A continuation from Part 1. As I study John Hattie’s comparison of the effect size of direct instruction vs inquiry learning and problem-based learning I am first trying to understand how to interpret is effect size calculations. Today we look at a quick study of what his effect size of homework looks like and means.
To further clarify how to interpret effect size, Hattie describes his examination of meta-analyses for how homework effects achievement. Hattie studied 5 meta-analyses from 1984, 1989, 1994, 1994, and 2006. These covered 161 studies and more than 100,000 students to analyze the effect on achievement of giving homework. After studying them all and calculating, Hattie came up with homework having an effect size of 0.29.
This means that Homework has a positive effect on student achievement because it has a value greater than 0. The question is how much positive effect? Hattie attempts to explain it the following ways:
1. Compared to classes without homework, the use of homework was associated with advancing children’s achievement by about one year.
2. Homework improved a child’s learning rate by 15%.
3. 65% of the effects were positive, and 35% of the effects were zero or negative.
4. The average achievement levels of students in classes that were given homework exceeded 62% of the achievement levels of the students in classes where homework was not given.
Once again, these do not appear to all be the same interpretation of the data, but apparently they are. Overall, this sounds positive to me. According to this study of meta-analyses it seems that giving homework is a good thing that raises achievement. However, Hattie advises that this is actually a very small improvement and barely noticeable.
Hattie quotes a statistician who helped to originally craft the idea of effect size for the social sciences: Jacob Cohen. Cohen describes the effect size of 1.0 to be like the height difference of between a person 5’3″ and someone else who is 6’0″. He is obviously illustrating that the difference is drastic and easy to see. The effect size of 0.29 however would be akin to a comparable height of 5’11” and 6’0″. Thus, he is attempting to illustrate that although there is a difference in students who experience a 0.29 effect size, it is barely noticeable.
This takes us to the ambiguous nature of effect size. How can 0.29 be both such a minor change that “would not be perceptible” (like the difference between 5’11” and 6’0″) and also reflect advancing a child’s achievement by 1 year, improving a child’s learning rate by 15%, and having achievement levels exceed 62% of their peers without homework?
So what are we to make of this? The effect size of homework is positive so you should use homework? The effect size is negligible so using homework is not worth it? Does a positive effect size mean use a strategy?
In the final installment of understanding effect size we will look at what Hattie deems is optimum value to utilize and why. Hopefully we can gain an understanding of what Hattie thinks we should utilize and why. However, if the interpretation of what a 0.29 effect size means is this ambiguous then I do not hold much hope for moving forward.