single right answer, the arts can lead to multiple final products, all with value deserving of celebration. Consequently, students learn to accept constructive criticism without feeling that they have made an error. They learn to gracefully receive a critique and use it to improve.
• More creativity. The arts can help students see connections and patterns and can build confidence to imagine. They provide a reason, context, and motivation to be creative. Originality is encouraged—and celebrated—in the arts.
• Stronger teamwork. The arts encourage interpersonal skills within a context of purpose and in pursuit of achieving a shared outcome. Through the arts, students can experience authentic, constructive interactions with other students. These experiences help to build interpersonal skills and give students opportunities to learn to manage their emotions and express their viewpoints effectively.
• Increased empathy. The arts offer exposure to different viewpoints and types of people. The arts help students to see the world outside of themselves, with experiences in the arts helping students to become more tolerant of the ideas of others. The arts encourage students to become more compassionate and accepting of diverse thinking and perceptions.
• Better stress tolerance. While the arts build skills and emphasize processes, they are less insistent on a single answer or outcome. The arts can offer permission for students to have fun. When students experience more freedom to express and be themselves, they typically experience less stress while, at the same time, build more tolerance for it.

It should come at no surprise that many studies have shown that students who are engaged in the arts do better academically, are better behaved, and graduate at higher rates. The arts build key skills and nurture foundational characteristics that are easily transferred to and applied in academic subjects and life. We do our students a disservice when we do not include arts education in the core curriculum.

The Master Teacher is the creator of the new Museum of Art + Light (MOA+L) in Manhattan, Kansas. It was built at this time because the research is so clear that children who are in the visual and performing arts in our schools out-perform all other students, and this is particularly important in this new high-tech era. The Master Teacher passionately supports the arts and advocates for arts education to be an integral component within the public-school core curriculum. The first of its kind, the MOA+L boasts its unique vision to explore the limitless convergence of visual art, the creative process, and digital technology. Its mission is to bridge 21^st century technology with the visual and performing arts to incite positive emotion, cultivate meaningful connections, encourage artistic exploration, and spark innovation.

Grades play a complex, multifaceted role in most classrooms. While they are intended to communicate what students know and have learned, grades are often used to influence behavior and communicate information well beyond their stated intent. Consequently, grades become a highly attended to, but often confusing vehicle for communication.

Reminding students and others who pay attention to and depend on grades that they are to reflect learning—not the purpose of learning—can be an important first step in dispelling confusion. However, our grading practices also need to reflect this intention.

Unfortunately, many commonly accepted grading practices are not consistent with a commitment to have grades solely reflect what is learned. Nor do many grading practices reflect the realities of learning challenges in the lives of students. Here are five common, but often overlooked, grading practices that are worthy of reflection and adjustment.

Mistake #1: Giving equal weight to early learning efforts and late-stage performance. Students come to learning challenges with a variety of backgrounds, experiences, and levels of readiness. Initially, those students who possess limited background knowledge and experience related to what they are asked to learn may not perform as well as those with greater background and related knowledge. Consequently, early assessment information is likely to be more of a reflection of prior knowledge than current learning. On the other hand, later assessment information is likely to be more reflective of learning and thus deserves more weight in grade calculations.

Fix: Give extra weight to student performance demonstrated later in the teaching and learning cycle, thus capturing true learning rather than rewarding background knowledge.

Mistake #2: Refusing to change grades once assigned. We want grades to reflect what students know and have learned. Yet, an initial assessment can reflect partial understanding, existing confusion, or the presence of distractions. Subsequently, learning may continue, confusion may be cleared up, and distractions may be removed. What a student ultimately knows may not be reflected in an initial grade.

Fix: Provide flexibility for grades to be modified as students demonstrate additional learning. Our flexibility can encourage students to continue to reflect, learn, and be recognized for additional progress.

Mistake #3: Giving significant grade weight to work intended to be completed out of school. Traditional homework is deeply embedded in the perceptions many people hold regarding a rigorous education. However, expectations for learning intended to be completed outside of school raises significant concerns. Some students may not have access to the tools necessary to complete the work, such as access to technology devices or internet. They may not have the appropriate space or environment to complete the work. Or they may have responsibilities that compete with homework completion. Further, research on the effectiveness of homework to support learning is mixed at best.

Fix: Give students options for completing assigned work within the class period or school day or provide options for completing the work that are not dependent on access to technology, family support, and other resources.

Mistake #4: Grading almost everything. Of course, we want the grades we assign to be representative of what students have learned and be based on an adequate amount of information. However, choosing to grade too much can work against this goal. Some work students complete may represent early practice, informal progress checks, or formative assessments. While these pieces of work product can inform further learning efforts and provide guidance for our instruction, they may not necessarily qualify for a formal grade.

Fix: Carefully choose assessments, projects, and other work products that offer credible evidence of learning. While having multiple data points on which to base a grade is important, mixing practice and informal assessment information can compromise the extent to which grades accurately reflect what students know and have learned.  

Mistake #5: Using grades to force compliance, motivate, or punish students. Multiple research studies document the lack of consistent power of grades to motivate learners. In fact, over-reliance on grades can lead students to look for shortcuts to high grades while skipping the work necessary for learning. Grades should reflect learning, not be a tool to drive compliance. When grades include teacher-pleasing behaviors, socially adept students tend to benefit while traditionally marginalized students tend to be disadvantaged.

Fix: Avoid using grades for any purpose other than to communicate learning attainment and progress. Encourage students to focus on accomplishing learning goals and meeting learning expectations. Never threaten to hold a grade hostage to non-learning-related behavior.

Grading can be a daunting challenge. However, when we commit to having grades reflect learning and avoid other uses and influences, the challenge becomes more manageable, and grades also become clearer and fairer to students.

As much as we might want to believe otherwise, grades as they are typically employed are not very effective learning motivators. Certainly, they can be used to get students to do more work, avoid embarrassment, sidestep punishment, and achieve status—but they can also cause students to find shortcuts to avoid true learning. In common practice, grades operate mostly as an extrinsic motivator, and unfortunately, the more grades are used to motivate, the less effective they become.  

Grades too often become the goal of learning rather than a reflection of learning. We even say things like “Work hard so that you get a good grade!” when we should be encouraging students to work hard so that they learn. When they do, their grades will generally take care of themselves. 

Nevertheless, grades are deeply embedded in the life and culture of most schools. As much as we might sometimes like to ignore or abandon them, grades remain a part of our reality. The question is, are there ways we can position grades and our grading practices to motivate students and encourage them to focus on learning? Here are five strategies to consider.  

First, we can support and build motivation when we grade against clear criteria or rubrics (criterion-referenced assessments) and not other students (norm-referenced assessments). The best motivation for improvement comes when students compete with their own past performance. Motivation grows when students see next steps and the path to success. Grading that compares a student’s performance to the performance of other students can undermine motivation for those who might believe they may not measure up or cannot catch up. Further, grading against the performance of other students does not tell students whether they have learned what was intended, just how they did relative to other students.  

Second, we might emphasize learning and progress in addition to performance. Students typically become more motivated when they can see and track their progress. We might collect data regarding what students know at the beginning of a learning and teaching cycle in order to gain an understanding of their prior knowledge and create a baseline to track future progress. We need to avoid grading what students know before they are asked to learn. Data from initial work can be compared to performance at the end of a unit or learning cycle to document learning progress. As a result, we have access to what knowledge students have gained as we consider assigning grades, not just what they know and may already knew prior to the learning and teaching cycle. 

Third, and related, we can delay the assignment of grades as long as possible. Multiple research studies have documented the motivational power of timely, specific, objective, actionable feedback, especially when it is not attached to a grade. Unfortunately, when grades are attached to feedback, they tend to overshadow the information, and feedback is ignored. Further, students often see assignment of a grade as a sign that learning is complete, and they no longer focus on learning effort. 

Fourth, we might give students opportunities to have their best work considered for grading. The purpose of grades is to reflect what students have learned, so it makes sense to consider the work that best represents their learning. As examples, when students submit multiple assignments, complete multiple assessments, or create multiple products, we might allow them to choose the pieces of evidence that best represent their learning to be evaluated for grading. Another option is to allow students to have a lowest score dropped to avoid them giving up if they did poorly on a single task or assessment. Limited and targeted retakes or resubmissions can also motivate students to keep learning.  

Fifth, if we choose to award extra credit, we can award credit for extra learning. The practice of awarding extra credit for actions unrelated to learning may compel students to work toward a higher grade, but it does little, if anything, to move learning forward. On the other hand, we can recognize additional learning. As examples, students might choose to pursue greater understanding of a concept, dig deeper into a topic, or explore an implication associated with what we have been teaching. The opportunity to receive credit for additional learning and have their work reflected in a grade can be a learning motivator.  

It is true that over-emphasis on grades can corrupt learning. However, with deployment of thoughtful grading practices, we can minimize the distraction grades can present and build motivation for students to learn.  

The assumption that the rate at which students learn varies drives many common grouping, instructional, and grading practices. It may seem obvious that some students learn at a faster pace while other students need more time to make a similar amount of progress. But what if this assumption is wrong? 

What if, in fact, most learners actually learn at the same rate? A major peer-reviewed study conducted at Carnegie Mellon University set out to discover why and how some learners learn faster than others. The study included more than 7000 youth and adult learners from a variety of backgrounds, learning histories, and geographic areas, as well as 1.3 million observations, and 27 datasets. Participants were given a variety of learning tasks in math, science, and language, and their progress was closely monitored.  

To the surprise of the researchers, the data showed that there was very little variance in the pace of learning across populations. They discovered that the determinative factor is the amount of background knowledge learners bring to the learning challenge. Those labeled as “fast learners” possessed more background knowledge to apply to their learning efforts, not special skills or talents. Of course, elements such as level of motivation and strength of memory can impact the amount of persistence and length of learning retention, but these factors only complement learning efforts. 

To use a baseball metaphor, some students come to learning tasks with academic background knowledge that already places them on second or third base, while other students may have so little background knowledge that they are barely at first base. Of course, students on all three bases may be capable of reaching home and “scoring,” but the students on first base have a much longer distance to travel to be successful. In this context, it is not difficult to understand why students with limited background knowledge are less likely to “score” consistently. Yet, most grading systems are weighted heavily toward those who “cross home plate,” not how far they have come.  

This research calls into question several common assumptions about learning and traditional grading practices. As we reflect on the implications of the Carnegie Mellon study, there are several aspects of common practice worthy of debate. Here seven questions to start the discussion: 

1. Should grades reflect what students know at the end of a teaching and learning cycle, or should grades reflect what they have learned during that cycle? 

2. If learning success is heavily dependent on background knowledge, should more time be spent building and activating background knowledge to better “level the playing field” before engaging in new instruction? 

3. Should students be assessed prior to instruction to facilitate the documentation of what they learn? 

4. Does a student who initially lacked background knowledge deserve to call “foul” if another student who learned less than that student receives a higher grade? 

5. Would giving students a grade based on what they learn regardless of their initial background knowledge be comparable to giving a prize for effort? Why or why not? 

6. Since academic background knowledge is highly correlated with race and socioeconomic status, is grading solely on what students know at the end of a teaching and learning cycle inequitable? 

7. Should students receive two grades: one grade for what they know and one for what they have learned during a teaching and learning cycle? 

This study raises important questions about how we engage learners and document learning. Now is a good time to reexamine our assumptions about the rate and nature of learning. We also need to revisit traditional grading practices to ensure that we are not placing too much emphasis on what students know at the expense of what they have learned.  

Reference:

Koedinger, K. R., Carvalho, P. F., Liu, R., and McLaughlin, E. A. (2023). An astonishing regularity in student learning rate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, 120(13). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2221311120 

Grades are such an integral part of schooling today that it can be difficult to imagine how schools could ever operate without them. Students are told that getting good grades is the ultimate reason to work hard. After all, grades are used to judge a learner’s history and status, and even predict—and sometimes dictate—their future. Given the significance assigned to this component of our educational system, we might think that it has a deep and rich history associated with learning.  

Yet, grades and grading have not always been the way in which learning was measured and reported. Prior to the introduction of grades, the quality and preparedness of students were connected to the educator, or educators, under whom they studied. When seeking a position, students presented the name and reputation of their teacher or teachers. The reputation and testimony of the person(s) under whom they studied was used to assure the preparedness of the position seeker. However, this approach presented at least two challenges: first, educators’ reputations were dependent on ensuring that their students gained the intended knowledge and skills, and second, such a tight connection between learner and teacher meant that educators could support a limited number of students at any time.   

In the late 1700s, a tutor at Cambridge University, William Farish, borrowed the practice of grading the quality of shoes made in factories and applied that practice to students. Finished shoes were given a grade based on the quality of the workmanship they represented; better-quality shoes were worth more, while lower-quality shoes were priced low or rejected. Interestingly, Farish’s idea caught on almost immediately, became common practice in schools within a generation, and has remained the most common way to judge learners and learning ever since.  

Why is this history important, and why might it matter today? Let’s explore.  

First, students and learning are much more complex than stitching and leather, and learning is infinitely more difficult to measure and judge than the ruggedness and style of a shoe. Deciding to consolidate the multiple dimensions of learning into a single number or letter compromises understanding and ignores the complexity of the process.  

Second, while a poor-quality pair of shoes may not be comfortable or last long, failing to learn risks handicapping future opportunities for students. Further, a low grade does not just imply poor-quality learning; it often means that some learning did not occur at all. Consequently, future instruction based on the assumption that prior learning occurred further disadvantages the learner and compounds the error.  

Third, when grades are applied to shoes, the identity of the shoe is intertwined with the quality of its materials and workmanship. Alternatively, students are much more than the grades they receive. Yet, grades too often are used to assign identity, define expectations, and determine the levels of adult effort and investment that students will experience.  

Fourth, a shoe may be the product of the assembler’s effort and skill, but learners play a key role in the teaching and learning process. Readiness, relationships, and instructional practices are all significant to the learning process. However, the assignment of grades can create a temptation to blame students for lack of learning rather than sharing responsibility, providing needed support, or taking timely steps to address barriers. 

Fifth, while the idea of grading students like shoes provided an efficient way for teachers to teach more students, there remain limits on how many students a teacher can effectively support. It is true that many of the limitations present at the time grading was adopted no longer exist today. We know much more about how learning occurs and how to nurture it, and technology can help us to customize experiences and track progress in real time. Regardless, the ability to assign grades should not serve as a reason to continually expand the number of students teachers are expected to support.  

The time has come to re-examine the traditional practice of assigning a single grade to such a complex process as learning. Students, parents, and others with an interest in learning progress and performance deserve more informative and actionable indicators of where learning has occurred, how much learning has occurred, and what needs to be done to see that expected learning will occur.