APPROVED: Diana Mason, Major Professor Robert Shelton, Committee Member William Acree, Committee Member and

Chair of the Department of Chemistry

James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies

HOMEWORK VERSUS DAILY QUIZZES: THE EFFECTS ON ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE WITHIN HIGH SCHOOL PRE-AP CHEMISTRY

Jo Laurie Marushia King, B.S., M.A.

Thesis Prepared for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

August 2010

King, Jo Laurie Marushia. Homework versus daily quizzes: The effects on academic

performance within high school pre-AP chemistry. Master of Science (Chemistry – Chemistry

Education), August 2010, 43 pp., 4 tables, 1 figure, references, 13 titles.

This research proposed to evaluate whether homework or daily quizzes were better for

academic success within high-school pre-AP chemistry or if differences in the two methods were

detectable. The study involved two years of data where homework was assigned and graded and

one year of data where homework was suggested but daily quizzes provided the assessment. The

mean of each of the unit tests were evaluated and t-tests were calculated. The results showed that

over two-thirds of the units had statistically significant data when daily quizzes were utilized.

ii

Copyright 2010

by

Jo Laurie Marushia King

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My appreciation is extended to Dr. Diana Mason for her tireless determination that I

would – absolutely no arguments allowed – finish my master‟s degree in chemistry. Her

hospitality and generosity has been without bounds over the last ten years. She opened a whole

new world for me that improved my teaching techniques.

I would also like to thank the chemistry faculty of the University of North Texas. As I

struggled to meet all requirements online and three hundred miles away, their patience is greatly

appreciated. Dr. Acree and Dr. Shelton, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the work

you did as my committee. Susan Brockington, you rock! My deepest gratitude to you for all the

last minute frenzies.

Gratitude is also extended to the faculty and students at my high school. The name of the

school will still stay unnamed for confidentiality purposes. I cannot imagine a more support

group of friends, colleagues, and downright fabulous students.

In the end, my deepest and most heart-felt gratitude extends to my beloved family: my

husband, Bruce, and my daughter, Becca. Without the encouragement, I would never have made

it. For the many tears and tantrums that you endured, I thank you. For all the sacrifices as I

procrastinated, I humbly apologize. Thank you for standing by me during the entire journey!

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS .................................................................................v Chapters

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

Definitions of Terms ....................................................................................3

Limitations ...................................................................................................4

Purpose of Study ..........................................................................................6

Research Hypotheses ...................................................................................7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................8 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................13 4. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................18

Summary ....................................................................................................23 5. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................25

Limitations of Study ..................................................................................26

Suggestions for Future Research ...............................................................27 APPENDIX: INDIVIDUAL UNIT TEST SCORES FOR ALL YEARS .....................................29 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................42

v

LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Tables 1. Data per Year for Tenth-Grade TAKS Test .......................................................................18

2. Entire Year Comparisons with t-test ..................................................................................18

3. Data per Year per Unit .......................................................................................................19

4. Results for t-tests................................................................................................................20

Figures

1. Average grade per unit per year .........................................................................................22

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Schools are constantly changing their teaching methods to adapt to an ever-changing

society. As the society changes, the students and how they learn change with it. Teachers cannot

remain static. However, some questions from the past continue to arise even as these adaptations

occur. One such debate is over the effectiveness of homework. Do students require homework to

be able to learn or are daily quizzes a sufficient challenge to convince students to learn the

material?

This study strives to answer this question within a pre-AP chemistry class where practice

is an essential part of understanding the concepts. (Pre-AP chemistry is described by the Texas

Education Agency in Part II, Chapter 112, subchapter C of the Texas Essential Knowledge and

Skills (TEKS) and the Texas College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS) as a first-year

high school chemistry course for college-bound students.) A comparison is drawn between the

2007-2008 school year, which is referred to as Year 2, and the 2008-2009 school year, referred

to as Year 3. Additionally, 2008-2009 (Year 2) is compared to Year 1, 2006-2007.

The same curriculum was used for all three years. Years 1 and 2 were assigned graded

homework. Year 3 was provided the same assignments but these assignments were never

mandated for a part of the students‟ final grade nor checked. Instead in Year 3, a short quiz was

given daily over the previous day‟s lesson that was incorporated into the final grade. Students

were encouraged to do the homework but were not held accountable.

Each year, the students, as a whole class, seem to have a unique personality. Some

classes are driven and goal-oriented while the next year may be laid-back and socially oriented.

1

Because of the differences in personalities, Year 3 was compared to two different years. Year 1

and Year 3 seemed to have similar personalities based on 20 years of personal teaching

experience in the state of Texas. These students seem to be quite driven to succeed and aware of

what classes and grades need to be obtained to reach their career goals.

This study was born out of an edict given by the administration of the school district. The

administration felt that too much of the students‟ personal time was being taken by homework

assignments. Parent complaints revolved about having too little time for sports, recreational

activities, relaxation, and family time. From suggestions made by Solution Tree, LLC,

Professional Learning Communities™, the administration decided that little to no homework

would be graded and that a maximum of 15 grades per 6-week grading period would be accepted

from each teacher for each course. Due to the need for practice, the instructor chose to begin a

daily quiz routine. The maximum grades per period were waived by administration in lieu of the

instructor‟s plan to monitor the students‟ daily progress with the use of these quizzes. The daily

quizzes alone would involve approximately twenty grades since there would be days where no

quizzes were given due to labs, major tests, or other scheduling conflicts.

As background, this 4A Texas public high school has nearly a split personality in that

approximately 50% of the students live within middle- to upper-class urban dwellings and the

rest live in middle- to lower-class suburban or farming areas. Greater than 80% of the school

population is white and over half are considered economically disadvantaged. In Year 1 and

Year 2, the exit-level Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores were rated as

“Acceptable” by the Texas Education Agency. In Year 3, the school was considered

“Recognized.” (The accountability ratings system, published by the Texas Education Agency

(TEA), ranks high schools according to the following scale: Exemplary (the highest possible

2

ranking), Recognized, Academically Acceptable, and Academically Unacceptable (the lowest

ranking).) Most students within in this study were classified as sophomores and had taken pre-

AP biology the previous school year.

Definition of Terms

Homework for this research is defined as any assignment provided as practice over

recently covered concepts that is expected to be completed outside of the classroom setting.

Homework assignments could include short answer open-ended questions, essays, or problem

sets but did not include laboratory reports. Homework was due 2 school days after assigned. This

enabled students to seek out extra help during tutorial times if difficulties arose. An incentive

was given to turn in the assignment the day following its issue. One point was given for each

assignment turned in early. The extra points accumulated over the year. When 20 early points

were achieved, a free homework pass was issued. Subsequent accumulations of 20 points earned

an additional free pass. Most homework was graded for completion only, although some spot

grading of certain questions were performed occasionally. Papers were usually returned within a

week of receipt.

Quizzes are defined as short tests directly related to the homework suggested. These

covered the previous day‟s lecture as well as possible review questions over prior material within

the unit. Many times the question was directly off the homework or was directly related. Usually

only 1 to 4 questions were asked – time needed for completion primarily dictated how much

material could appear on the quiz. All quizzes were written and took no more than fifteen

minutes at the beginning of the period. Quizzes were given three to four days each week. All

3

quizzes were graded for accuracy with feedback provided. Most were returned to the students the

following day and all within the week.

Unit tests refer to tests that cover an entire unit of material such as nomenclature or

reaction stoichiometry. The year‟s curriculum for Pre-AP Chemistry includes fifteen to twenty

units depending on the year. For the sake of this research, all units within the three years were

paired and only units completed by all three years‟ students were included in this research. Near

the end of the year, some students did not get some unit tests taken. These scores were left blank

within the data.

Limitations

Within educational research, an astounding number of limitations exist. It is virtually

impossible to have complete control over all of the variables. The variables are, in fact,

seemingly endless. It is also impossible to determine all of the variables that can, and will, affect

the results. Deliberation was taken to control as many as possible. However, primary

consideration was for the students‟ needs. A true teacher could never provide less than best

practices for the students. Therefore, modifications were taken throughout each of the three years

in order to adapt to the individual needs of each year and of each particular class. Situations

dictate when adaptations are required. Although some units may have been taught out of order

for one year over another year in order to meet scheduling difficulties, all units were taught in

basically the same manner.

Additionally, some students were deleted from the study. Any student that was not

present the entire year, for whatever the reason, was not included in the data for this study.

However, students who performed very poorly were not removed. All data analyzed provides a

4

true picture. Furthermore, even though Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from the

University of North Texas was not sought, all of the personal information for each student was

removed and each student has been de-identified (see Appendix). Confidentiality was given top

priority. In an effort to reduce the chance of an individual student being recognized, the different

classes within each year were all combined together. All students enrolled in each class were

considered eligible to participate decreasing the possibility of discrimination.

Originally, the data collected for the first two years were kept only as personal

benchmarks for the instructor. Because of this, no pre-tests were performed. Literally, the data

represented in this research are raw data from actual classes where the instructor used the best

practices available. The external measures available were the results from the tenth grade TAKS

test given each spring in all core subjects. Again, all scores were combined to protect the

individual student‟s identity. For most of the students, this test was taken at the end of the year of

chemistry but a few juniors and seniors were involved and their data were integrated. To ensure

consistency, their tenth year TAKS test results were used. The relevant parts of the TAKS test to

this study are the overall success rate and the Science TAKS test aligned to standards for

Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC). No individual TAKS test is available to support the

assessment of chemistry specifically, so the Science TAKS was considered as an important

factor in this study.

As in any school situation, not all of the students perform all of the work all of the time.

Included within the data for Year 1 and Year 2 are a small number of students who chose not to

turn in homework. It is unknown whether they actually did the work so the assumption was made

that the work was never done. Since the data in this research were generated by students within a

public school where some students‟ lack of motivation is all too real, no consideration was taken

5

to separate these individuals. Likewise, Year 3 had situations arise where the individual student

was absent for the initial quiz and no make-up quiz was ever attempted. Again, there was no

attempt to separate these data from the whole. A lack of motivation for some students is an

obstacle faced by all schools but was considered outside the scope of this research due to the

sheer bulk and difficulty associated with measuring motivation.

Another limitation placed on this research dealt with the amount of homework provided

or the length of the quizzes given. While past studies have concentrated on this facet, considering

this aspect would be entirely too large a subject and would constitute a completely separate

study. The length of both homework and quizzes were prescribed by the situation and needs of

the students, the instructor, and the schedule and varied accordingly.

Additional difficulties existed that clouded the results of this study. All effort was made

to recognize the primary problems that could skew the statistics. However, it was recognized that

not all have been mentioned or even delineated.

Purpose of Study

In an effort to meet the desires of parents and students, some school districts considered

reducing the amount of homework or removing it completely. Students yearn to have more free

time for extracurricular activities, family, and hobbies. The difficulty, however, stemmed from

the need for practice and review. Homework has traditionally bridged the gap to enable the short-

term memory to become long-term memory. For most students, the possibility of academic

success was slim for a situation where the students only participated in lecture but had no

interaction with the material at night or during the weekends. As teens, most students would not

be mature enough for self-directed studying. Daily quizzes would become the incentive needed

6

for the teen to work independently. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether homework

or daily quizzes were better for academic success or if differences in the two methods were

detectable.

Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: There is no statistically significant difference in overall academic

performance determined by unit test grades‟ means between groups of students assigned daily

graded homework and students assessed by daily quizzes.

Sub-Hypothesis 1.1: Assessment by daily quizzes provides students with greater retention

of Pre-AP Chemistry subject matter than assessment by daily homework grades.

Hypothesis 2: There is no statistically significant difference in academic performance

between groups of students assess by daily graded quizzes (Year 3) and homework (Years 1 and

2).

7

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

While a number of studies deal with the success of homework, very little literature exists

that combines the homework and daily quizzes. No studies were found that compared the success

of homework versus the success of daily quizzes in improving academic performance in high

school chemistry.

The subject of homework was discussed early in the 20th century and has continued to be

debated since that time. Public opinion swings to extremes in a fairly predictable pattern. In

1912-1913, the earliest writings report an opposition to homework. The opposition was due to its

unwholesomeness, lack of professional supervision, and the chance that the student might

practice the concepts incorrectly (Paschal, 1984). As World War II ended and Russia launched

Sputnik, public opinion again favored assigning homework. The societal changes of the 1960s

brought radical changes to the educational system and many felt that emphasizing schoolwork

outside of the school day actually neglected “other areas of personal fulfillment” (Cooper, 1989,

p. 85). By 1980, technology had begun to advance rapidly and the public saw a need for greater

educational standards and favored teachers assigning homework (Doyle, 1990). Obviously, at

least within the school studied, the trend towards reducing homework assignments has returned

in the first decade of the 21st century (2008-2009, in any case).

The success of assigning homework varies from one study to the next. Each researcher

seemed to be able to find data that supported their individual beliefs. Several studies have been

chosen to show the differing opinions over the use of homework. These specific papers provide

an overview of research and conclusions published prior to the present study.

8

Early studies by H. J. Otto in the 1950s declared that the retention abilities of the students

were not high enough to justify the time spent doing the homework (Cooper, 1989). Wildman

states that the needs of students cannot be met if homework replaces a chance of social events,

sports, activities, and sleep (Wildman, 1968).

By 1989, Cooper expresses disbelief at the naivety of Otto and Wildman and the entire

negative approach to the homework issue. Cooper‟s research proposed positive and negative

effects of homework and organizes them succinctly. Positive effects include knowledge

retention, better understanding of concepts, problem solving emphasis, training of habits and

attitudes dealing with self-discipline, increased curiosity, and independence. The negative effects

include fatigue, pressure, confusion, cheating, and loss of interest. Cooper did state that he found

clear evidence that increased achievement for high school students varied directly with the

amount of homework assigned. He emphasized that common sense should be exercised and

excessive homework was not beneficial. His policy for high school students suggested assigning

homework four to five times a week where the student spent 75 to 120 minutes on each

assignment. Surprisingly, he recommends that the homework not be graded for accuracy but

rather checked daily for completion (Cooper, 1989).

A study at the University of Illinois supported Cooper‟s theory. Students that were

considered to be average or „middle of the road‟ academically were assigned homework. The

study found that most of these students‟ averages improved into the top third of the class

(Anliker, 1997).

Hong and Milgram (2000) concentrated on the learning preferences as well as motivation

with homework assignments. They found that homework could be either detrimental or effective

depending upon the way it was used. With effective practices, homework becomes the best tool

9

for significantly improving academic achievement. Three areas defined whether homework

would be effective: the taking of grades on the assignments, the feedback provided, and parental

controls and support.

Doyle and Barber also emphasized certain requirements for homework assignments. The

homework must be engaging and interesting and avoid repetition; this would increase interest

that would increase motivation. The authors also indicated that the age of the student greatly

dictated the amount of homework that was suitable as well as the effectiveness of the

assignments. They warned against introducing new material or concepts as a homework

assignment. Instead, practice and reinforcement should be the goal although they stressed

preparatory assignments for lecture can be given if the proper process is followed. Proper

process refers to the students‟ essential need to know the reason for this preparation. In addition,

all homework should be reinforced by the teacher and its importance emphasized (Doyle &

Barber, 1990).

Swank basically agrees with these sentiments in her thesis researching the effectiveness

of mathematics homework with fourth grade students. Motivation and consistency are important

from the teacher. Also, teachers must reduce repetition and clearly define the grading policies.

The length of the assignment also factored into the effectiveness as longer assignments became

less effective (Swank, 1999).

In Paulu‟s guide for teachers, she suggested that students need to know how to learn on

their own. She also believes that students should be expected to have high standards with

consequences for both doing and not doing their work. Encouragement, consistency, and

feedback were her keys to success (Paulu, n.d.).

10

MacBeath and Turner studied different schools and developed principles for homework.

Their nine principles agree with the policies above. Important terms include varied, manageable,

consistent, engaging, and relative. Feedback is essential. Challenges are valuable but difficulty

should not be excessive. Creativity and initiative should be rewarded. Homework should

encourage self-confidence (MacBeath & Turner, 1990). These philosophies seem to be echoed in

most of the literature reviewed. Even Web-based multimedia homework requires feedback. Cole

and Todd (2003) however found no significant improvement in grades with the use of

multimedia homework.

Recent books seem to show the trend is again swinging towards reducing homework.

Marzano and Pickering (2007) cited three such cases against homework. The End of Homework:

How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning by Kralovec

and Buell published in 2000; The Cases Against Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Our

Children and What We Can Do About It by Bennett and Kalish in 2006; and The Homework

Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing by Kohn, also published in 2006, all decried

the evils of homework and the adverse effects upon children. However, Marzano and Pickering

disagreed and felt that teachers should in no way discard homework. Instead, they suggested that

instructors need themselves to be educated in the proper use of homework. They were

proponents of Cooper‟s “10-minute rule” where a student‟s assignments in the home should not

exceed the formula of (10 minutes × the grade level) although the 10 minutes could be expanded

to 15 minutes when reading was included (Cooper, 2007). In fact, Marzano and Pickering gave

the most critical argument for homework:

To drop the use of homework, then, a school or district would be obliged to identify a practice that produces a similar effect within the confines of the school day without taking away or diminishing the benefits of other academic activities – no easy accomplishment. (Marzano and Pickering, 2007, p. 76)

11

As with all aspects of education, research should continually occur to update methods and

techniques to develop the most effective tools possible. “If a district or school discards

homework altogether, it will be throwing away a powerful instructional tool” (Marzano &

Pickering, 2007, p. 76).

Of the studies reviewed, only one seemed to pertain in some way to the use of quizzes.

Tuckman‟s research concentrated on the use of tests to reduce procrastination. His theory

considered the idea that the stress of an upcoming test would encourage students to quit

procrastinating and study the concepts in order to perform well. Within his study, biweekly spot

tests were given over the material. His premise revolves on self-motivation to prevent receiving

low grades on these spot tests. The control group was assigned the task of outlining the material

rather than having the short tests. While results of motivating procrastinators were less

conclusive, the study did show significant academic success of the spot-tested group over the

group assigned outlining homework. Even some of the students who were self-proclaimed

procrastinators had a positive effect in that they were encouraged to study throughout the

semester (Tuckman, 1995). Many of these same questions are being asked within the research

performed for the present study.

12

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Academic success is the ultimate goal in any high school classroom. Curriculum is

constantly being updated to keep up with the newest advances in the field. These changes are to

be expected. However, the students are also constantly evolving. The changes from one

generation to another are culturally different. But, for teachers dealing with teenagers on a daily

basis, it is much more than that. Every year has changes. The students are constantly developing

based on the differences in the cultures that occur on a seasonal basis. While some aspects stay

the same, the key to successful teaching is to identify what stays the same and what has altered.

Sometimes, trial-and-error is the only way to determine the best practices for teaching. An

excellent teacher will continually perform research to develop the techniques for academic

success – although very few will ever share or publish their results.

With the state report card wielding such power over the funding of school districts, often

the administration becomes involved in trying to develop the best teaching techniques. The

question that arises when this occurs is if administrators that are not involved daily with students

can understand their needs. Also, can one program meet the needs of every subject area? Is it

possible for administrators that may know absolutely nothing about the concepts to successfully

dictate the methods for teaching those same concepts? Can teachers modify and adapt at a

moment‟s notice? These questions were the initial triggers for this entire research project.

The week before school started in Year 3, the administration explained to the faculty that

homework should be kept to a minimum and less than 5 assignments within a 6-week grading

period could actually be graded for credit. In addition, the administration was expecting the

13

teachers to have no more than 15 grades total within that same grading period. Needless to say,

teachers scrambled to meet these new requirements on such short notice. Suddenly, the best

techniques of the past years had just become obsolete. What practices should be enacted that

would bring high academic success but still meet the new conditions of the administration?

This quandary was faced by a pre-AP chemistry teacher within a 4A high school in

Texas. The instructor had 20 years of experience in teaching this class at three schools with

completely different clientele. Of the students at this high school, less than 20% were minorities

and a little less than 50% were considered economically disadvantaged.

The instructor worried when the best practices of the past years seemed to concentrate on

the practice aspect provided by homework assignments. The decision was made to utilize daily

quizzes to compensate for the lack of homework. The same homework pages were provided for

the students and they were encouraged to do all of this homework. However, homework was

never taken up nor graded for credit.

The daily quizzes usually consisted of 1 to 5 questions from the homework pages.

Sometimes, certain aspects within the questions were changed but the practice provided by the

homework should have provided the students with the knowledge needed to be successful on the

quizzes. Other times, the questions were taken directly from the suggested homework. Usually,

each of the classes had different questions but was always over the same concepts. Each quiz

was worth 20 points. All of the quizzes together constituted 30% of the overall grade for each

grading period. The rest of the grade was composed of 30% test grades, thirty percent laboratory

grades, and 10% miscellaneous in-class work.

The quizzes were all graded and the grades were recorded in the grade book. Most of the

time, the quizzes were graded within a day or two and returned to the students. The students

14

were encouraged to review any material they had missed on the assumption that poor quiz scores

would lead to poor unit test scores. The students graphed their progress on their quizzes for each

unit. This would enable them to get an overall impression of their knowledge level over the

entire concept as well as individualized points within the concept with each particular quiz. They

would then have a better idea of what areas to concentrate their studying.

The instructor explained to the students that this would allow them more freedom over

the amount of homework that they would need to do. If they understood the concept, then only a

few problems would need to be done on the homework papers. If they had difficulty with the

concept, they should do most or all of the problems on the homework papers. Students

continuing to have difficulties with the concepts were encouraged to attend individualized

tutorials during lunch or after school. The students were cautioned that even though they were

high school sophomores, they would need to approach chemistry with a mature attitude and

would need to avoid procrastination and apathy. They were advised that getting behind on their

studies would lead to poor quiz scores that would be difficult to recover.

Years 1 and 2 followed the same basic curriculum. However, nearly daily homework was

assigned. This is the same homework that was provided in Year 3. The students would have 2

school days before the assignment was due. This enabled the students to practice time

management skills as well as afforded the time for the students to ask and receive personal

tutorials. The homework was taken up. Grading depended on the concept, the type of

assignment, and the timing within the 6-week marking period. The homework would be graded

in one of three ways. One way was to only check for completion and attempt. Another was to

spot grade where specific problems would be chosen ahead of time and these were graded for

15

accuracy. The final way to grade was for complete accuracy. No homework was ever turned in

that did not get some type of grade however. At the end of a unit, a major test was given.

Two different years of the homework approach were used. Each year (and even each

period), the students have a different personality. Some years, the difference is quite large; this is

what occurred between Year 1 and Year 2. Year 3 was actually closer in personality with Year 1.

Years 1 and 3 seem to be more driven to succeed and more focused on their needs for their future

education. Year 1 had 22 students take the Advanced Placement exam in chemistry while Year 2

had only 5 that took the test. Year 3 basically split the difference with 9 students taking the

exam.

In education, controlling the variables is impossible. Personality and drive can obviously

affect academic success but is very difficult to measure. Because of this, a comparison has been

drawn between Years 2 and 3 as well as Years 1 and 3.

Within the data of unit test scores, all three years are provided on the same table (see

Appendix A). Student numbers in the 100s deal with Year 1. The 200s deal with Year 2 and 300s

are from Year 3. Each of the unit tests was used as a measure of success.

TAKS data from the tenth grade year science were compared as the independent variable.

Very little of the TAKS tests center on the chemistry learned within pre-AP chemistry

curriculum. Since the TAKS test measures the minimal level of knowledge needed, it targets the

chemistry included within integrated physics and chemistry (IPC). The concepts taught in pre-

AP chemistry should greatly exceed these limits. Therefore, since only the bare basics are tested

on TAKS and the test does not change drastically from year to year, this provides an external

variable.

16

The sample sets were determined by the enrollment within Pre-AP Chemistry for each

year. Due to the differences in class enrollment from one year to the next, the size of the sample

sets varied. Also, within limits, the students were able to self-select the level of the classes in

their schedules. Year 1 had a sample size of 69 students, Year 2 had 39, and Year 3 involved 49

students.

The scores from each unit were combined within each year. However, each unit was kept

separate from the others. All units did not require the same type of skills so that different

approaches to teaching may be more effective.

Each year was analyzed first by taking the mean of each unit. Then, t-test correlations

were performed using several different approaches: Year 1 versus Year 3, Year 2 versus Year 3,

Year 1 versus Year 2, and Years 1 and 2 combined versus Year 3. The statistical difference was

determined using a two-tailed t-test of significance where α ≤ .05. Also, a standard deviation was

determined for each year‟s mean.

The limitations involved with this research revolve around the external validity. This

study involved only one school, one teacher, one subject, and one level of that subject. The low

minority involvement also limited the scope of this study. In addition, the only way to alleviate

the differences in personalities and drive within the years would be to perform a longitudinal

study over a large number of years. To truly understand the scope of which provides better

academic success, the study would need to be done in a number of different areas, with different

size schools and sub-populations, and over a large number of years. Even with that, the changes

in the subject matter and the students over time still produce the typical limitations reflective of

doing research involving human subjects.

17

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The students in this study were all enrolled in Pre-AP Chemistry in the same school, with

the same teacher, and with basically the same curriculum but one major difference: daily quizzes

or homework. To determine whether the three classes (with multiple combined classes) involved

had a bias before the collected data were analyzed. The mean was taken of each year and then t-

tests were performed on the results of their tenth-grade, science TAKS scores.

Table 1

Data per Year for Tenth-grade TAKS Test

Year Mean N sd

1 88.449 69 10.697 2 85.842 38 7.869 3 87.694 48 8.879

Table 2

Entire Year Comparisons with t-tests

Year vs Year t-test Results

1:3 0.677 2:3 0.306 1:2 0.154

1+2:3 0.915

Since α > .05, the data taken from the TAKS test results are not significant no matter what

comparisons are made. Thus, the populations may be considered homogenous and no bias

appears to be involved between the years.

All of the scores for all of the students were entered into a spreadsheet file. To protect the

confidentiality of each of these high school students, the names were removed completely and

18

each student was randomly assigned a number. These numbers were then put in order with their

corresponding data attached. The students within Year 1 were randomly assigned numbers 101

through 169, Year 2‟s students were given 201 through 239, and Year 3 assigned 301 through

349. The numbers were assigned in this way in order to cleanly separate the data from one year

to the next while still protecting the identity of the students.

Once the data were prepared, the analysis began by taking the mean of each unit for each

year.

Table 3

Data per Year per Unit

Unit

#

Unit

Concept

N

Y1

Mean

Year 1

Y1

sd

N

Y2

Mean

Year 2

Y2

Sd

N

Y3

Mean

Year 3

Y3

sd

1 Safety 69 96.739 2.993 39 95.359 4.676 48 95.000 4.58 2 Matter 69 81.536 12.281 39 71.872 12.620 48 83.429 13.958 3 Metric 69 76.275 12.743 39 73.128 13.442 48 81.245 10.707 4 Nomenclature 69 80.188 17.209 39 78.872 18.528 48 72.796 17.724 5 Compound Stoichiometry 69 68.449 21.817 39 57.897 22.291 48 77.633 12.249 6 Equations 69 62.768 15.585 39 83.846 10.323 48 79.429 10.326 7 Redox 69 72.353 21.539 39 80.769 19.981 48 79.510 14.834 8 Reaction Stoichiometry 69 69.420 22.798 39 77.205 24.676 48 67.306 20.109 9 Nuclear 69 73.145 9.649 39 74.897 8.923 48 78.061 13.199

10 Atomic Structure 69 51.652 15.026 39 51.692 16.185 48 60.408 18.242 11 Periodicity 69 67.681 12.200 39 52.051 11.996 48 72.837 12.444 12 Bonding 69 73.275 15.745 39 68.077 16.133 48 73.061 10.835 13 States of Matter 69 60.435 14.783 39 55.487 13.778 48 68.000 16.056 14 Solutions 69 57.957 14.100 39 58.923 14.872 48 66.612 16.429 15 Acids & Bases 69 71.551 13.850 39 60.615 18.149 48 70.673 18.294 16 Gas Laws 69 72.188 17.381 39 84.769 12.650 48 78.490 17.497 17 Kinetics & Equilibrium 58 64.552 9.121 39 66.692 13.113 48 84.816 13.572

Some of the data clearly showed a significant difference, leading to additional analysis

being required. To determine if these means were statistically significant, t-tests were performed

with all possible permutations of yearly comparisons that would be reasonable considering the

parameters of the study.

19

Years 1 and 3 had quite similar personalities and drives so these were the first determined

and predicted to be the most accurate comparison. However, Years 2 and 3 were chronologically

the closest. For an overall comparison, Years 1 and 2 were combined together and compared to

Year 3. To determine if there was a difference academically between the two homework years as

predicted, Years 1 and 2 were compared.

All analysis was performed within the Excel spreadsheet. The statistical difference was

determined using a two-tailed t-test of significance where α ≤ .05.

Table 4

Results for t-tests

Unit

Number

Unit

Concept

T-test

Y1:Y3

T-test

Y2:Y3

T-test

Y1:Y2

T-test

Y1+Y2:Y3

1 Safety 0.200 0.716 0.102 0.094 2 Matter 0.448 1E-4* 2E-4* 0.025* 3 Metric 0.024* 0.003* 0.238 0.003* 4 Nomenclature 0.026* 0.123 0.717 0.026* 5 Compound Stoichiometry 0.004* 7E-6* 0.020* 7E-6* 6 Equations 2E-10* 0.050* 2E-13* 7E-05* 7 Redox 0.035* 0.744 0.045* 0.169 8 Reaction Stoichiometry 0.596 0.046* 0.110 0.182 9 Nuclear 0.029* 0.185 0.344 0.044*

10 Atomic Structure 0.007* 0.020* 0.990 0.005* 11 Periodicity 0.028* 9E-12* 7E-9* 5E-6* 12 Bonding 0.930 0.103 0.109 0.447 13 States of Matter 0.011* 2E-4* 0.846 8E-4* 14 Solutions 0.004* 0.024* 0.742 0.003* 15 Acids & Bases 0.778 0.012* 0.002* 0.317 16 Gas Laws 0.056 0.054 4E-5* 0.557 17 Kinetics & Equilibrium 1E-13* 1E-8* 0.379 3E-13*

*Statistically significant Yellow: Daily quizzes performed better than years given homework Green: Homework performed better than the year without required homework Blue: Statistical differences between the two years where homework was required in both Table 4 has been color-coded to visually provide the results. Since the comparison for

Years 1 and 2 were present the possible differences between the two classes that both used the

homework technique, the data that are statistically significant appear highlighted in blue. For all

of the other comparisons, where the data show the daily quizzes to be significantly better than

20

the use of homework, the data are highlighted yellow. Where the data show that homework is the

better option over the daily quizzes, the data are highlighted green.

The analysis between Years 1 and 2 showed 7 of the 17 units are statistically significant.

There is some indication that a difference does exist between the two years. Additional research

is required to understand the dynamics that change from one year to the next. The parameters

within this study are not large enough to truly understand the normal pattern of change that

occurs. Teachers of teenagers are aware of the constantly changing scenery within a high school

classroom.

In nearly every unit, the data showed to be statistically significant. However, which

method of teaching provides the students with a better academic outcome? Each separate unit

must be analyzed. The data‟s significance depended on whether Year 3 had the higher test scores

or whether Years 1 and/or Year 2 had the higher scores. This established whether one method of

teaching was better than the other or if there was really no difference between the techniques.

Figure 1 shows the comparison in the unit test‟s mean score of each year. It is effective in

showing which direction then significance appears – whether the significance verifies the daily

quizzes or the daily homework.

21

Figure 1. Chart of average grades per unit per year.

When Years 1 and 3 are compared, the data showed to be statistically significant for

eleven of the seventeen units. For those that units that were significant, the significance was

clearly 100% in favor of daily quizzes. These units include metric, nomenclature, compound

stoichiometry, equations, oxidation-reduction, nuclear, atomic structure, periodicity, states of

matter, solutions, and kinetics and equilibrium. While not every unit showed a significance, the

majority of the information undoubtedly showed that assigning homework on a daily basis was

not as effective for retention of material as suggesting and encouraging the students to work on

problems but then holding them accountable by quizzes them on a daily basis.

As predicted, the comparisons between Years 2 and 3 were not as clear-cut. Again, 11 of

the 17 units were statistically significant although they were not all the same units that were

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Averag

e G

rad

e

Units

Average Grades per Unit per Year

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

22

significant between Years 1 and 3. This comparison of classes was the only time where the

results showed that 2 out of the 11 units were significantly better for the homework rather than

the quizzes. In the areas of equations and reaction stoichiometry for Year 2, the daily homework

assignments produced higher unit test grades. Still, the other 9 units plainly showed that daily

quizzes supplied greater retention rate. These units include matter, metric, compound

stoichiometry, atomic structure, periodicity, states of matter, solutions, acids and bases, and

kinetics and equilibrium. While not as good a comparison as Year 1 compared to Year 3,

significant differences in Years 2 and 3 are still present in slightly over half of the units lending

support that daily quizzes were better for the students than daily homework.

To compare the overall combination of both years of the homework method, Years 1 and

2 were added together and then compared to Year 3. For this association, again 11 out of the 17

units were statistically significant. In all 11 cases, the significance favored the daily quizzes over

homework. For the other 6 units, no statistically significance was found between assigning

homework and using daily quizzes. Two-thirds of the units showed a propensity for subject

retention to the unit tests when daily quizzes were used. The units that are statistically significant

include matter, metric, nomenclature, compound stoichiometry, equations, nuclear, atomic

structure, periodicity, states of matter, solutions, and kinetics and equilibrium.

Summary

After analyzing all of the data, the general trend favors the use of daily quizzes over the

use of assigned homework. One-half to two-thirds of all of the units show that the use of daily

quizzes provided greater learning and retention of the material as measured by unit tests. Of all

the t-test correlations, only two units for the Year 2 to Year 3 comparison indicated that

23

homework was superior to the use of quizzes. For all other unit comparisons, there was no

statistically significant difference between the uses of homework and quizzes.

Therefore, the best technique for teaching pre-AP chemistry appears to be the suggestion

and encouragement of nightly practice followed the next day by a quiz. Out of curiosity, the

mean of all units for each year was calculated. The results were quite interesting with Year 1

having an overall mean of 70.6 and Year 2 having an overall mean of 70.1. What truly shows the

increase in academic success when using the daily quiz technique is the overall mean of Year 3,

which is a surprising 75.8. Any teacher should gladly adopt a technique that increases the scores

of the unit tests by more than 5 points.

In response to the results, Hypotheses 1 and 2 indicated that there would be no difference

between the two teaching techniques has been proven incorrect. Academic performance was

improved with the use of daily quizzes over the graded homework assignments when measured

by the scores on the unit tests. Years 1 and 2 showed very little difference in comparisons with

Year 3. Sub-hypothesis 1.1 was proven correct in that daily quizzes do provide greater retention

of pre-AP chemistry subject matter than the use of graded homework assignments.

24

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

As the high school students evolve, teachers must monitor those changes and adapt their

teaching techniques to best meet the needs of the students to ensure that a guaranteed and viable

curriculum is provided that creates success in academic performance. Much debate centers on

what practices will provide the students with the greatest success without overwhelming or

discouraging these same students. The purpose of this study was to help resolve this debate in

terms of assigning daily graded homework versus suggesting and encouraging nightly practice

followed by daily quizzes.

The subjects used for the study were the student enrolled in Pre-AP Chemistry in a 4A

school in Texas. The students self-selected their schedules so it was not possible to control who

was involved in the study. All students were taught by the same teacher. Years 1 and 2 were

assigned homework that was due two school days later and was graded. Year 3‟s students were

asked to practice on the same homework practice for Years 1 and 2 but it was never checked.

Instead, a daily quiz was given with one to five problems from or similar to the practice. The

curriculum for all three years was basically the same as were the unit tests.

The first hypothesis of the study predicted that there would be no statistically significant

difference in the overall performance determined by the mean grades on unit test between groups

of students assigned daily graded homework and students assessed by daily quizzes. This

hypothesis was proven wrong. In all three comparisons (Year 1 versus Year 3, Year 2 versus

Year 3, and Years 1 and 2 collectively versus Year 3), over half of the units showed that the use

of daily quizzes provided statistically significant improvement on the scores on unit tests over

25

the use of assigned daily homework. A very small sample (only two units) showed the

homework technique to be statistically significant over the use of daily quizzes. According to

these results, this study proved that daily quizzes provided higher grades on the unit tests than

assigning homework that was later graded.

The sub-hypothesis predicted that daily quizzes would result in greater retention of Pre-

AP Chemistry subject matter on unit tests than the assessment by daily homework grades. This

sub-hypothesis was proven true for the same reasons and in the same say as the first hypothesis.

The second hypothesis predicted there would be not statistically significant difference in

academic performance between groups of students assessed by daily graded quizzes and

homework. This hypothesis was proven incorrect. A definite statistically significance favored the

use of daily quizzes over the homework technique in mean scores of over half of the unit tests.

This study proves that, overall, the use of daily quizzes provided better academic success

and concept retention than the use of graded homework. As far as could possibly be researched,

this study is the first to compare these two techniques in the teaching of chemistry. The

implications for future students involve the use of quizzes to help support suggested nightly

practice.

Limitations of Study

Considerable limitations exist for this study. Only one school‟s students were studied.

There is no guarantee that the same results would be obtained in other schools with a different

population and demographic. The students within this school provided less than twenty percent

minority students. Therefore, these results show success only for a primarily white, middle-to-

26

high socioeconomic population. Even a difference in the size of the school could affect the

results that were obtained. Smaller or even larger schools could receive different results.

Additionally, only one teacher was analyzed. Other teachers might obtain different

results. Perhaps, this instructor‟s teaching style better coincides with the quiz technique. The

present study did nothing to determine if this is true. And, what difference would have occurred

if every homework problem in Years 1 and 2 had been graded for accuracy and returned to the

students prior to the unit tests?

This study was only performed with Pre-AP Chemistry students. There are no assurances

that the same results would be obtained with the main-stream chemistry students or with

conceptual chemistry. Also, there is no way to determine the results in other subject areas

whether they are science or not.

Suggestions for Future Research

Additional research needs to be performed on the difference in academic success when

daily quizzes are used opposed to graded daily homework assignments. More schools need to be

analyzed in other areas of the state and country as well as different size schools. Different

populations and demographics need to be analyzed. Other teachers need to also try this same

research within their own classrooms. Moreover, this same research could be done in other

subject areas. Longitudinally, this study could have provided much better results with more years

involved in the data. This would increase the sample size as well as improve the understanding

of the dynamics of change that occur with the personality of one year‟s classes to another. A

combination of using both homework and quizzes would also elucidate another facet to this

27

debate that has not been explored in this research but might actually produce better results than

using either homework or daily quizzes exclusively.

28

APPENDIX

INDIVIDUAL UNIT TEST SCORES FOR ALL YEARS

29

Student Assigned Number

TAKS 10th

Grade

Unit 1 Safety

Unit 2 Matter

Unit 3 Metric

Unit 4 Nomenclature

Unit 5 Compound

Stoichiometry

Unit 6 Equations

Unit 7 Redox

101 84 98 65 70 58 38 32 32 102 100 98 95 77 59 86 49 84 103 84 93 80 67 60 33 37 56 104 91 98 80 89 76 67 68 87 105 98 95 85 98 73 92 80 80 106 96 100 95 88 75 79 73 90 107 98 100 92 90 93 78 80 99 108 96 98 80 82 77 67 67 74 109 85 93 63 75 74 80 67 46 110 100 97 95 84 89 32 76 75 111 87 98 85 66 78 54 36 36 112 96 98 94 90 77 79 69 100 113 91 93 72 80 66 26 56 55 114 91 98 75 65 58 39 47 57 115 89 98 80 93 59 69 41 77 116 75 98 60 83 55 59 60 79 117 95 95 85 72 73 43 61 51 118 96 94 85 65 59 28 49 45 119 100 100 80 84 92 65 66 67 120 87 93 90 65 95 95 36 36 121 78 95 75 73 111 76 44 44 122 93 95 85 84 91 59 74 100 123 82 98 80 59 74 40 48 51 124 75 98 60 67 70 67 48 48 125 98 100 95 84 110 67 81 48 126 95 95 95 98 97 86 77 92 127 78 100 90 79 94 74 48 48 128 96 100 95 77 84 64 68 96 129 73 95 55 70 61 13 57 77 130 98 100 95 99 90 83 79 90 131 56 88 45 55 57 51 56 56 132 91 100 95 93 79 98 77 100 133 84 98 90 77 90 79 70 91 134 89 90 85 88 88 91 72 100 135 96 100 95 82 102 87 85 83 136 93 97 70 79 70 61 57 68 137 93 100 80 83 96 97 84 64 138 93 97 95 77 53 67 43 78 139 98 93 100 81 97 68 63 88 140 87 95 85 85 85 76 61 63 141 95 95 90 58 79 95 83 89 142 82 98 70 54 36 36 68 68 143 98 95 95 85 102 103 76 90 144 98 98 95 92 77 113 87 90 145 93 100 80 75 83 62 48 48

30

Student Assigned Number

TAKS 10th

Grade

Unit 1 Safety

Unit 2 Matter

Unit 3 Metric

Unit 4 Nomenclature

Unit 5 Compound

Stoichiometry

Unit 6 Equations

Unit 7 Redox

146 85 95 75 50 79 58 49 58 147 71 95 80 63 53 60 44 44 148 85 100 75 53 80 72 63 95 149 95 98 95 74 87 71 60 70 150 89 98 70 70 76 71 55 57 151 93 94 80 67 48 76 57 85 152 91 88 85 67 78 53 39 45 153 80 100 75 67 100 53 66 66 154 95 94 60 74 93 117 85 100 155 87 90 80 65 94 98 72 72 156 43 100 80 71 93 50 71 87 157 98 98 85 90 106 92 90 99 158 98 98 75 97 92 79 77 100 159 75 100 50 74 86 100 32 32 160 78 95 90 81 83 61 76 73 161 65 94 70 47 59 31 38 24 162 89 98 95 92 90 81 66 99 163 75 100 65 50 89 78 56 56 164 87 97 85 77 100 89 65 99 165 95 95 75 75 40 66 52 88 166 95 95 90 81 93 64 68 77 167 98 100 95 92 100 53 87 99 168 85 100 75 60 82 48 68 169 100 98 90 89 110 80 91 99 201 87 100 80 82 101 80 90 95 202 87 97 70 68 71 42 92 96 203 91 100 70 58 90 86 92 80 204 95 93 95 104 98 52 96 95 205 71 97 65 82 75 61 84 100 206 95 97 90 76 72 70 90 86 207 91 95 85 82 101 90 92 96 208 87 100 70 60 70 22 80 56 209 84 95 65 59 90 18 82 51 210 89 95 85 84 85 80 86 85 211 91 97 85 100 87 62 88 100 212 89 95 65 78 97 72 98 90 213 95 88 85 79 70 26 90 91 214 87 97 80 79 100 85 99 100 215 93 97 65 85 98 70 96 99 216 84 73 80 75 87 56 88 97 217 95 100 80 95 91 75 88 99 218 84 97 65 66 68 34 96 68 219 71 100 50 51 52 26 54 53 220 75 93 65 56 41 44 84 70 221 65 90 60 71 89 64 67 98

31

Student Assigned Number

TAKS 10th

Grade

Unit 1 Safety

Unit 2 Matter

Unit 3 Metric

Unit 4 Nomenclature

Unit 5 Compound

Stoichiometry

Unit 6 Equations

Unit 7 Redox

222 89 93 35 69 47 64 72 64 223 80 95 75 75 68 64 86 91 224 89 95 70 75 99 72 86 99 225 87 97 65 72 79 38 72 96 226 67 100 60 67 82 56 86 34 227 91 95 75 93 95 92 88 100 228 84 93 75 80 88 74 82 98 229 89 97 60 61 45 32 82 67 230 87 93 65 64 91 40 72 35 231 93 97 78 60 77 88 74 68 232 91 100 65 83 85 86 84 96 233 95 96 95 76 94 86 92 59 234 87 93 85 95 93 64 94 99 235 82 100 75 57 78 36 78 54 236 92 55 64 35 25 68 49 237 87 97 75 61 85 61 88 81 238 73 95 55 53 42 38 64 69 239 85 95 85 57 60 27 70 86 301 98 100 101 86 70 82 87 98 302 65 95 70 61 54 59 62 65 303 93 83 86 95 60 91 82 85 304 98 98 99 77 94 93 87 91 305 93 94 88 80 78 84 85 92 306 64 80 52 70 65 40 61 41 307 87 99 73 66 70 75 81 63 308 78 82 75 70 70 57 70 30 309 93 98 92 86 74 81 78 82 310 95 89 100 90 92 94 85 70 311 96 99 101 95 90 91 79 85 312 89 95 96 89 98 91 89 100 313 93 97 83 86 79 78 86 66 314 93 98 92 82 73 79 78 92 315 91 98 74 79 54 78 84 78 316 80 94 73 75 74 74 79 84 317 87 92 82 86 71 65 65 83 318 95 94 105 95 85 81 85 83 319 96 97 90 81 69 50 91 66 320 73 97 62 70 59 70 69 61 321 85 94 73 63 14 78 64 75 322 87 98 82 95 70 91 82 85 323 91 94 87 95 85 87 87 96 324 100 99 105 90 98 94 100 100 325 78 97 73 81 77 87 76 88 326 87 94 89 70 70 81 54 87 327 96 97 96 87 98 81 91 85

32

Student Assigned Number

TAKS 10th

Grade

Unit 1 Safety

Unit 2 Matter

Unit 3 Metric

Unit 4 Nomenclature

Unit 5 Compound

Stoichiometry

Unit 6 Equations

Unit 7 Redox

328 95 98 96 95 98 82 91 100 329 89 94 96 85 86 84 93 88 330 95 97 90 96 79 77 87 83 331 93 98 87 65 79 75 87 97 332 89 98 89 99 70 84 84 81 333 84 92 75 95 74 78 67 66 334 85 99 84 78 74 87 77 90 335 93 95 91 74 80 90 83 82 336 76 99 68 72 67 60 75 77 337 80 88 96 88 67 87 71 66 338 87 100 101 87 75 88 87 77 339 96 93 70 87 82 75 74 80 340 78 93 73 74 82 71 81 78 341 85 97 86 77 70 71 65 70 342 98 100 91 85 100 91 88 89 343 84 90 57 65 32 61 70 78 344 87 95 82 95 78 81 97 90 345 71 95 55 69 18 55 68 59 346 75 94 55 82 62 78 65 73 347 80 97 78 72 59 60 72 55 348 96 93 101 81 79 79 92 100 349 100 98 68 60 65 78 81 86

33

Student Assigned Number

Unit 8 Reaction

Stoichiometry

Unit 9 Nuclear

Unit 10 Atomic

Structure

Unit 11 Periodicity

Unit 12 Bonding

Unit 13 States of Matter

Unit 14 Solutions

101 69 86 52 56 60 43 44 102 52 79 36 65 88 72 63 103 67 68 42 43 35 36 44 104 36 58 61 51 88 66 44 105 97 79 74 69 93 73 60 106 72 72 55 67 75 69 59 107 88 77 52 79 93 85 80 108 88 80 55 62 80 80 64 109 35 79 47 74 85 64 48 110 82 84 75 85 80 71 63 111 76 80 59 59 50 53 57 112 89 77 57 72 93 55 73 113 90 75 42 68 70 71 42 114 27 62 16 46 73 33 30 115 51 62 41 57 55 38 55 116 21 67 36 57 88 64 39 117 67 77 50 57 68 69 44 118 42 72 43 60 80 58 40 119 87 80 41 75 78 71 76 120 92 86 69 86 53 30 55 121 71 70 36 50 40 33 48 122 77 82 50 66 80 78 72 123 42 56 53 66 48 52 44 124 61 47 46 49 48 43 22 125 87 79 61 75 78 80 68 126 93 79 69 70 88 76 84 127 65 68 63 88 53 53 50 128 91 79 50 70 90 61 54 129 71 74 50 48 68 45 56 130 95 72 76 75 90 83 84 131 53 72 52 78 53 41 45 132 98 74 63 70 73 80 76 133 48 69 41 73 88 58 66 134 61 69 72 82 88 71 78 135 85 74 63 90 100 89 72 136 68 72 37 65 63 64 48 137 75 72 79 82 93 79 70 138 50 76 36 69 75 52 40 139 62 84 67 71 78 78 68 140 72 67 38 78 83 48 56 141 78 76 48 54 73 55 58 142 64 86 85 107 48 50 61 143 124 62 50 86 85 65 67 144 112 87 74 71 88 80 81 145 40 64 29 70 83 50 50 146 43 76 29 54 73 36 42

34

Student Assigned Number

Unit 8 Reaction

Stoichiometry

Unit 9 Nuclear

Unit 10 Atomic

Structure

Unit 11 Periodicity

Unit 12 Bonding

Unit 13 States of Matter

Unit 14 Solutions

147 62 56 59 66 40 58 43 148 42 66 42 68 65 48 71 149 73 74 57 72 55 50 57 150 45 82 55 61 75 66 48 151 89 84 59 71 88 72 54 152 11 67 45 51 53 54 35 153 71 60 43 59 80 61 63 154 68 79 43 69 75 54 57 155 43 80 27 49 85 52 47 156 65 45 17 61 80 58 51 157 91 81 58 76 75 71 74 158 101 67 76 73 75 85 70 159 92 68 55 79 43 38 72 160 91 60 36 50 80 61 65 161 44 72 26 56 73 44 50 162 66 74 67 73 55 79 72 163 79 84 52 68 73 43 56 164 78 63 57 60 90 60 71 165 68 64 34 76 58 60 53 166 71 90 62 68 90 62 60 167 99 91 74 78 88 65 64 168 29 67 43 56 65 50 38 169 98 87 57 85 83 78 88 201 90 86 80 68 84 52 66 202 61 81 45 54 71 48 45 203 84 86 85 70 69 71 83 204 95 79 55 63 85 41 50 205 73 64 55 47 69 30 54 206 88 78 60 33 82 55 66 207 87 89 70 54 79 61 79 208 37 76 27 42 57 63 45 209 39 53 37 40 41 52 45 210 98 79 32 42 62 68 79 211 72 80 42 44 85 47 59 212 96 73 60 71 90 50 79 213 66 78 34 61 50 75 45 214 86 77 54 64 61 72 71 215 95 87 67 68 82 79 83 216 92 51 47 63 60 33 54 217 83 78 70 56 86 61 71 218 73 75 52 54 80 61 62 219 61 70 36 38 29 47 50 220 78 81 42 44 73 44 54 221 65 80 42 42 64 54 62 222 80 73 60 56 65 43 50 223 94 73 42 47 52 61 50

35

Student Assigned Number

Unit 8 Reaction

Stoichiometry

Unit 9 Nuclear

Unit 10 Atomic

Structure

Unit 11 Periodicity

Unit 12 Bonding

Unit 13 States of Matter

Unit 14 Solutions

224 112 80 67 76 83 60 58 225 44 73 44 38 78 58 56 226 71 80 40 70 63 36 71 227 109 87 66 51 93 64 71 228 85 69 66 61 81 73 66 229 64 65 35 42 59 56 41 230 41 61 37 40 43 50 50 231 101 78 70 38 73 66 62 232 100 75 88 54 67 81 66 233 116 82 70 65 82 69 92 234 110 83 50 51 84 65 66 235 37 67 35 38 28 58 37 236 22 58 22 28 50 27 41 237 109 72 40 54 69 60 37 238 28 74 47 49 55 44 24 239 69 70 45 54 71 29 58 301 76 94 62 99 89 102 70 302 44 62 39 58 62 62 30 303 77 84 70 83 70 84 60 304 92 81 69 64 76 85 55 305 81 90 70 71 61 73 88 306 34 63 20 58 64 30 20 307 62 74 54 64 70 64 70 308 70 70 41 70 70 70 42 309 82 87 73 78 76 54 77 310 89 78 68 74 81 80 66 311 77 84 81 87 85 81 75 312 108 84 81 97 92 75 77 313 58 66 77 78 71 46 87 314 70 71 81 85 86 80 67 315 56 63 32 59 74 32 49 316 64 71 62 71 65 50 70 317 62 71 43 54 70 56 66 318 101 87 77 85 92 74 69 319 46 68 62 64 79 70 36 320 59 50 32 69 63 55 56 321 25 87 51 69 54 70 61 322 55 81 54 71 79 77 61 323 87 84 58 69 78 87 81 324 99 103 77 68 87 89 100 325 70 78 62 81 73 68 70 326 48 90 70 64 78 84 64 327 94 109 66 71 74 95 70 328 66 84 92 106 81 84 100 329 72 68 70 87 76 70 76 330 54 81 47 85 71 60 74

36

Student Assigned Number

Unit 8 Reaction

Stoichiometry

Unit 9 Nuclear

Unit 10 Atomic

Structure

Unit 11 Periodicity

Unit 12 Bonding

Unit 13 States of Matter

Unit 14 Solutions

331 43 81 43 74 66 70 65 332 57 74 60 85 63 73 75 333 67 91 43 69 42 64 67 334 80 86 67 71 78 59 70 335 63 87 58 85 89 64 75 336 39 78 66 62 58 52 64 337 83 47 66 62 62 59 74 338 68 78 77 78 84 54 46 339 90 87 77 81 68 82 86 340 42 58 54 45 44 67 64 341 58 65 77 67 68 57 64 342 96 103 70 71 81 70 82 343 33 84 28 69 76 69 41 344 87 84 77 87 82 94 91 345 39 62 16 48 78 50 63 346 39 59 70 62 71 35 59 347 72 95 35 60 76 52 45 348 73 78 96 78 76 89 85 349 91 65 39 76 71 65 61

37

Student Assigned Number

Unit 15 Acids &

Bases

Unit 16 Gas Laws

Unit 17 Kinetics & Equilibrium

101 53 49 102 53 62 58 103 45 44 54 104 67 58 62 105 93 82 76 106 76 84 74 107 76 102 71 108 84 80 61 109 90 76 72 110 82 68 66 111 50 49 112 78 87 71 113 75 67 61 114 60 36 44 115 77 70 65 116 72 55 69 117 72 62 58 118 46 59 51 119 76 80 79 120 62 74 121 65 62 49 122 67 84 63 123 60 53 50 124 47 50 46 125 78 87 77 126 82 78 72 127 67 89 128 75 91 71 129 63 64 52 130 92 97 76 131 39 56 132 86 85 65 133 85 66 81 134 82 87 66 135 82 101 73 136 68 64 61 137 88 82 62 138 76 64 55 139 75 75 59 140 80 66 66 141 40 65 71 142 51 72 143 99 98 67 144 95 96 71 145 54 65 146 68 63 63

38

Student Assigned Number

Unit 15 Acids &

Bases

Unit 16 Gas Laws

Unit 17 Kinetics & Equilibrium

147 63 48 148 73 57 66 149 67 74 66 150 64 75 56 151 75 90 49 152 68 20 66 153 68 58 60 154 79 97 63 155 74 85 67 156 67 67 61 157 90 83 79 158 76 96 78 159 64 80 160 68 69 60 161 59 51 52 162 87 95 77 163 72 73 164 88 95 71 165 52 54 166 82 55 61 167 88 81 58 168 71 67 67 169 91 107 79 201 63 63 62 202 38 56 59 203 56 88 86 204 75 102 71 205 55 90 61 206 92 85 86 207 72 99 66 208 63 74 65 209 60 93 63 210 91 104 69 211 67 85 85 212 78 80 96 213 41 88 57 214 75 93 76 215 56 90 76 216 56 87 56 217 58 88 74 218 52 80 77 219 43 56 56 220 61 88 58 221 41 66 46 222 81 80 78 223 88 99 66

39

Student Assigned Number

Unit 15 Acids &

Bases

Unit 16 Gas Laws

Unit 17 Kinetics & Equilibrium

224 65 102 84 225 54 97 51 226 44 91 81 227 85 99 63 228 90 88 70 229 29 91 37 230 31 68 49 231 44 90 66 232 84 94 69 233 63 81 86 234 75 94 59 235 25 75 78 236 48 74 49 237 71 85 58 238 38 59 56 239 56 84 56 301 70 88 82 302 59 47 80 303 81 76 97 304 89 82 69 305 66 86 89 306 28 2 64 307 34 73 71 308 70 39 64 309 54 74 91 310 97 76 91 311 80 80 100 312 92 94 89 313 70 85 99 314 61 70 78 315 74 90 80 316 87 87 91 317 85 65 64 318 94 97 100 319 72 79 82 320 67 79 72 321 59 74 64 322 68 91 69 323 86 94 99 324 91 87 100 325 72 89 91 326 52 68 87 327 94 76 91 328 100 100 100 329 77 91 100 330 70 91 89

40

Student Assigned Number

Unit 15 Acids &

Bases

Unit 16 Gas Laws

Unit 17 Kinetics & Equilibrium

331 73 92 73 332 89 90 98 333 28 87 100 334 80 85 91 335 75 94 89 336 37 82 73 337 72 68 89 338 66 80 96 339 78 75 82 340 76 82 91 341 53 64 69 342 72 100 91 343 62 87 89 344 98 63 91 345 35 53 72 346 46 60 37 347 58 65 82 348 89 94 100 349 77 95 100

41

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anliker, R., Aydt, M., Kellams, M., & Rothlisberger, J. Improving student achievement through

encouragement of homework completion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 415 022)

Cole, R.S. & Todd, J.B. (2003). Effects of web-based multimedia homework with immediate rich feedback on student learning in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11), 1338-1343.

Cooper, H. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700582

Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Research, November, 85-91. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from www.addison.pausd.org/files/addison/homework/Synthesis%20of%20Research%0on%20Homework.pdf

Doyle, M.A. & Barber B.S. (1990). Homework as a learning experience. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 492)

Hong, E. & Milgram, R.M. (2000). Homework: Motivation and learning preference. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TnanUK1lniEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=%22homework:+motivation+and+learning+preference%22&ots=EV7dZDo9PF&sig=9EjUjWF0WsXOMNjbQZOWDI0D5VM#v=onepage&q&f=false

MacBeath, J. & Turner, M. (1990). Learning out of school: Homework, policy and practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 361 089)

Marzano, R.J. & Pickering, D.J. (2007). The case for and against homework. Educational

Leadership, 64(6), 77-79. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2055/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&hid=8&sid=bff861e4-4bd5-4cf8-aa80-8a7ca51d01fe%40sessionmgr10

Paschal, R.A, Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H.J. (1984). The effects of homework on learning: A auantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 78(2), 97-104. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://jstororg/pss/27541010 and retrieved May 15, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org.eproxy.baylor.edu/stable/27540101

Paulu, N. (n.d.) Helping your students with homework: A guide for teachers. Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/HelpingStudents/title.html

Swank, A.L.G. (1999). The effect of weekly math homework on fourth grade student math

performance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 433 234)

42

Tuckman, B.W. (1995). Assessing effective teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 127-138. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2590/stable/1492851

Wildman, P.R. (1968). Homework pressures. Peabody Journal of Education, 45(4), 202-204. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2590/stable/1490463

43