Time Saver: Eletrical Tape Chart

I picked this tip up at my husband's old office. 

If you need to make a chart on the white board for which you'll be erasing items in the boxes frequently, this is a great time saver. 

Instead of drawing the lines with marker, make the lines with electrical tape.  No matter how much you erase or how sloppy you erase, your chart will stay behind with dark, fresh looking lines. 

I used this for a reward chart we used over a period of weeks, but there are many other uses. 

Now that I think about it, you could use this for any type of line you want to last, not just charts.  For example, you could use it for lines that segregate areas of your white board or to draw a number line, y and x axis, or time line.  My old middle school had a chalk board tool for making sheet music lines, so I'm sure some product exists today to serve that function, but you could also make the lines for music with electrical tape.

(You could also try using wet erase marker instead of dry erase marker to make chart lines that last). 

Dressing for Student Teaching (Women)

My number one tip for a woman about to start student teaching is to get a full length mirror.  Before you wear any outfit, you need to step back and lean over all the way at the waist.   Lift up your head to see if you can see down your shirt or see your bra in anyway.  Teachers lean over desks all day long, so you must check that this line of sight is G rated. 

Next, you need to get as good a view of your butt as you can.  Do you see your bra through the back of your shirt?  Can you see your underwear?  Are your pants too snug on your butt?  (My personal rule was that snug fit on the top of my butt was okay, but not rounding down to my legs).  When you lean over or squat, does your underwear show or even worse your butt crack?  If you feel the need to put your hand to the back of your pants as you lean down, then this outfit is probably not okay.  You either need longer shirts, higher pants, or better underwear. 

Where I taught, the student dress code was no Bs: no backs, bras, bellies, or butts!  As the teacher, you shouldn't be breaking this rule! 

Here are a a few tips about specific items of clothing:

Bras - My student teaching adviser addressed the whole group of us about to start our student teaching and talked to us about nipples.  She told us that when you are nervous it is not uncommon to get visible nipples.  If you teach Kindergarten, maybe no one will notice, but teaching teens, well, that is a bit of a nightmare.  The simple solution is a slightly padded bra.  I used to always have a cardigan sweater handy because I get a chill easily, which leads to the same problem. 

Underwear  - Right now (2012) low rise pants are still fashionable, though I did see them say on the last season of Project Runway that high waisted pants were fashion forward.  (I hope that is wrong because I find low rise so much more comfortable).  Get bikini underwear, and get it low cut.  This will prevent worry about your underwear showing when you lean over.  I also recommend trying boy cut briefs instead of thongs to prevent pantilines.  I also recommend pantiliners, especially around when your period starts.  Teachers do NOT have the luxury of running to the rest room if they feel something might be starting.  A pantiliner should get your through until you can get someone to watch your class for a few minutes or a natural break. 

Skirts - As a teacher, there is a distinct possibility that you will be back lite when you walk around the room in front of your windows.  Make sure that any skirts you wear aren't going to be too transparent.  Also remember that you may be sitting down in front of a room full of students who are almost at the level of  your crotch.  Your skirt must be long enough so that they aren't looking right up it at your underwear.  I also used to worry if my shirt was showing too much when I walked down stairs as students were walking up them.  I know slips are out of fashion, but a slip will help you feel more confident in all these areas, and also prevent pantilines. Any skirt that doesn't reach the tips of your fingers when they are held at your sides is too short (unless you have unusually long arms). 

Shirts - Obviously, nothing should be too tight or low cut.  As I mentioned above, lean over in front of a mirror in any shirt you plan to wear teaching.  Also, raise your arms all the way up to see if your shirt moves up more than you feel comfortable.  Also be careful of fabric that is too see through and shows your bra outline.  Lastly, if you wear a button up shirt, make sure that nothing can be seen through the button gaps.  You can use fabric tape to close gaps between buttons.

Shoes - Sensible shoes are most important.  You might be standing a lot of the day.  You might have to run or at least walk swiftly.  You might have to go up and downstairs several times.  No stripper shoes!  I'd also say to leave the very causal flip flops at home until you are well established.  

Make Up and Hair - Keep it low key.  Anything  over the top can bring out the worst in kids to pick on, either to your face or behind your back, and even if that doesn't hurt your feelings, it distracts from your teaching.  If you are teaching high school, avoid hair and make up that makes you look too young.  I used to wear my hair up and avoided funky nail polish and glittery make up while teaching.  I saved those for weekends, or causal Fridays a couple months after school had started. 

Top Writing Mini Lessons

Effect / Affect

Homophones such as the theres

Punctuating dialog

Complete Sentences

Expository paragraph template

Funnel paragraph introductions

Conclusion template

Formatting titles

Comma rules

Semi colons

Colons

Ending with a preposition

Passive voice

Parallelism

Removing I from formal essay writing

Strong verbs / removing "to be"

Removing vague words using banned word list

Plagerism

Summarizing

Paraphrasing

Quoting

Citation

Note Taking

With a toddler and an infant, I don't spend much time these days thinking about my professional self.  But still, every once and a while thoughts come to me about how and what I will teach when I return to teaching after the kids have started school. 

Just now I was doing some needlepoint to pass the time while waiting for Craiglist ads to load.  I thought about how long its taken me to do this block project (about 5 months) and if it would take longer if I was teaching, but the kids were older.  That got me thinking if I could do any needlepoint while at school when I would be listening.  It didn't sounds absurb, especially since I've had students knit in class before.  However, that made me think about what you should be doing with your hands while your listening to students in class, and that is usually taking notes to grade.  Likewise, students should be using their hands to take notes in class. 

Thus, the subject of this blog occurred to me: Note taking. 

In my five years of teaching, students at all levels had pretty much no note taking skills.  I usually would try to teach kids about different types of note taking over the course of the year.  We'd cover note taking while reading, while listening, and for research projects.  But thinking about this subject now, I may have found the root of the problem.  Students don't understand the purpose of note taking.  Some don't understand the overall reason, but what I really mean is what is driving them to take these specific notes. 

When I return to teaching, one subject I must cover is how note taking for English is different than for other subjects.  When I would teach students about taking notes while reading, they would take comprehension notes.  They were taking notes on content of the plot, much how they would take notes from a history or science textbook.  But in high school English especially honors, that is not what is important.  Reading notes for English are about how one reacts to or thinks about the text.  These notes should be about patterns, questions, connections, predictions, symbols, and language.  Going back over plot notes will probably not help one find an idea to contribute during class discuss or find a topic to write a five page essay.  But, notes that show thinking about the text are a much stronger place to start. 

In the past, I tried various types of journaling and post-it note requirements to get students to record their thinking about a text.  At first, I required both for all reading, but I soon learned that it killed any joy in reading.  By my last year of teaching, I decided we needed to differentiate the types of reading we do in my classroom.  Most of the reading was for pleasure and practice.  Students did not have to take notes on these books, but did have to pick one every month or so to discuss with other students via the web.  But, a few times a year, there were texts on which all students needed to take notes that recorded their thinking on the text.  These were the texts we read together to discuss at length (for my freshmen they were Animal Farm and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; my sophomores analyzed To Kill a Mockingbird and The Great Gatsby).  One of the most important parts of this change was the difference in how we read different types of texts.  When I read at home for pleasure, I do not take notes, and if I did, they would be sparse emotional reactions.  But, when I read knowing that I must discuss what I'm reading or write about it later, I take copious notes to record what I'm thinking as I read.  Students need to see this difference in reading to understand why I am making them take these notes. 

Even my best students did not take notes during discussion.  When I actively taught the topic, and collected notes, the results were poor for most students.  They had a very hard time pulling out the key ideas from a discussion of a text.  Most students would instead try to write down everything (often including who said it making almost a transcript) or only a few scattered ideas.  Some students wouldn't even copy down information written on the board!  Again, one of the keys here is that discussion of a text is different than a lecture given in another content area classroom.  Students need to learn how the teacher guides students through the most important parts of the text being discussed.  They need to see that as the text is discussed, they should jot down their ideas that stem from discussion because these will give them a base for their later work with a text. 

Research notes are still different.  I'm very old school when it comes to how I teach research notes for a large project.  For short texts, I spend a lot of time teaching students how to high light and annotate in the margins, again focusing on their thoughts about a subject rather than repeating content.  But, when the rest of the school drops the huge annual research project, we need a different approach.  Suddenly, content is important. While a high school research project becomes excellent when it includes student thinking rather than restating facts, most students still need help keeping track of all those facts.  When students don't, plagiarism runs wild.  So, when teaching note taking for a big research project, I go old school.  I make students fill out index cards where they must summarize or paraphrase the text with only one idea per card and include the citation information at the top.  Then I show them how to organize the cards to form their  paper.  Most students resist!  They would rather cut and paste from their Google print outs, which usually results in no mixture or sources and no analysis either.  Every year a few students would tell me that once they embraced the process, they really saw how easy it was to draft their paper.  Again, it comes to the purpose of the note taking.  Students were failing to see that their notes need to facilitate citation, synthesis, and analysis. 

After today's thinking, I am ready to return to the subject of note taking with new vigor and the next time around, the key will getting students to see the difference in purpose for each note taking experience. 

Student Teaching

I saw a former student last week who is starting her student teaching today.  Of course, seeing her got me thinking about the biggest lessons I learned from my student teaching experience.   


I didn't have the best student teaching experience.   It could have been much, much worse, but overall I didn't get anywhere near as much out of it as I could have.  A lot of that had to do with my personality, but it could have been better with better mentors and just different circumstances. 

The most important lesson I learned from student teaching was that you can't be any other teacher.  You have to create your own rules and consequences, your own procedures, your own lessons, your own grading system.  You can not just adopt these from another teacher.  True, teachers borrow from each other all the time.  But when you do so, you make adjustments.  You can't just take everything one teacher does and try to do it yourself.  During my student teaching, I was trying to just fill in the shoes of my mentor teacher instead of figuring out who I was as a teacher.  As I said, some of this was the circumstances of when I took over teaching because my mentor suddenly was out with pneumonia and I had to take over several days earlier than we planned.  Because of that and my timid personality, I spent most of my experience feeling more like a substitute than the real teacher.  But, I learned the lesson.  When it came time for me to have my own classroom, I was very ready to figure out how to do things my way. 

Other than this big lesson, I would say that student teaching is a great experience to just get you used to the feel of teaching everyday.  Doing attendance, writing passes, using a grade book, writing on the board, handing out papers, figuring out when to go to the bathroom, using the xerox machine, and dressing appropriately (which is a bigger deal for a young woman than a man).  There are the other bigger jobs that one always thinks of, namely writing lessons, grading, and discipline, but these small jobs are important to get the feel of and student teaching provides just that.  And, if you want it to, student teaching also is a great opportunity to try: experimenting with new technology, network with other teachers (both in and out of your discipline), work with administrators, get involved with extracurricular activities, and communicate with parents.

Research Paper Writing

 Another old grad school paper I found while looking for something entirely different. 

Writing Process
Enrico
November 27, 2007

New Structures for Research Writing

    Patricia J. Collins' “Bridging the Gap” raised my interest in investigating research paper writing.  All the freshmen at Leavitt complete a big research project every spring.  For the three years we have given the assignment, no one has been satisfied.  The students find the project long, boring, and unrelated to their lives and other content.  Meanwhile, the teachers feel frustrated that the students merely repeat the information they found, sometimes not even in their own words.  They show no determining of importance or synthesis of ideas.  This project frustrates my whole network, and I hoped to find some information that we could apply this spring when we undertake our research project again. 
    The three articles I found were all from College Teaching.  Initially, I was concerned that the information would not apply to high school freshmen, but because the research papers described were for college freshmen, the information actually fit very well.  Each article discussed the typical college freshmen research paper done in a writing course that is meant to give students an overview of how to do research.  This is the same purpose of our high school freshmen research project: we aim to prepare them for the research they will do the other years of high school.  All three articles present ideas to get students to use critical thinking while researching, synthesizing information, and enlivening their writing.  Also, all three work on breaking the large assignment down into smaller more manageable pieces. 
    James E. Foley's “The Freshmen Research Paper” (2001) details a research project with a different focus.  Tired of boring research papers, Foley assigned students people instead of topics.  However, he did not want reports on celebrity gossip and trivia, so he chose predominate persons in their majors.  Foley used examples of New York Times obituaries as models to show students how to focus on the person's work, not the details of his or her life.  The students' end products would be to write obituaries for their assigned person, but they also had smaller assignments due along the way to help scaffold their work on the project.  In the end, Foley found that not only were the majority of papers no longer boring, but that the students' overall work was much better showing growth not only on research but also on writing.
    Unlike, Foley's article, the other two pieces did not focus on the project as a whole, but rather gave ideas for the structure of the assignment presented to the students.  Stephen L. Broskoske's “Prove Your Case: A New Approach to Teaching Research Papers” (2007) suggests elaborating for students the connection between a lawyer preparing a case and the students preparing their research papers.  Broskoske states, “I draw out the analogy in terms of how lawyers frame their case (as the students define their topics), search out evidence (as the students search for sources), present the evidence (as the students write the paper), and make the closing argument (as the students draw conclusions)” (2007).  Using popular trials currently occurring in the media, Broskoske links the considerations lawyers must take while preparing a case to the decisions student must make as they follow the research process, such as narrowing a topic, presenting creditable evidence, and using an authoritative tone.  Broskoske concludes that the majority of students who used this approach would recommend it and use it again.
    Mardi Mahaffy's “Encouraging Critical Thinking in Student Library Research: An Application of National Standards” (2006) compares to Broskoske's article in that it gives ideas on how to present the research assignment.  This piece discusses the wording of the research assignment or prompt.  Mahaffy presents the five standards for information literacy published by the Association of College and Research Libraries and explains how re-wording a traditional research assignment can help students to demonstrate those standards.  For each of the five standards, Mahaffy explains how re-writing part of an assignment can lead students toward meeting that standard.  For example, to help students “determine the nature and extent of the information needed” Mahaffy suggests asking students to build their background knowledge on a topic using an encyclopedia and then craft two possible thesis statements as opposed to a more traditional assignment which would merely state “choose an issue that you would like to explore further” (Mahaffy 2006).  Unlike the others, Mahaffy does not present any data on how well using this technique works. 
    In my research, I only found two points in these readings lacking for my own personal use.  First, Broskoske's ideas would probably not work for my students.  Most of them would not have the appropriate background knowledge on how a court case or lawyer works for them to understand the analogy.  If we wanted to create a new project that also discussed court cases, maybe something that linked to a text with a trial (ex. To Kill a Mockingbird) or a text that could have a mock trail, then this would perhaps merit the amount of pre-teaching that would be involved to make the analogy accessible for the students.  Secondly , since these articles were for college students, one area was overlooked.  None of the articles discussed formats of or management for note taking.  I found Collins' description of taking notes without looking at the original text unrealistic.  Not only do my students use printouts and photocopies that they will like to highlight, but I would never chose to take notes in that fashion myself.  Since Collin's discussion of note taking left me unsatisfied, this is an area I can investigate further in the future.
    Foley's ideas match my students the best.  Currently, my school has a research project that is based on science content.  The students do not invest in the topics that are handed to them.  Also, my freshmen are not familiar and comfortable with scientific non-fiction and the lack of adequate background and models makes the writing of the paper difficult for them, which aligns with what we have discussed about modeling in class and read in Spandel's chapter on watching others write (Spandel 2005).  Foley's use of obituary format enlivens the writing and provides an accessible model for students, both of which my students need.  The creativity necessary to write an obituary reminded me of the types of projects presented in Collins' piece.  When I read “Bridging the Gap,” I found the list of formats available for presenting their final projects interesting, creative, and fun (Collins 1990).  While I want to offer my students engaging choices for how to present their information, I also see the importance of practicing the non-fiction format.  Keeping that in mind, overall, Foley's topics and format could improve the research assignment, making it more accessible to my students. 
    Similarly, the way Foley breaks down the project also would aid my students.  I am particularly interested in the library scavenger hunt he mentions because Collins did not discuss locating sources because she gathered the materials for her younger students.  While both the librarian and science teachers at Leavitt gather some sources, our goal is for students to locate and evaluate their own sources.  All students get library orientation, but it isn't very gripping.  Having a scavenger hunt once or twice after the orientation would help the students to apply and review the information.  The format would be competitive and fun and could be positively reinforced with prizes.  Foley's annotated bibliography and oral presentation would also work well for my students because we focus on citing and speaking skills freshmen year. 
    Lastly, just before the final assignment is due, Foley takes a week to conference individually with each student.  This connected to Collins' article as well.  She describes how she did status of the class inventories and meets with students during working time to help them along.  Even though Foley is formal and Collins informal, both styles of conferencing give students direct help with their projects.  Currently, the freshmen research project in my school is used as a local assessment and for that reason I am not allowed to help the students much or else it influences the validity of the scores.  However, I want to conference with my students to help.  So often, students just need a little extra help with citing, flow, or adding analysis and I am unable to give them that while they are working. 
    Due to my frustration with our current project and enthusiasm for Foley's ideas I am planning to present my research to my network in hopes that we will scrap, or at least revise, our current assessment and try one which provides more opportunity for the students to connect to their topics, provides more models for the final project, and assesses not only the end product, but many steps along the way giving helpful feedback.  If my network is willing to create a new assessment, we could also use Mahaffy's ideas on how to word the prompts to get more critical thinking.  As our assessment is at present, students are handed a topic by their science teacher and told to research it with a focus on current findings and that they must have one Internet, one journal, and one book source minimum.  This assignment prompt is exactly like the traditional one Mahaffy presents in this article.  Even if we do not create a new assessment, we at least need to re-word our current one so the directions prompt the information literacy standards Mahaffy discusses (determining the scope of the project, accessing needed information, evaluating sources, accomplishing a purpose with the research, and understand legal issues of researching like plagiarism) (Mahaffy 2006). 
    Two of Mahaffy's ideas raise interesting points that contrast our current research assignment.  First, Mahaffy criticizes dictating to students an exact type and number of sources.  He states, “prescribing the types of sources the student is to use sidesteps an opportunity to help the student in developing critical thinking skills” (Mahaffy 2006).  He explains that when students investigate all types of sources, they must evaluate them more fully on their own; while independence is an ultimate goal at Leavitt, our current assignment structure might be limiting the students.  Secondly, Mahaffy mentions using an annotated bibliography in substitution for a formal paper.  He describes students documenting all of their sources and then writing about how each source was useful or not useful and which source was overall most valuable.  This assignment  would work well for the goals of our current freshmen research assessment.  For this assignment, the English department is only concerned with research process, not writing.  The annotated bibliography would be easier for the students to write and the teachers to grade while also fostering in-depth evaluation of sources.  However, the downfall of this assignment is that the students may not ultimately synthesize the information they have gathered if all that was asked of them was a bibliography. 
    Overall, I found it enlightening that college professors struggle with the same problems I do with my high school researchers.  I am excited to present the ideas I have discovered to my network in hopes of bring about some effective change to our assessment. 


Works Cited
Broskoske, Stephen L.  (2007).  Prove Your Case: A New Approach to Teaching Research Papers.
      College Teaching.  55.  31-32.
Collins, Patricia J.  “Chapter 2: Bridging the Gap,” pp. 17-31.  Coming to Know: Writing to Learn in
     the Intermediate Grades, 1990.  New York: Heinemann Educational Books. 
Foley, James E.  (2001).  The Freshmen Research Paper.  College Teaching.  49.  83-86. 
Mahaffy, Mardi.  (2006).  Encouraging Critical Thinking in Student Library Research: An Application
     of National Standards.  College Teaching.  54.  324-327. 
Spandel, Vicki.  (2005).  The Nine Rights of Every Writer.  New York: Heinemann. 

Homework Research

While looking for other old work, came across this research paper I did on homework.  Its really more a paper about research than about homework though. 

 

My Homework was Researching Homework:
An Interpretative Review of Primary Research on Homework

EDU 600 Research Methods and Techniques
Beaudry / Miller
University of Southern Maine
April 29, 2008


Introduction:
    Homework is an integral part to my daily life as a teacher.  I assign reading homework almost every night all year as well as writing assignments and projects.  At my school, we recently spent an in-service day discussing struggling students and student failures, which lead to discussion on homework.  The necessity and grading of homework is highly debated, but I can not see doing without it in my classroom.  So, I decided to use this assignment to become more informed on the issue of homework and see what some research had to say about it.  Even though none of the studies I wound up using directly discussed a secondary English language arts classroom, I found the information interesting and useful. 

Search Process:
    Back in February, I decided to search for studies that dealt with foster care and schooling.  I wrote down the titles of several articles one day in class, but I turned in that sheet and never got it back.  As I waited to get that sheet back, I focused on our current assignments and procrastinated getting my articles.  It turns out that  waiting to get my articles was beneficial because I lost interest in my topic when it came time to buckle down on this assignment.  So, I came up with the idea to research homework, in which I am highly interested.   I went to Academic Search Premiere to find my articles.  I clicked the box for peer reviewed journals and the full text box to help narrow my results.  The original search term I used was just “homework,” but when I saw this search term yielded many results, I narrowed it down to “reading homework,” which reduced the results considerably.  I used the article title and journal name to choose which articles' abstracts I would read.  From the abstracts, I generally could tell if the article was a primary source or not because it would mention samples and such.  In the end, I decided to use the homework study we read in class, so I got rid of my longest article to ease my work load. 

Essential Questions and Hypotheses:
    The first study I read dealing with homework was Elawar and Corno (1985) and it had a clear purpose.  In general, the study question was “What types of homework and teacher uses of homework appear most beneficial for different types of students?” (p. 162).  More specifically, the primary purpose was “to test a response-sensitive feedback treatment in actual classrooms, with specific written feedback tailored to student homework performance” (p. 163).  A second purpose was to see if the treatment would affect students of different ability levels.  Next, I read Bailey et al. (2004) which although clearly stated, had a much different focus: “determine if reading homework, designed to be interactive between children and parents, would increase parental involvement and improve students' abilities to draw inferences from reading material” (p. 173). 
    The third article I encountered, Murray et al. (2006), did not state its purpose quite as clearly.  Generally, it explored how depression in parents affected their ability to help their children with homework, but this was not stated explicitly anywhere in the article.  What was stated were four areas that would be investigated: “promotion of positive mastery motivation, the promotion of independent representational understanding, the provision of general emotional support, and the presence of coercive control” (p. 128).  Then many predictions, or hypotheses, were given, some of which applied directly to the four focus areas; they included: depression would interfere with mothers' ability to support homework,  parents' behavior would associate with child outcomes, promoting positive mastery motivation and independent representational thinking would associate with positive child performance, general emotional support and lack of coercion would associate with high self-esteem and good behavioral adjustment, and lastly, that maternal behavior would have greater affect than paternal (p. 128-9).
    Alber et al. (2002) had a much more straightforward purpose.  This study included two experiments using the same three research questions: “what are the comparative effects of two types of homework assignments on students' (a) accuracy of homework assignments, (b) acquisition of social studies content as measured by next day quizzes, and (c) maintenance of social studies content as measured by unit or chapter tests?” (p. 174). 
    The last two studies I read went together.  Munk et al. (2001) had two purposes: “First, the perceptions of a nationally drawn sample of special and general education parents towards types of homework communication problems will be reported ... Second, the perceptions of both special and general education parents regarding the homework communication problems reported by Jayanthi et al. (1995a) will be described and compared” (p. 191).  The second study, Harniss et al. (2001), was very similar in many aspects which will be described later, but the purpose worked off of the data collected in Munk et al. (2001).  The first study worked to identify the problems with communications while Harniss et al. (2001) had primary purpose to “validate the recommendations reported by the focus groups” and specifically to “identify what recommendations for improving homework communication they perceive as most important and whether there is a difference between” special and general education parents (p. 208). 
    The strongest connection between these studies was they expanded on or verified other published research and thus they all used directional hypotheses.  The experiments described in Alber et al. (2002) were “designed to replicate the study by Hippler et al. (1998)” (p. 174).  Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al. (2001) both worked to validate and expand on Jayanthi et al. (1995), and some of the researches worked on all three of those studies.  Bailey et al. (2004) appears to expand on a list of studies listed before the purpose (p. 173), but does not state that it is replicating the studies like the previously mentioned articles did.  Even the Murray et al. (2006) study expanded the previous findings of this longitudinal study. 
    Additionally, researchers investigated how we communicate about homework in four of the studies.  Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al. (2001) both explored how communication problems between parents and teachers.  Meanwhile, Elawar and Corno (1985) investigated at how teachers communicate feedback to students.  Another two studies,  Bailey et al. (2004) and Murray et al. (2006), both looked at how parents and their children communicate about homework. 
    A final connection between the topics of study was that the studies were interested in what was most effective.  Alber et al. (2002)  investigated which out of two types of homework was most effective for students. Elawar and Corno (1985) found a more effective form of teacher feedback.  Bailey et al. (2004) looked at effective ways to get parental involvement in homework.  Lastly,  Harniss et al. (2001) gathered parents' views on the most effective ways to solve homework communication problems. 

Type of Research:
    Three of my studies were quasi experiments, which makes them also inferential quantitative research.  All three used convenience samples, which prevented them from being full experiments.  Elawar and Corno (1985) and Bailey et al. (2004) both used treatment and control groups. Elawar and Corno (1985) used a factorial design which resulted in two treatment groups and one control group.  The full treatment group received a specific type of teacher feed back on homework while the control group received only the number of answers that were correct.  A half treatment group was also used where half of the students in the group received the feedback and the other half received just scores.  This was a strength to the experiment because not only were the roles in the half group given at random, but it helped to exclude other factors such as teaching style affecting the results of the experiment. 
    Bailey et al. (2004) also used a factorial design and had two treatment groups, each with a different level of treatment to compare to the control group.  The teachers assigned one treatment group  only homework assignments designed to be interactive between a parent and student.  Meanwhile, the second treatment group received those homework assignments, and the parents attended a workshop about parental involvement in homework.  The control group had neither of these treatments and instead “simply continued their program of instruction and homework with no specific intervention” (p.  175).  In this case, the factorial design was not as beneficial because the roles were assigned by school instead of randomly assigned to a half group like Elawar and Corno (1985).  Thus, even though the extra level of treatment adds to the content of the study, it does not add to its generalizability. 
    Alber et al. (2002) used a much different design than the other two quasi experiments.  This study used an intact group design, a variation of the quasi experiment.  This study used post tests, had no control group, and used a repeated measures design.  A single small group of students switched back and forth between two different treatments, either a SRQ or SRWS homework assignment, and then quizzed after each one.  Alber et al. (2002) could have been improved with a control group because one can not say that using the SRWS method was better than the SRQ method without more control over the variables, such as the difference in difficulty of the material the homework covered. 
    Two studies, Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al, were descriptive quantitative studies and had no control or treatment groups and did not use random sampling.  After all our work in this course, I found that the descriptive studies left something to be desired.  I now know that cause and effect can not be determined from this type of study alone.  Yet, that does not mean that descriptive quantitative studies are all poor.  Some research needs to be a starting point that leads to topics for studies that have more generalizable results.  Harniss et al. (2001) even states under limitations that the findings were “not the results of carefully controlled experimental studies” (p. 223) and recommends that type of research as a step for future research. 
    The remaining study, Murray et al. (2006) was a longitudinal correlational study.  The focus of the overall study was to see how postnatal depressed mothers verses non-depressed mothers affect their children.  Yet, in this study, the researchers also decided to pull in the fathers.  This created many factors to be compared across the four focus areas dealing with homework.  The correlational design  fit the purpose of this study well because the researchers were able to compare depressed and non-depressed mothers to their children's performance in various areas. 

Sample:
    The samples of my studies were extremely varied.  I had samples as small as twelve students (Alber et al) to as large 504 (Elawar and Corno (1985)).  There were samples from Venezuela and Brittan, as well as national United States samples and ones which focused on small sections of America.  The ages of the students were from first grade through high school, and they represented all different backgrounds in race, economics, etc. 
    All but two of my articles gave details about the participants.  Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al. (2001) both used the same sampling method, snowball sampling.  The researchers asked teacher participants in previous studies to participate again by recommending parents for the studies.  A major weakness is the article does not provide information about if those originally participants were randomly selected or not and does not tell how the teachers chose what parents to give the surveys to.  Also, the features of the parents selected were not described other than to say the ages of the students, the percentage that had special education services, and that they were from all over the United States.  This would be the weakest description of sampling strategy I encountered because readers of these studies do not know if that sample represents the population and using a non-probability sample hinders generalizability. 
    Three of the studies used convenience samples.  Alber et al. (2002) used a convenience sample because the two modified quasi experiments preformed in this study were done in two different classrooms, but this sample was very small; one class had twelve students and the other twenty.  Bailey et al. (2004) had a larger small of eighty-four participants and did its quasi experiment in a classroom as well so its control and treatment participants were not randomly assigned.  Likewise, Elawar and Corno (1985) also used several classes of students as control and treatment groups so roles could not be assigned randomly, yet this sample was the largest with 504 participants.  In all three cases, the convenience samples were appropriate to the purpose and design of the research. 
    My correlational study, Murray et al. (2006), used a characteristic, postnatal depression, as its “treatment,” which could not be random; however, the participants who formed the control group were randomly selected from those who did not have postnatal depression.  So, the  researchers used randomly choosing participants from large group where it was applicable, which improved the generalizability of the results.  Although the sample selection was appropriate to the study, the description of how participants were selected did not fit any of the types of samples we discussed. 

Data Collection Methods:
    Three of my studies used pre- and post-tests: Elawar and Corno (1985), Murray et al. (2006), and Bailey et al. (2004)  In contrast, Alber et al. (2002) did only post tests after each treatment, which was either a SRQ or SRWS homework assignment.  This design was similar to a repeated measures design.  There were no pretests or control group for the researchers to compare the scores of the post tests.  Instead, the post tests of the different treatments were compared to each other to determine which was more effective.  I found that the results from the studies that used pre- and post-tests showed more clearly that the results were due to the treatments. 
    Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al. (2001) used surveys as their major way of collecting data.  The surveys used measure scales to collect data.  There were questions that nominal scales (questions about the background of the student), ordinal scales (questions asking participants to rank items), and interval scales (questions asking participants to say how serious a problem they though each item was).  As similar as the designs of these two studies were, there was a big different in the amount of data they were able to collect.  Both studies used snowball sampling to contact the participants.  All the participants received a survey with a cover letter explaining the directions and telling them of an incentive for completing the survey.  However, Munk et al. (2001) sent the surveys directly to the participants and Harniss et al. (2001) gave the surveys to the teacher to give to parents.  Then, both sets of researchers mailed an extra copy of the survey to the participants later in hopes of more returned surveys.  Munk et al. (2001) had a 63% return rate and Harniss et al. (2001) only had a 26% return rate.  I found this marked difference very interesting, but there was no explanation in the studies explaining reasons for the return rates.  This difference left me wondering if reasons would be clearer if the sample were described for each study. 

Data Analysis:   
    I expected to see all sorts of fancy data analysis methods and complicated charts which would confuse me, but I did not.  Various data analysis tests such as t- tests, ANOVA, Chi squares, or f – tests were mentioned, but only the discussion and charts of uni- and multi-variable regressions in the correlational study overwhelmed me.  The charts gave low p values for several factors, which indicated high probability.  I also could determine the results of t-tests and beta-weights, but I was unsure what factors were included in the R2 scores that were listed.  It appeared that the charts were labeled as “models” and that the total R2 score was determined for the factors listed in each model, but I was unsure how that showed how much the individual factors correlated.  Luckily, the text that described the findings of the statics were clear so I could understand the results. 
    All of my other studies discussed mean and standard deviation.  In fact, in Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al. (2001), mean and standard deviation were the primary data analysis.  These two studies did not even contain sections labeled “data analysis,” which surprised me.  However, when I reviewed our materials, I saw that the measured scales they used actual lent itself to this type of analysis.  Plus, the analysis of this data fit the purpose of the studies.  The researchers wanted to know the perspectives of parents on homework issues and finding means for their answers to survey questions fit that purpose.  However, I left wondering about the ends of the articles.  Under limitations, Munk et al. (2001) states that the surveys were done by “self reporters” and “the accuracy of the perceptions cannot be validated”  (p. 201).  Also, they explain that the ranking method is a limitation because “the study indicated only the mean ranking for each problem; this method does not provide absolute meaning of seriousness (p. 201).  Meanwhile, Harniss et all states: “The fact that parents ranked a strategy as more effective than another is no guarantee that it would in fact be the most effective in practice.  Lower ranked items may be equally effective though less desirable from a parent's perspective” (p. 222).  At first I thought this was a weakness, but when I reviewed that interval scales are meant to give values that measure “central tendency,” I realized that this was why the researchers chose this type of data collection and analysis.  Yet, I did question the purpose of obtaining the parent perspective and I wondered if the researchers could have done more analysis that showed statically the similarities and differences between the focus groups in Jayanthi et al. (1995) and the current studies, since part of the purpose of both studies was to extend Jayanthi et al. (1995). 

Results and Outcomes:
    Since all of the studies used directional hypotheses, the results of the studies were not shocking.  Results from four of the studies matched what the researchers predicted and all studies that were meant to replicate a published study confirmed the previously found results.  It was only Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al. (2001) that found some differences between the original study they expanded upon and the new results.  These two studies worked to match their findings with the results of focus groups described in Jayanthi et al. (1995).  Unlike their sample which contained only teachers, the focus groups contained teachers, so it was interesting to see the differences in how parents and teachers looked at homework communication problems.  Most notable was that teachers and parents had differing perspectives on blame for homework communication problems, yet agreed on effective interventions for solving the problems. 
    Only two of the studies over concluded.  Although the experiment presented in Elawar and Corno (1985) was superior, the researchers jump too quickly to recommending that all Venezuela schools try this form of feedback on homework.  Alber et al. (2002) over concluded more drastically by recommending that teachers start to convert homework to SRWS format when the study did not show cause and effect.  The other four studies did not over conclude; in fact, they all listed limitations to their research, such as design or sample problems, or suggested data they found which could be further researched. 
    Some of the information I learned from the six studies blended well together even with such a broad the topic.  The findings in Murray et al. (2006) and Bailey et al. (2004) agreed that parents influence students achievement on homework. This also went with some of the findings from Harniss et al. (2001), in which one section of questions on the survey asked parents to rank effectiveness the interventions parents can take with homework.  The parents' answers show that they also saw a connection between their involvement and student achievement.  Yet, the Munk et al. (2001) survey did not shed light on the issue of parents and homework because the parents only commented on teachers; this limitation was stated in the study. 
    I found this information on parents and homework the most applicable to me personally due to the amount of homework I assign.  Knowing how much parents affect homework, I am curious how involved parents are with my students' homework, since I teach older students and many of the participants in these studies were not in high school.   Also, I am also curious about their thoughts on how I communicate with them about homework because I rarely discuss daily assignments with parents since my students are teenagers.  These concerns about parents and homework are possible areas I could investigate when I take Teacher Research in the future.

Generalizability:
    The lack of discussion on validity and reliability surprised me.  The worst studies were Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al. (2001), which stated “items for [the surveys] were obtained from previous explorative research that was conduced to identify communication problems related to homework among parents and teachers” (Munk et al, p. 193; Harniss et al, p. 209), but did not explain if those were valid or reliable.  They did describe that they used a “group mind process” to revise the survey twice and did a pilot group, but the group that revised the survey was not described as a panel of experts and no data on what the pilot group's reaction to the survey was given.  Moreover, the problems with the sample, discussed above, also affected the generalizability.  Thus, this research, as good the results sounded, has little generalizability. 
    The best study for generalizability was Elawar and Corno (1985).  This study showed the statistics for reliability of all eight instruments they used for data collection.  These ranged from .68 to .95, all of which were within an acceptable range.  Validity was also mentioned when instruments were described as criterion referenced or standardized, but the descriptions were not as specific as the reliability.  Finally, this study contained the largest sample and included randomly assigned roles when possible, including the half-treatment group.  Thus, the sampling and assignment of roles also helped to make this the strongest study in terms of generalizability. 

Overall Ratings:
    Elawar and Corno (1985), Bailey et al. (2004)  and Murray et al. (2006) were all medium high studies.  A strength for all three of these studies was a clearly described sample.  Additionally, Elawar and Corno (1985) and Bailey et al. (2004) were both quasi experiments that used  treatment and control groups and then analyzed the data to see if the treatment caused the outcomes.  This design was a strength for these two studies because cause and effect could be determined, which was absent in the other studies.  Yet, Elawar and Corno (1985) is the highest rated over all because it used a half treatment group and it listed statically the reliability of every measure, which none of the other studies I looked at did. 
    Meanwhile, Murray et al. (2006) I would rate as a medium study.  Murray et al. (2006) covered many areas that could affect parents and how they interact with their children when working on homework.  This was a strength because uni- and multi- variance regressions were then used to determine which correlations were significant and which factors were not.  The study was solid, but lacked superior elements such as information about instrument validity. 
    Alber et al. (2002) is a medium low study. The samples groups were very small.  The experiment was conducted twice for this study with one sample of twelve and the other twenty.  This small of a sample, which is also a convenience sample, really hurt the generalizability of the study.  Also, the lack of treatment and control groups was a weakness.  Without the use of controls, cause and effect can not be determined.  If this study had contained a control group it could have said that the SRWS was the most effective instead of that there was “powerful evidence of a functional relationship between the SRWS condition and  increased academic achievement” (p. 193). 
    Lastly, the Munk et al. (2001) and Harniss et al. (2001) are low studies.  The lack of description of the sample hurts this study, but it is the lack of information about instrument that really makes these studies lowest to me.  It is possible that the sample reflected the population and that the instrument was valid and reliable, but the researchers did not discuss these areas on the article.  


Works Cited
Alber et al.  (2002).  A comparative analysis of two homework study methods on elementary and
     secondary school students' acquisition and maintenance of social studies content.  Education
     and Treatment of Children.  25, 172-196. 
Bailey et al.  (2004).  The effects of interactive reading homework and parent involvement on children's
     inference responses.  Early Childhood Education Journal.  32, 173 – 178. 
Elawar, M. C. & Corno, L.  (1985).  A factorial experiment in teachers' written feedback on student
     homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot.  Journal of Educational
     Psychology.  77, 162 -173.
Harniss et al.  (2001).  Resolving homework-related communication problems: Recommendations of
     parents of children with and without disabilities.  Reading and Writing Quarterly.  17,
    205 – 225. 
Munk et al.  (2001).  Homework communication problems: Perspectives of special and general
     education parents.  Reading and Writing Quarterly.  17, 189 – 203. 
Murray et al.  (2006).  Conversations around homework: Links to parental mental health, family
     characteristics and child psychological functioning.  British Journal of Developmental
     Psychology.  24, 125 – 149.