What Does Homework Do?

Ikari said:

Homework can be a very good way for a student to sit down, think about what they learned, and to apply it on their own to see if they can figure out the challenge. But you have to be willing to put in that effort. Otherwise, you can just copy. You won't learn anything, you'll probably do bad on tests, but you won't have to put in effort on the homework and can continue going around thinking how it's useless and how you know everything already. Up to you.

Click to expand...

You can't say that about everyone. People learn in different ways. Some people learn from repetition, some people are visual or auditory learners, and some people learn faster than others. Assigning homework to a person who picks things up instantly is a waste of time and turns them off to education. Homework for the smart kids is counter-productive.

nonpareil said:

I disagree. Grunt work is part of life. Being able to do grunt work (work you dislike) is part of learning responsibility. As Einstein said: Success is 5% inspiration, 95% perspiration. It's grunt work + innovation that makes for success. Very few people succeed because they are smart alone. Most successful people will tell you they work very hard to get what they have.

Click to expand...

I believe that was said by Thomas Edison. And only a genius would say something like that. Being a janitor is also 99% perspiration, but any idiot can clean up vomit. Not everyone is capable of doing the 1% intuitive thinking it takes to invent a light bulb. Making those people clean up vomit would be a waste of genius.

Grunt work is a bad thing and doesn't have to be a part of everyone's life in modern times. Edison wasn't inventing because he had to, he had a passion for it. In fact, in early life he got fired from his telegraph operator job because of this experimentation. Imagine how different things would be in the world if Edison's boss had taught him the importance of grunt work instead of firing him?

Tsunami said:

You can't say that about everyone. People learn in different ways. Some people learn from repetition, some people are visual or auditory learners, and some people learn faster than others. Assigning homework to a person who picks things up instantly is a waste of time and turns them off of education. Homework for the smart kids is counter-productive.

Click to expand...

As a Dr. I'd have to disagree with you. The smart kids understand the purpose of homework. I liked it, it was challenging and useful to do. Not only did I practice what I learned, I made sure I was able to do it, I reinforced what I learned, and I figured out ways to apply what I learned to a large array of questions and problems. Can they do the homework quickly? Well at lower stages, sure. Can it be useless? It's possible if the homework isn't designed well. Is it useful? Yes, overall it is useful. I mean, there is a wide parameter space out there, and thus the overall effectiveness is dependent upon many quantities. But well designed homework will help everyone, even the very smart people. Actually...it won't help the really dumb people; they're just sorta stuck where they're at (it's usually due to some work ethic problems, not intellect).

Not everything is like highschool, where everything could be considered a joke. Hell in high school I had 2 years of each science, and the homework...well it was pretty damned easy. Still worthwhile even then because I still have things committed to memory because of it. But as you get to University, homework changes (less you're a business or psychology major) and becomes more intense, more gauged for the middle to upper portions of the class, and more useful.

Cilogy said:

I'm a recent high school grad, and I gotta say that only in the last 3 three years of my public school life did my homework actually make me a more knowledgeable and productive human being. Other than that, its mostly just busy work.

What do you think?

[Sorry if this is already a poll, feel free to delete or move this thread.]

Click to expand...

Ideally, it would allow students to demonstrate independent competency in a recently-learned skill. A teacher should evaluate the homework to determine which students have mastered the concept, and which haven't. If the majority are struggling, the teacher needs to revisit the information.

It's designed to give teachers (and students) a measure of their own progress.

It's designed to give teachers (and students) a measure of their own progress.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much exactly what I think.

Ikari said:

As a Dr. I'd have to disagree with you. The smart kids understand the purpose of homework. I liked it, it was challenging and useful to do.

Click to expand...

If you found homework to be challenging then you weren't one of the smart kids. The purpose of homework is to make sure the dumb kids are learning too. But what is the purpose of basing the grading system mostly on homework rather than mostly on learning? Homework itself isn't a bad thing, as long as you make it optional. Holding someone back who passes the test without needing to do the homework is ridiculous. They should move on to learning something else instead of having to repeat themselves over and over again. Homework slows down learning for those kids.

Not everything is like highschool, where everything could be considered a joke. Hell in high school I had 2 years of each science, and the homework...well it was pretty damned easy. Still worthwhile even then because I still have things committed to memory because of it. But as you get to University, homework changes (less you're a business or psychology major) and becomes more intense, more gauged for the middle to upper portions of the class, and more useful.

Click to expand...

Well as I didn't go to college I was mostly talking about homework that is given to children. How important was homework to your grade in that University? It seems like as the importance goes up the impact on your grade goes down. Which is the opposite of the way it should work.

Ikari said:

As a Dr. I'd have to disagree with you. The smart kids understand the purpose of homework. I liked it, it was challenging and useful to do. Not only did I practice what I learned, I made sure I was able to do it, I reinforced what I learned, and I figured out ways to apply what I learned to a large array of questions and problems. Can they do the homework quickly? Well at lower stages, sure. Can it be useless? It's possible if the homework isn't designed well. Is it useful? Yes, overall it is useful. I mean, there is a wide parameter space out there, and thus the overall effectiveness is dependent upon many quantities. But well designed homework will help everyone, even the very smart people. Actually...it won't help the really dumb people; they're just sorta stuck where they're at (it's usually due to some work ethic problems, not intellect).

Not everything is like highschool, where everything could be considered a joke. Hell in high school I had 2 years of each science, and the homework...well it was pretty damned easy. Still worthwhile even then because I still have things committed to memory because of it. But as you get to University, homework changes (less you're a business or psychology major) and becomes more intense, more gauged for the middle to upper portions of the class, and more useful.

Click to expand...

At a college level, I agree with you, you need every piece of homework you can get because the material gets a lot harder. But at a high school level, its just busy work, wasting time that could be well spent on other school related activities.

For example, yesterday I had a Mock Trial team meeting. My coach had asked us to come up with any and all key pieces of evidence the Defense and Prosecution needed to bring out. Why didn't I have my list? I was too busy doing freaking AP Environmental Science homework, and Chemistry worksheets.

Another example: I have science olympiad this Saturday at my local college, who always hosts it. I've had a few hours over the past week to prepare for it. Why? Because I have so much homework, I never have enough time to practice my extracurricular activies.

Tsunami said:

You can't say that about everyone. People learn in different ways. Some people learn from repetition, some people are visual or auditory learners, and some people learn faster than others. Assigning homework to a person who picks things up instantly is a waste of time and turns them off to education. Homework for the smart kids is counter-productive.

Click to expand...

If they have picked it up, it should be easy peasy for them to finish the homework. People tend to excel at things they enjoy (or maybe enjoy the things they excel at), either way, since they enjoy it, they usually don't mind spending more time on it. I enjoyed Maths in schools. In class, I usually get what's taught right away. The homework was easy and enjoyable because I like Maths, so it wasn't "work" per se.

I believe that was said by Thomas Edison. And only a genius would say something like that. Being a janitor is also 99% perspiration, but any idiot can clean up vomit. Not everyone is capable of doing the 1% intuitive thinking it takes to invent a light bulb. Making those people clean up vomit would be a waste of genius.

Grunt work is a bad thing and doesn't have to be a part of everyone's life in modern times. Edison wasn't inventing because he had to, he had a passion for it. In fact, in early life he got fired from his telegraph operator job because of this experimentation. Imagine how different things would be in the world if Edison's boss had taught him the importance of grunt work instead of firing him?

Click to expand...

It would be exactly the same. Edison had to conduct thousands of experiments - that to me is grunt work. I'm sure in his life he had to do what he didn't like as well to feed himself before he succeeded. When people want something enough, they go through hard work to get it. There are plenty of people who has the 1% creativity and never make anything of themselves because they don't want to do anything that is not "their dream" or which they don't enjoy. Those people are even more useless than the janitor.

nonpareil said:

If they have picked it up, it should be easy peasy for them to finish the homework. People tend to excel at things they enjoy (or maybe enjoy the things they excel at), either way, since they enjoy it, they usually don't mind spending more time on it. I enjoyed Maths in schools. In class, I usually get what's taught right away. The homework was easy and enjoyable because I like Maths, so it wasn't "work" per se.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but even then, it takes time to do the homework. My argument is that you should only have to do homework if you don't understand the material. This would be dictated by short 5 question quizzes every day. On Monday of the following week, go over all material learned the previous week. You fail a quiz, you review the work associted with it.

repeter said:

At a college level, I agree with you, you need every piece of homework you can get because the material gets a lot harder. But at a high school level, its just busy work, wasting time that could be well spent on other school related activities.

Click to expand...

That's only because our high schools are pathetic. Students don't learn what they should, we let them take study hall and other waste of time activities. High school should be well more academically challenging and demanding. For example, how does one get a H.S. diploma without having taken at the very least pre-calculus? It's astounding the lack of education which goes on in our education system. And then we wonder why we have a society of dumbasses.

repeter said:

I understand your point, but even then, it takes time to do the homework. My argument is that you should only have to do homework if you don't understand the material. This would be dictated by short 5 question quizzes every day. On Monday of the following week, go over all material learned the previous week. You fail a quiz, you review the work associted with it.

Click to expand...

And who mark the test? Your teacher. Will he or she have the time to look at that for 20-30 students every week? Will a 5 questions quizz be able to gauge if the students have learned what they are supposed to?

Depends on the student. I never did any homework, aced every test, yet failed many of my classes in highschool for not doing the homework.

For me, the only purpose of my teachers assigning homework was to try and get me to conform to the norms in order to receive certain specified rewards (passing grades).

Essentially, homework was a power struggle between me and many of my teachers.

The teachers felt they had the power because they could give me failing marks, I understood that I retained the power by not giving a **** about their arbitrarily determined failing marks.

I refused to play the game by their rules. I made sure I had the highest command of the information in the class and I also made sure to never do a single homework assignment.

Perhaps if I had played along and performed the useless tasks they assigned, I would have gone to college straight out of highschool instead of returning to school in my 20's, or would have gone to a different school when I did return, but that was never my interest, nor is it preventing me from going to an excellent grad school now (although I decided on the solid, inexpensive school instead of the very prestigious yet also very expensive ones).

Basically, I see homework as useful for a certain portion of the population and a waste of time for other populations.

It depends on the student more than anything else.

nonpareil said:

If they have picked it up, it should be easy peasy for them to finish the homework. People tend to excel at things they enjoy (or maybe enjoy the things they excel at), either way, since they enjoy it, they usually don't mind spending more time on it. I enjoyed Maths in schools. In class, I usually get what's taught right away. The homework was easy and enjoyable because I like Maths, so it wasn't "work" per se.

Click to expand...

I don't find it true that people's interests match their talents. Certainly not in my case. If that is true for you then consider yourself lucky.

And just because homework is easy doesn't mean it is worth doing or takes less time. Do people seek out the easy crossword puzzles or the hard ones? Challenging material is more interesting than easy material. Easy homework is the worst kind of homework.

It would be exactly the same. Edison had to conduct thousands of experiments - that to me is grunt work. I'm sure in his life he had to do what he didn't like as well to feed himself before he succeeded. When people want something enough, they go through hard work to get it. There are plenty of people who has the 1% creativity and never make anything of themselves because they don't want to do anything that is not "their dream" or which they don't enjoy. Those people are even more useless than the janitor.

Click to expand...

Edison didn't have to conduct thousands of experiments. That is what he enjoyed doing. He was driven to do that by his interests. Inventing isn't an occupation, certainly not before Edison's day. He developed over a thousand patents, many long after he was well-off financially. It wasn't grunt work that got him there, it was his curiosity, something often stifled by the appreciation of hard work. As for being worth less than a janitor, I would hire a lazy genius over a hard-working idiot any day.

Ikari said:

That's only because our high schools are pathetic. Students don't learn what they should, we let them take study hall and other waste of time activities. High school should be well more academically challenging and demanding. For example, how does one get a H.S. diploma without having taken at the very least pre-calculus? It's astounding the lack of education which goes on in our education system. And then we wonder why we have a society of dumbasses.

Click to expand...

How many people need to know pre-calculus in their adult life? There is no reason to teach these things to anyone not interested in a related field. Now, reading, writing, and basic math are skills that everyone uses at some point. But how many people are left behind by not knowing the state capitals, the names of clouds, or not understanding Moby Dick or pre-calculus? Schools should teach what people want to learn or are good at, not force-feed useless information that is quickly forgotten.

Not knowing these things doesn't make you a dumbass. People are born dumbasses. Learning ability is genetic. Someone who chooses to learn to play the guitar or work on cars instead of higher mathematics isn't a dumbass, they are just following their interests. No one can know everything. Struggling to learn things you are neither interested in nor good at is a waste of time in the vast majority of cases.

repeter said:

At a college level, I agree with you, you need every piece of homework you can get because the material gets a lot harder. But at a high school level, its just busy work, wasting time that could be well spent on other school related activities.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Aside from papers, the vast majority of the homework in my gen-ed classes was worthless busy work and I never did it unless I found it necessary, which was very rare.

The bonus of college is that you can usually get an A without worrying about the homework if you can still master the material.

repeter said:

At a college level, I agree with you, you need every piece of homework you can get because the material gets a lot harder. But at a high school level, its just busy work, wasting time that could be well spent on other school related activities.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely completely true.

The college classes that have required homework will usually have easier work, because there are more grades. But for the classes where the only grades are like three exams, hell homework is a f*cking boon.

Tsunami said:

How many people need to know pre-calculus in their adult life? There is no reason to teach these things to anyone not interested in a related field. Now, reading, writing, and basic math are skills that everyone uses at some point. But how many people are left behind by not knowing the state capitals, the names of clouds, or not understanding Moby Dick or pre-calculus? Schools should teach what people want to learn or are good at, not force-feed useless information that is quickly forgotten.

Click to expand...

It's more than just knowing pre-calculus (which is pretty damned easy), it's an entire thought process that goes along with it. Plus it makes things like compounding interest rates incredibly easy. Something you may want to do when sitting down and getting maybe a home mortgage or something like that. The learning of problem solving skills, critical thinking, etc. These can and are enforced in part through math along with a slew of other subjects (including literature). Pre-calculus in my example is a basic math skill, and people should know a bit about it. It's not just reading Moby Dick and regurgitating words. It's taking in information, processing it properly, and drawing one's own conclusions from it. Without basic skills of such, one isn't going to engage on the higher level. They will, in essence, be a dumbass.

Tsunami said:

Not knowing these things doesn't make you a dumbass. People are born dumbasses. Learning ability is genetic. Someone who chooses to learn to play the guitar or work on cars instead of higher mathematics isn't a dumbass, they are just following their interests. No one can know everything. Struggling to learn things you are neither interested in nor good at is a waste of time in the vast majority of cases.

Click to expand...

Learning ability isn't 100% genetic. There may be some predisposition in desire to learn or ability to uptake information. But in the end, human is human; everyone can understand even the most complex of subjects. There may be an efficiency thing in which no one can know everything; but there's also a core base which makes up our ability to critically think. Those who cannot critically think are for all intensive purposes dumbasses. That doesn't mean the mechanic is a dumbass, he may very well be in full control of his intellect and is able to critically think about a wide variety of things.

And learning to play guitar or work on cars doesn't forbid learning other things. I can take apart my motorcycle in my sleep. I know exactly how it works and have played with it myself. In the end, a lot of people who come out of high school are in fact dumbasses. Many can learn what they are missing in college, but it doesn't change the fact that many people coming out of high school don't have the proper background or thinking skills for University.

With the exception of mathematics and the physical sciences, I think high school homework prevents people from achieving their full potential. Actually, that's my opinion of high school in a nutshell.

Morality Games said:

With the exception of mathematics and the physical sciences, I think high school homework prevents people from achieving their full potential. Actually, that's my opinion of high school in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

Though we are all entitled to opinions, how does HS prevent people from achieving their true potential in your view?

Morality Games said:

With the exception of mathematics and the physical sciences, I think high school homework prevents people from achieving their full potential. Actually, that's my opinion of high school in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

I don't think it prevents it, but it definitely slows it down. It clutters students lives to the point that homework is consider "part of their childhood.

There is a lot of nonsense in HS, but I think as a whole it helps, it just needs to be cleaned up.

SE102 said:

Though we are all entitled to opinions, how does HS prevent people from achieving their true potential in your view?

Click to expand...

Where do I start?

High school (homework) begins from the premise students don't have perspective on any given subject and can't be expected to interpret data well enough to develop arguments about what something means or implies about science, the human condition, etc -- basically all the things we try to teach our children so they will be able to make informed collective and personal decisions as they proceed along life's way, to develop careers, contribute to society, and generally lead a better life.

To a large extent that's true, but rather than taking responsibility for this lack of perspective or critical thinking skills, high school (homework) assumes it is inherently impossible for high school students to develop such abilities in a high school time frame (due to what I consider to be false assumptions about the current phase of their psychological development) and instead compels them to memorize content; interpretation and critical thinking skills are taught to varying degrees, but in comparison to what I believe high school students are capable of, it is very minimal. Not to mention memorizing content is a waste of time if you are doing it without interpreting it or looking at it critically because developing a viewpoint on a subject that appeals to you personally is your best chance at having the information remain relevant to you past the final exam.

To optimize learning, high school should basically be run like college (either test-centric or essay-centric) and college should be more like graduate school and graduate school should be a less extreme form of graduate school. A single three-page essay forces somebody to memorize, think, and feel what they are studying much more deeply than a semester's worth of high school's end-of-chapter, content-tracking questions.

Ikari said:

Learning ability isn't 100% genetic. There may be some predisposition in desire to learn or ability to uptake information. But in the end, human is human; everyone can understand even the most complex of subjects.

Click to expand...

That is not true at all. Some people are idiots. Some people can't understand even the most simple of subjects. But even if it were true, it is not necessary for the vast majority of people to take the time to understand subjects not related to their interests or career.

Morality Games said:

Where do I start?

High school (homework) begins from the premise students don't have perspective on any given subject and can't be expected to interpret data well enough to develop arguments about what something means or implies about science, the human condition, etc -- basically all the things we try to teach our children so they will be able to make informed collective and personal decisions as they proceed along life's way, to develop careers, contribute to society, and generally lead a better life.

To a large extent that's true, but rather than taking responsibility for this lack of perspective or critical thinking skills, high school (homework) assumes it is inherently impossible for high school students to develop such abilities in a high school time frame (due to what I consider to be false assumptions about the current phase of their psychological development) and instead compels them to memorize content; interpretation and critical thinking skills are taught to varying degrees, but in comparison to what I believe high school students are capable of, it is very minimal. Not to mention memorizing content is a waste of time if you are doing it without interpreting it or looking at it critically because developing a viewpoint on a subject that appeals to you personally is your best chance at having the information remain relevant to you past the final exam.

To optimize learning, high school should basically be run like college (either test-centric or essay-centric) and college should be more like graduate school and graduate school should be a less extreme form of graduate school. A single three-page essay forces somebody to memorize, think, and feel what they are studying much more deeply than a semester's worth of high school's end-of-chapter, content-tracking questions.

Click to expand...

Thank you for replying.

As for your first paragraph the school should not assume that the children already have any perspective on the given subject. For most children school is the first place they encounter a need to think of anything to any greater depth, other than the brighter children who have learned to think intuitively about their universe but nonetheless would still require direction as the theory of knowledge has been disciplined by society. In general I would say a 'good' class would issue homework that would stimulate them into thinking critically. Who knows if they are not made to apply themselves mentally by school where would they develop the skills required for them to become useful members of society. It may not be important to those who care nothing for it and wish to lead a life as trained labor in whatever profession they may choose. In which case they should be allowed vocational training in place of higher material in high school. (we may be arguing that the education is crap in the first place and they may be learning nothing from higher material or maybe there really is none)

Your second paragraph reflects a view that I share with you that high school may not be engaging enough and should be made (more difficult? more advanced?) But Im not sure society would be able to deal with that. AP and IB classes are available to those who pursue them, which also opens opportunities for better college placement.

To optimize learning, high school should basically be run like college (either test-centric or essay-centric)

Click to expand...

Unfortunately most high school students in the US do not develop adequate essay writing skills until more likely much later in high school. Also if it were test based, there is no certainty that students at that level could display the responsibility to study for them or pay attention in lecture.

The education system is a progression of skills and material enforced by standardized testing to an extent and one grade leads into the other. It varies state by state. I think it would be nice if schools in the states widely adopted gcse testing and content which would lead very well into IB and AP content. Though the states is unlikely to adopt foreign standards, they could very well develop their own higher standards.

Schools definitely have room for improvement and classes based on rote memorization of content (I don't know to what extent we find that the case) are lame . There is also the perception that schools run at the lowest common denominator. Which could be a problem too, but is indicative of the nature of our culture. At least our colleges are good in the states.

nonpareil said:

And who mark the test? Your teacher. Will he or she have the time to look at that for 20-30 students every week? Will a 5 questions quizz be able to gauge if the students have learned what they are supposed to?

Click to expand...

It's called a TA. Furthermore, if a student cannot get a few problems concerning a topic right, they won't be able to get a lot of problems concerning that topic right. But, if they manage to do the problems correctly, they understand the material, and forcing them to waste time on that material beyond that is plain stupid.

Tsunami said:

I don't find it true that people's interests match their talents. Certainly not in my case. If that is true for you then consider yourself lucky.

And just because homework is easy doesn't mean it is worth doing or takes less time. Do people seek out the easy crossword puzzles or the hard ones? Challenging material is more interesting than easy material. Easy homework is the worst kind of homework.

Click to expand...

But do the people who do the crosswords think of them as hardwork? That is my point.

Edison didn't have to conduct thousands of experiments. That is what he enjoyed doing. He was driven to do that by his interests. Inventing isn't an occupation, certainly not before Edison's day. He developed over a thousand patents, many long after he was well-off financially. It wasn't grunt work that got him there, it was his curiosity, something often stifled by the appreciation of hard work. As for being worth less than a janitor, I would hire a lazy genius over a hard-working idiot any day.

Click to expand...

I have to ask, how many people have you had to supervise? The ideal is someone who's smart and hardworking, but if they are both smart and hardworking, often time they become the boss. As a supervisor, I prefer people who do the work I set them even if I have to tell them in details how each should be done before hand, rather than people who see that things need to be done but can't be bothered to lift their hands unless I was there to oversee them. A "lazy genius" (an oxymoron to me) is a useless person. Try naming a few genius who achieve great things without lifting a hand to do works most people would consider hard (I think conducting thousands of experiments just to get a filament is hard).

How many people need to know pre-calculus in their adult life? There is no reason to teach these things to anyone not interested in a related field. Now, reading, writing, and basic math are skills that everyone uses at some point. But how many people are left behind by not knowing the state capitals, the names of clouds, or not understanding Moby Dick or pre-calculus? Schools should teach what people want to learn or are good at, not force-feed useless information that is quickly forgotten.

Not knowing these things doesn't make you a dumbass. People are born dumbasses. Learning ability is genetic. Someone who chooses to learn to play the guitar or work on cars instead of higher mathematics isn't a dumbass, they are just following their interests. No one can know everything. Struggling to learn things you are neither interested in nor good at is a waste of time in the vast majority of cases.

Click to expand...

That's not true. Science and advance Maths can be very useful in everyday life if only people are aware enough to employ them. Like understanding the dynamics of forces, how weathers are formed etc Understanding algebra makes decisions much easier, you can use it when you go grocery shopping - comparing prices and planning your budget etc. So it's a "waste of time" because people don't apply them, not because they are useless.

School teach all these things because they have general practicalities, and it's not certain in the future what each students will do. By narrowing the education early, you take away their choices in the future.

repeter said:

It's called a TA. Furthermore, if a student cannot get a few problems concerning a topic right, they won't be able to get a lot of problems concerning that topic right. But, if they manage to do the problems correctly, they understand the material, and forcing them to waste time on that material beyond that is plain stupid.

Click to expand...

The bolded part is what I'm questioning.

nonpareil said:

The bolded part is what I'm questioning.

Click to expand...

What about that are you wondering about?

Since the quizzes would ideally be topic specific, a pass or a fail would dictate whether the student sufficiently understood the material. For example, if there are say 5 questions, they would only be able to get 2 of those wrong before failing the quiz. Anything below a 70% is a fail in this case.