Research-based homeschool methods

[Noelle]

I started a post a few days ago that was accidentally deleted by the admin. They were very kind in their apology! I enjoyed the feedback on it, so I decided to repost.

I’ve been wondering if there are people who use scholarly research to help them make decisions or form philosophies about homeschooling. I had the experience, which I’m sure isn’t isolated, of joining a Facebook group that I presumed to be a thoughtful place for homeschool moms and then realizing it was an echo chamber for a particular homeschool method. It was frustrating to see people sharing opinions as if they were verifiable facts, with only quotes from their favorite authors to back up their claims. It all seemed so illogical to me. I realize the challenges inherent in conducting studies about homeschooling, and I also understand that every child is different and no one approach will work in every situation. But I’m interested in learning general principles from parents who use scholarly research to support the way they educate their children at home. Have you found studies that guide the way you teach individual subjects, or is there research that’s informed your personal homeschool philosophy? 

 

ETA: It doesn’t have to be research specifically about homeschooling. Just research about education that could also be applied to homeschooling.

[Ellie]

2 hours ago, Noelle said:

I started a post a few days ago that was accidentally deleted by the admin. They were very kind in their apology! I enjoyed the feedback on it, so I decided to repost.

I’ve been wondering if there are people who use scholarly research to help them make decisions or form philosophies about homeschooling. I had the experience, which I’m sure isn’t isolated, of joining a Facebook group that I presumed to be a thoughtful place for homeschool moms and then realizing it was an echo chamber for a particular homeschool method. It was frustrating to see otherwise intelligent people spouting off opinions as if they were verifiable facts, with only quotes from their favorite authors to back up their claims. It all seemed so illogical to me. I realize the challenges inherent in conducting studies about homeschooling, and I also understand that every child is different and no one approach will work in every situation. But I’m interested in learning general principles from parents who use scholarly research to support the way they educate their children at home. Have you found studies that guide the way you teach individual subjects, or is there research that’s informed your personal homeschool philosophy?

The only "scholarly studies" I'm aware of is those of Dr. Raymond Moore, who espoused delayed academics.

I can't even imagine how one would go about acquiring "verifiable facts."

I think you're looking for a unicorn.

Are you a homeschooling parent?

[Noelle]

55 minutes ago, Ellie said:

The only "scholarly studies" I'm aware of is those of Dr. Raymond Moore, who espoused delayed academics.

I can't even imagine how one would go about acquiring "verifiable facts."

I think you're looking for a unicorn.

Are you a homeschooling parent?

Yes, I am a homeschool parent. 

In my previous post, there were some responses that shared research about phonics and teaching math and writing in certain ways. Another person shared Jesuit education principles that used research to support their statements. I was hoping for more information along those lines.

Although it would be nice to see studies comparing different methods of homeschooling, I realize there’s not much out there. I’m thinking more about research on childhood learning that could be applied to homeschool.

In the homeschooling books I’ve read, it seems like the rationale for so many things is, “Well, so-and-so said xyz.” Well, okay, that’s their opinion on that topic. People are free to agree or disagree with that. But then it’s held up as being a truth that everyone should accept. Well, why? Is there any data that would convince me this is more than just someone’s opinion? 

Education is an art and a science, but it seems like the “art” of it is discussed much more frequently in homeschool groups. I’m interested in learning more about the science of it.

[Rosie_0801]

Studies comparing different methods of homeschooling would be all but meaningless. There are far too many variables to control, and, unlike a system like a school where the teacher is, for the most part, in charge of administering someone else's decisions, a homeschooling parent can change tactics whenever they see fit. Jump on here and say "I've been doing X with my kid for these reasons, but it's not working out" and within an hour you'll have 30-100 people telling you why it did or didn't work for their kids, and their opinion on whether you need to try it for longer, tweak it or give it up altogether.

For the most part, you have to read the opinions and consider whether they make sense in the context of the children you have, the person you are and the goals you, their other parent, and possibly the state have in mind.

[Ausmumof3]

58 minutes ago, Noelle said:

Yes, I am a homeschool parent. 

In my previous post, there were some responses that shared research about phonics and teaching math and writing in certain ways. Another person shared Jesuit education principles that used research to support their statements. I was hoping for more information along those lines.

Although it would be nice to see studies comparing different methods of homeschooling, I realize there’s not much out there. I’m thinking more about research on childhood learning that could be applied to homeschool.

In the homeschooling books I’ve read, it seems like the rationale for so many things is, “Well, so-and-so said xyz.” Well, okay, that’s their opinion on that topic. People are free to agree or disagree with that. But then it’s held up as being a truth that everyone should accept. Well, why? Is there any data that would convince me this is more than just someone’s opinion? 

Education is an art and a science, but it seems like the “art” of it is discussed much more frequently in homeschool groups. I’m interested in learning more about the science of it.

Have you read Susan Wise Bauer’s books at all particularly “rethinking school?”.  She is fairly science/research focused.  Probably like most homeschoolers I’ve read some educational theory like Maria Montessori’s book, the Charlotte Mason ones.  I do read articles on education if they come up in the news but the approach to education is different by necessity when educating a large group versus individuals.  I tend to trust the opinion of people I know who have home schooled and raised successful adults as well.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[8filltheheart]

You might want to also research cognitive development, imaginative play, metacognition.  A huge part of my parenting of my young kids was influenced by understanding how imaginative play influence cognitive development.  My research was back in the 80s and prior to day care being default.  My research showed that imaginative play led to higher levels of critical thinking and self-regulation.  I specifically do not "teach" preschool.  I have the deliberate goal of encouraging independent imaginative play and self-regulation when they are little.

I didn't read this entire thing, but here are a few pts that seem similar to my research back then:

Quote

Bruce (1991) argues that ‘free-flow play’ is the purest form of play where play is freely chosen by the child and without the confines of external expectation. During this ‘pure’ play, children will:

• • initiate the activity in a meaningful context
• • have control and ownership of the activity by imagining, making decisions and predictions
• • experiment with strategies and take risks in this ‘safe’ context
• • show curiosity
• • repeat, rehearse and refine observed social behaviours and skills
• • seek pleasure from the essence of the activity 

All of these processes, integral to play, are also essential for mathematical thinking and problem solving. Play and mathematics, therefore, seem natural partners, and their combination will allow the child to:

• • gain an understanding of the cultural role of mathematics
• • have a heightened awareness that mathematics can be useful in the real world
• • recognize that mathematical activity can be both sociable and cooperative
• • perceive mathematical activity to be enjoyable and purposeful.

In order to fully support mathematical development, playful activity requires adult involvement at some level. Early years curricula in the UK (DfE, 2012; SE, 2007; WAG, 2008) advocate that play which best supports learning is that in which there is a mix of child-initiated and adult-supported play. Indeed, a balance of practitioner-led, practitioner-initiated and child-initiated activity is desirable (Fisher, 2010; Pound, 2008). While practitioner-led activity can ensure the systematic teaching of skills, child-initiated learning, without adult control and dominance, can enable children to become self-regulated learners. (bolded by me)

Creativity

There is growing evidence that it is how and not what a child learns that has greatest impact on their school achievement (Bronson, 2000). The revised EYFS emphasizes how children learn by the inclusion of the ‘characteristics of effective learning’, although it is Dame Tickell’s Independent Report on the Early Years Foundation Stage to Her Majesty’s Government (Tickell, 2011) that provides a more robust discussion about their inclusion. The inclusion of these characteristics – play and exploring, active learning and creating and critical thinking – promote key learning dispositions in the young child such as engagement, motivation and thinking, all of which are necessary for self-regulated learning and also vital for real mathematical enquiry. Arguably, creativity is at the heart of all young children’s learning and although difficult to define, can be regarded as comprising of four main aspects: imagination, purpose, originality and value (NACCCE, 1999). When young children are being creative, they:

• • are captivated and curious
• • will be driven by this curiosity to achieve their goal
• • make links in their learning in order to make sense of their activity, refine their thinking and thus give rise to new thinking
• • evaluate the process they are engaged in so that they might adapt or refine their task in order to be satisfied with their activity.

https://us.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/58992_Tucker.pdf

Its connection to math education is not my intended pt, but I can share that my kids have learned all sorts of math connections through play (my physics geek "discovered" multiplication through playing with Legos.  When he was 6 he told me that he had made a discovery he wanted to share.  We were putting cookies on a pan and he told me if we put 5 rows of 4 cookies there would be 20 cookies on the pan.  In asking him questions, he pointed out that 6 rows of 3 window panes meant 18.  I asked him how he discovered this, and his response was by playing with Legos and the different blocks.  (He ended up taking alg at age 10.  🙂 )

All that is to say that sometimes the most important educational theories aren't directly related to education itself but developmentally appropriate approaches.  My opinion is that we as a society have lost sight of how much just playing independently impacts the ability to self-regulate and learn and have unfortunately decided that preschool academics equates to more learning.

Another area of research you might want to investigate is Bloom's Taxonomy.  http://www.bloomstaxonomy.us/

[Not_a_Number]

I was wondering where your previous post went! I was enjoying it 🙂 . 

Anyway, I think the state of educational research is pretty dire, lol. Even if you don't restrict to homeschoolers, we know very little about what works in math education, for example. Lots of things are only measured as short-term interventions. Lots of things are implemented in classrooms where teachers don't know any math. And some things we DO know about get almost entirely ignored... 

 

[kirstenhill]

I'm pretty sure this was mentioned in your previous thread but one area there's a lot of solid research on is phonics-based reading instruction.   This is a great article with a lot of sources cited if you haven't run across it before:  https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading

(I have another comment on a totally different line of thinking, but I'm going to start a separate post for that to keep topics within the thread a little more clear).  😄

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, kirstenhill said:

I'm pretty sure this was mentioned in your previous thread but one area there's a lot of solid research on is phonics-based reading instruction.   This is a great article with a lot of sources cited if you haven't run across it before:  https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading

(I have another comment on a totally different line of thinking, but I'm going to start a separate post for that to keep topics within the thread a little more clear).  😄

Yeah, that's the thing I've seen cited the most, and it also makes a lot of deep sense to me -- like, written language is BASED on phonics, why wouldn't you teach the key to it? 

Then of course I had a child to whom whole word reading comes much more naturally than phonics 😂. We've persevered with phonics, and I'm not sorry, but it was interesting to see how some kids are really not textbook phonics kids. Which comes back to the idea that kids can all be very different, and "research-based" instruction can work more or less well given the specific kid. 

[kirstenhill]

I think another problem you run into with using scholarly research to make homeschooling decisions (besides the fact that what is best for one individual child may be different than what is best for the statistical majority of children), is that homeschoolers may have different goals than the public education system or than what educational researchers may presume is the goal.   Educational research (and maybe the public education system in general) seems to usually have as its measurable desired outcome high test scores.   Many homeschoolers couldn't care less about standardized test scores and may be more concerned about a more diverse set of goals that might include things like a broad liberal arts education, exposure to as much beautiful literature as possible, self-directed learning, character/religious education, or having time to specialize in areas of personal talent or interest.  Some of these things  lead to perhaps similar end-goals beyond the standardized tests (admission to college, or adequate preparation for a well adjusted adult life), but they may take a very different path in getting there. 

Educational researchers are also looking generally at what works in a 20-30 kid classroom, unless it is research on tutoring or intervention methods for struggling students. We as homeschool parents are teaching one kid at a time, or maybe a small group of kids (usually of differing ages) if we combine siblings for some subject areas.  It makes for apples-to-oranges comparisons in some situations.  For example, I never have to worry about how my students respond to a lecture method of teaching, because I would never stand up and give a lecture to my one middle schooler who is learning physical science this year.  But if my kid were enrolled in a public school physical science class, I would find it weird if the teacher never stood up to give a lecture, because that is part of a classroom model of learning.  Educational research on effective science classrooms can't take a one-on-one model into serious consideration as a possible method for public schools to follow because it's impractical. 


 

Edited March 13, 2021 by kirstenhill

[Clemsondana]

My choices about broad content exposure were influenced by E.D. Hirsh's books. I had also read about the importance of movement and unstructured time, which influenced the amount of time that I wanted to spend on 'book learning'.  One thing that is difficult about applying specific research to homeschooled kids is that research is usually based on averages.  Kids do an average of 10 points better with method X.  Well, some kids probably do 20 or more points better, many 10, some none, and probably some do worse.  When you homeschool, you can get an idea of what is likely to work based on studies but you pick and choose what you do based on your specific kid.  And, I'd think it's also difficult to do studies specifically with homeschoolers because I don't see how you'd sort out family dynamics, teacher skill, and student temperament from the academic method that you're trying to study.  I have a handful of things that I've done with both kids, but there are also differences in their academics based on their needs.  

[AnneGG]

8 hours ago, 8filltheheart said:

 

Another area of research you might want to investigate is Bloom's Taxonomy.  http://www.bloomstaxonomy.us/

I was coming here to say Bloom’s Taxonomy. I use it with my homeschooled 5 year old and adults in high ed. 
 

ETA: Perhaps a college course like Foundations in Education or some kind of educational psychology class would interest you? Even just grabbing an older textbook used in that type of class would give you a lot scope. A lifespan or developmental psych course could be very insightful. You could do more research using google scholar or Ebsco on particular methods or people that interest you. Homeschool methods aren’t exclusive to homeschool. Most were adapted from the mainstream.

Edited March 13, 2021 by AnneGG

[Hillcottagemom]

Rather than putting any homeschool ideology first, I've found it helpful to follow research on how children learn best and what kind of an environment produces happy, well-rounded people who confidently meet challenges. For me that led to lots of playing, focusing on effective effort and fostering intrinsic motivation, and putting relationships first. We're eclectic with a classical lean, but I could see applying evidence based approaches to a variety of different homeschool styles. 

There's tons of research out there about intrinsic motivation, but here's an article that sums it up:  https://www.healthline.com/health/intrinsic-motivation#extrinsic-motivation

Growth mindset is a theory that has done a lot to inform what I do as a parent in general. Ive found that the challenges presented by a rigorous classical education fit well with the idea that kids who are challenged develop tenacity and persistence. An article on growth mindset:  https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/people-who-adopt-a-self-compassion-mindset-in-2021-are-more-likely-to-achieve-their-goals.html and a book (written for school teachers but easily adaptable for home)  https://www.amazon.com/Growth-Mindset-Coach-Month-Month/dp/1612436013

 

[daijobu]

Welcome to the WTM forum!  

Using studies with large sample sizes is helpful when you are deciding on a policy or protocol that will affect many people.  Something as well studied as cancer for example can yield a treatment protocol that is effective in 90% of patients.  This is terrific news if you want to need to treat hundreds or thousands of patients.  

But if you are a single patient in the unlucky 10%...well it sucks to be you. 

Fortunately homeschooling ain't chemotherapy, and if there is one homeschooling style that doesn't suit your student (despite studies showing it to be effective) you can turn on a dime and switch to something more appropriate.  

I can't tell you how many classes and curricula we have loved that others have hated, and vice versa.   

I think your time will be better spent developing deeper subject matter knowledge.  Want your kids to have a solid math education?  You, the teacher must study and understand math.  Same for all the other subjects.  

[bookbard]

Great points. I think the other thing is this. You can do quantitative studies which measure how effective X is on Y. But the step before that is deciding what you want to test. And when it comes to education, everyone has something different that they see is important. I'm a teacher and I can say if you put five teachers in a room every single one would have a different opinion on this. Some people strongly value getting a steady job with a steady paycheck, and consider developing manual skills as the best way to do this. Some people consider coding super important. Others learning to think, others participating in their cultural knowledge, others developing a creative outlook. 

You can't do quantitative research on which is better - that is philosophy, it's going to be influenced by your own interests and preferences.

You can't, also, do everything. My kids are never going to be super sportspeople because I'm not interested enough in sports to sacrifice my time to take them to sporting activities frequently enough. Same with dance, gymnastics, music. They will be great readers because I love reading, have a house full of books, like going to the library and am happy to spend money on books. 

In terms of effective instruction, I think it depends on what you focus on. For me, there's a lot of interesting new research on interest being super important. Some people value direct instruction highly (yes, breaking down a task and teaching it directly does lead to mastery, but, downside, it means excluding other parts of information you hadn't realised were important). Others value hands-on, discovery-led learning. And so forth. You can go to google scholar and find lots of studies in lots of areas. If I'm struggling, I sometimes look up the research on a particular area, say handwriting or spelling (there isn't much good research on either, btw). 

Research can be very helpful, but keep in mind it's never going to be black and white, right and wrong. I read a lot of it from interest; but don't swallow any of it whole. It's never quite what it seems.

[Not_a_Number]

Honestly, this thread is reminding me that half of social science research is gobbledygook anyway. Lots of the experiments are done on college students. Lots of the experiments are extremely short-term. (Like, it's kind of interesting that people are less interested in doing fun puzzles they are paid to do as opposed to fun puzzles they AREN'T paid to do, but what happens in the long term when the intrinsic motivation wears off? Who knows.) 

I've seen many more examples of people citing social science to support their decisions than people sifting through the science to figure out which studies are actually good and which long-term approaches are actually supported. 

The stuff I tend to like best in the social science realm is either fairly longitudinal intervention studies, or just interesting snapshot observations on actual kids that I can personally verify. For example, if you dig into the math education research, you discover that people know very well that kids usually have an operational and not a relational model of an equals sign, and that never seems to actually affect what anyone does. You also find that most people are aware that kids have serious difficulty with place value... again, without this affecting much of anything in classrooms. 

Anyway, I think that perusing the literature can actually be kind of helpful, but only if you know how to ignore the irrelevant stuff. But I've definitely been affected by some of the things I've read in both math educational literature and reading educational literature. 

[lewelma]

5 hours ago, daijobu said:

I think your time will be better spent developing deeper subject matter knowledge. 

This has been a herculean effort for me. Start early!

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, lewelma said:

This has been a herculean effort for me. Start early!

I really neeeeed to do this. But... so busy... ugh. Must learn things 😛 .

[lewelma]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I really neeeeed to do this. But... so busy... ugh. Must learn things 😛 .

It really depends on your homeschooling style and your kids learning needs.  If you have independent learners, you can 1) facilitate. This is where you educate yourself enough to buy excellent resources and let them at it. It requires little subject matter expertise. However, if your kids need one on one instruction or prefer collaborative learning, you need to decide it you will 2) outsource, 3) co-learn, 4) teach.  Teaching is top down and you prepare ahead; and co-learning is collaborative and done concurrently. 

I have done all 4 types of homeschooling depending on my kid's potential, their personal interests, and my interest/commitment. All homeschooling methodologies can be very effective if well chosen and targeted to the situation that presents itself. Be realistic as to what they need, and what you are actually able to provide. You must prioritize if you plan to finish this very long journey. Many start; few finish.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, lewelma said:

It really depends on your homeschooling style and your kids learning needs.  If you have independent learners, you can 1) facilitate. This is where you educate yourself enough to buy excellent resources and let them at it. It requires little subject matter expertise. However, if your kids need one on one instruction or prefer collaborative learning, you need to decide it you will 2) outsource, 3) co-learn, 4) teach.  Teaching is top down and you prepare ahead; and co-learning is collaborative and done concurrently. 

I have done all 4 types of homeschooling depending on my kid's potential, their personal interests, and my interest/commitment. All homeschooling methodologies can be very effective if well chosen and targeted to the situation that presents itself. Be realistic as to what they need, and what you are actually able to provide. You must prioritize if you plan to finish this very long journey. Many start; few finish.

I prefer direct, fairly top-down teaching, and my kids do well with it. Neither of my kids currently seems like your older DS or like I was as a kid: that is to say, more on the autodidactic side. We'll see what happens as they get older, of course, but for now, that seems to be what they need. 

I have definitely done some co-learning, but I can tell that this has a limited shelf life. So... I should learn more stuff 🙂 . I'm lucky in that I have the elementary school basics mostly down without much preparation needed, at least. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Ausmumof3]

5 minutes ago, lewelma said:

It really depends on your homeschooling style and your kids learning needs.  If you have independent learners, you can 1) facilitate. This is where you educate yourself enough to buy excellent resources and let them at it. It requires little subject matter expertise. However, if your kids need one on one instruction or prefer collaborative learning, you need to decide it you will 2) outsource, 3) co-learn, 4) teach.  Teaching is top down and you prepare ahead; and co-learning is collaborative and done concurrently. 

I have done all 4 types of homeschooling depending on my kid's potential, their personal interests, and my interest/commitment. All homeschooling methodologies can be very effective if well chosen and targeted to the situation that presents itself. Be realistic as to what they need, and what you are actually able to provide. You must prioritize if you plan to finish this very long journey. Many start; few finish.

Or you co-learn with the eldest and teach the youngest siblings 😂. In all honesty our homeschooling is a mix - there’s areas of interest where my kids are independent and know more than me and could teach me, areas where I have always taught them because I’m fairly comfortable, areas where I’ve co-learned because although I know more than them I don’t know everything in the text book we’re using or the book uses a different approach to what I’m familiar with and we are moving into territory where outsourcing won’t be a luxury but a need in the next three years.  I’m having some concerns about accessing that within the budget and availability we have here but hopefully it works.

[lewelma]

27 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I prefer direct, fairly top-down teaching, and my kids do well with it. Neither of my kids currently seems like your older DS or like I was as a kid: that is to say, more on the autodidactic side. We'll see what happens as they get older, of course, but for now, that seems to be what they need. 

I have definitely done some co-learning, but I can tell that this has a limited shelf life. So... I should learn more stuff 🙂 . I'm lucky in that I have the elementary school basics mostly down without much preparation needed, at least. 

Before you suggest that you will learn everything up front so you can top-down directly teach all subjects, let me give you a feel for the number of classes that 2 children will get through. For highschool subjects (level of content, not age based), this is how I ended up getting my kids through highschool. Using my previous list of facilitation, direct teaching, outsourcing, co-learning:

Math: Older: Direct teaching until I outsourced to AoPS. Outsourced 10th grade to university (which was a major fail). Facilitated his self learning of maths in 11th-12th grade. Younger: Direct teaching all courses through calculus.

Science: Older: Co-learned physics and chemistry. Facilitated Biology. Taught scientific method through facilitating science fair projects. Younger: directly taught chemistry, physics. Co-learned Geology.

English: Directly taught composition to both my boys through 12th grade. Co-learned literature with both my boys (I read at the same time and we discussed)

Economics of Inequality; Comparative Government; Impact of Colonialism on African through economic, social, and political lenses; NZ Demographics and Racism; NZ Geographic issues of the South Island --  co-learned first 2 older and last 3 with younger.  

World History, US History, Contemporary World Problems, NZ history - my dh co-learned these with both boys. So I outsourced to dh!

Music: outsourced violin for both my sons

Foreign Language: outsourced Mandarin for my older; co-learning Maori with my younger

--------------

My point is that you may not be able to directly teach ALL classes at a highschool level. Pre-learning all that content, especially because it evolves over time with a child's interests, would be close to impossible. I struggled to outsource much because my older was strongly asynchronous and my younger is twice exceptional. 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by lewelma

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, lewelma said:

My point is that you may not be able to directly teach ALL classes at a highschool level. Pre-learning all that content, especially because it evolves overtime with a child's interests, would be close to impossible. I struggled to outsource much because my older way strongly asynchronous and my younger is twice exceptional. 

*shrug* I like learning, and I'm in a better position than most people. But no, I almost certainly can't learn EVERYTHING at the front. 

I'm pretty happy to co-learn social sciences -- maybe that's just arrogance, but I do think that since I'm effective at analyzing things, we'll have to manage the fact that I don't know enough facts and learn them from books 😛 . I'm a good writer (I was always good at essays, and I'm a published translator, lol) and obviously I can teach math up to whatever level. 

We outsource piano, so I don't have to worry about that. I speak Russian already, so I don't need to do anything for that. Honestly, the sciences would be the main weakness, and those I don't know if I should co-learn or get an early start on. But it seems like a good idea to get ahead when I have the time. 

[lewelma]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

*shrug* I like learning, 

Me too! It has been a joy and a privilege. But I think you are wrong about *shrug*. 🙂

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, lewelma said:

Me too! It has been a joy and a privilege. But I think you are wrong about *shrug*. 🙂

As in, because it'll be hard? 🙂 

[lewelma]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

As in, because it'll be hard? 🙂 

Ah, well, perhaps it will be easier for you. You can tell me all your stories in a decade. 🙂 My only point is that you should plan to be adaptable, and although you really love top-down direct teaching because you and your kids find it very very effective, does not mean that that will be true in the future. So be open to the other options - facilitation, outsourcing, and co-learning. I never in my wildest dreams expected to spend a full year learning about the impact of colonialism on Africa. There is no way I could have predicted that I needed to prepare to teach a course in leadership, deep enough to be able to compare the economic, social, and political impact of Khama of Botswana compared to Mobutu in the DRC.  That simply was not on my list of stuff to pre learn. haha

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Ah, well, perhaps it will be easier for you. You can tell me all your stories in a decade. 🙂 My only point is that you should plan to be adaptable, and although you really love top-down direct teaching because you and your kids find it very very effective, does not mean that that will be true in the future. So be open to the other options - facilitation, outsourcing, and co-learning. I never in my wildest dreams expected to spend a full year learning about the impact of colonialism on Africa. There is no way I could have predicted that I needed to prepare to teach a course in leadership, deep enough to be able to compare the economic, social, and political impact of Khama of Botswana compared to Mobutu in the DRC.  That simply was not on my list of stuff to pre learn. haha

I already did say I'll probably co-learn social sciences and that I mostly need to pre-learn the sciences, you know 😉 . And we already outsource piano. 

ETA: I'm more worried about co-learning the "big picture" subjects, where I do feel like there's a lot of value in having a guide. Now, I may still wind up being too lazy or too busy to pre-learn, and we'll have to manage. (Plus, my DH remembers more science than I do.) But it'd be a good thing, from my perspective. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[lewelma]

Sorry, Noelle, I think we have taken over your thread.  Not exactly 'research' based methods. But Not_a_Number and I love to chat!! So hopefully this diversion might give you some food for thought. 🙂

[lewelma]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I already did say I'll probably co-learn social sciences and that I mostly need to pre-learn the sciences, you know 😉 . And we already outsource piano. 

So you have a plan: Teach math, science, writing, Russian. Outsource piano. Co-learn social sciences. So all you have to do to implement the plan is pre-learn the sciences, which I've seen the thread for. 🙂 Now, just to find the time......... Story of my life. I've got rocks to go identify.  My son has decided that every rock he ever found and brought home now needs a name and a description of how it was formed.  This has been a bit challenging today.  "So this one is grey and has little white dots. Clearly, it must be........"

[Not_a_Number]

10 minutes ago, lewelma said:

So you have a plan: Teach math, science, writing, Russian. Outsource piano. Co-learn social sciences. So all you have to do to implement the plan is pre-learn the sciences, which I've seen the thread for. 🙂 Now, just to find the time......... Story of my life. I've got rocks to go identify.  My son has decided that every rock he ever found and brought home now needs a name and a description of how it was formed.  This has been a bit challenging today.  "So this one is grey and has little white dots. Clearly, it must be........"

Knowing me, I’ll either learn the sciences well or not at all 😂. I’m a known binger.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Knowing me, I’ll either learn the sciences well or not at all 😂. I’m a known binger.

And even if you never teach them to your kids being intellectually alive and learning as a homeschool parent is probably one of the best things you can do for your kids!  And of course yourself...

[caffeineandbooks]

On 3/13/2021 at 1:34 PM, Noelle said:

I’ve been wondering if there are people who use scholarly research to help them make decisions or form philosophies about homeschooling. I had the experience, which I’m sure isn’t isolated, of joining a Facebook group that I presumed to be a thoughtful place for homeschool moms and then realizing it was an echo chamber for a particular homeschool method. It was frustrating to see people sharing opinions as if they were verifiable facts, with only quotes from their favorite authors to back up their claims. It all seemed so illogical to me. I realize the challenges inherent in conducting studies about homeschooling, and I also understand that every child is different and no one approach will work in every situation. But I’m interested in learning general principles from parents who use scholarly research to support the way they educate their children at home. Have you found studies that guide the way you teach individual subjects, or is there research that’s informed your personal homeschool philosophy? 

*musing*  Plenty of parents don't do "scholarly research" about how to raise their kids, but do take advice from parents they know and respect or read books by parenting gurus.  To me, homeschooling is closer to parenting than to bricks and mortar schooling - perhaps that's why there's an overlap in this particular regard?  As with parenting, many homeschoolers don't have the luxury of years to absorb research and come to an impartial conclusion: we're in the thick of it right now, with flesh and blood people whom we know intimately and care very deeply about and whose needs seem to change as fast as we can adjust to them.  Arguably, discussing and reading widely with other parents/homeschoolers could be seen as a form of real time informal qualitative research.

Myers-Briggs INTJs - the natural student type - are over-represented among homeschoolers, and it seems to me we're particularly over-represented on this very forum 🙂  Nevertheless, I think it is possible to be a great homeschooler without being someone who geeks out on research studies, just as it is possible to be a great parent without doing so.  The idea is rightly suggested by a couple of posters up-thread that research, by its very nature, generalises; but as homeschoolers (and parents) we do not generalise but rather specialise long term in our own children.

[8filltheheart]

I do believe understanding the hows behind how children learn and develop and having an understanding of different methodologies provides you the flexibility to adapt curriculum to meet your student vs. the unicorn search for the curriculum that works for the child.

And, I 100% agree with Ruth that in no way do you need to master all content your students will take.  Nor do you even need to have complete understanding to faciliate their mastery to a high level.  I can use a solutions manual and understand enough to guide them.  That is a completely different level of understanding than being able to look at a problem and know how to solve it independently (which is the level of mastery that I expect them to achieve.)  

FWIW, I think this is why students who cheat the system in programs like TT don't make it to mastery bc they think watching a video and understanding is the same as being able to in turn know how to apply independently.  They are not equivalent at all.  I have taught multiple subjects this way several times and I still lack mastery bc I don't take the time or make the effort to fully engage and "know" it.  (bc, honestly, I just don't care.)   My focus is on getting my kids to that level, not me.  My kids have so many diverse interests and I am vastly outnumbered.  I know how to make what they want to learn work and that is the main objective.

[Hillcottagemom]

15 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Honestly, this thread is reminding me that half of social science research is gobbledygook anyway. Lots of the experiments are done on college students. Lots of the experiments are extremely short-term. (Like, it's kind of interesting that people are less interested in doing fun puzzles they are paid to do as opposed to fun puzzles they AREN'T paid to do, but what happens in the long term when the intrinsic motivation wears off? Who knows.) 

I've seen many more examples of people citing social science to support their decisions than people sifting through the science to figure out which studies are actually good and which long-term approaches are actually supported. 

The stuff I tend to like best in the social science realm is either fairly longitudinal intervention studies, or just interesting snapshot observations on actual kids that I can personally verify. For example, if you dig into the math education research, you discover that people know very well that kids usually have an operational and not a relational model of an equals sign, and that never seems to actually affect what anyone does. You also find that most people are aware that kids have serious difficulty with place value... again, without this affecting much of anything in classrooms. 

Anyway, I think that perusing the literature can actually be kind of helpful, but only if you know how to ignore the irrelevant stuff. But I've definitely been affected by some of the things I've read in both math educational literature and reading educational literature. 

I disagree with the idea that the social sciences are "gobbledygook". Yes, studying people does pose unique challenges and there are people who overstate the generalizability/significance of their conclusions. However, as someone who made a suggestion about intrinsic motivation and growth mindset, I am 100% aware of the controversies and limitations surrounding the research. I found these things to be helpful for my kids though, so I'm fine with recommending that others look into them too.

[Noelle]

On 3/13/2021 at 2:17 AM, Rosie_0801 said:

Studies comparing different methods of homeschooling would be all but meaningless. 

I’m not so sure about this. Here’s a study I found comparing structured vs unstructured homeschoolers against public school students. The researchers acknowledge that their unstructured sample size is small and discuss why that is problematic. But it seems clear that structured homeschoolers outperformed both unstructured homeschoolers and public school students, even controlling for mother’s education level and family income. There are many conclusions one can draw from this, even debating the desirability of standardized testing for elementary students. (I don’t have a problem with this, but I know some people do.) But I still wouldn’t call the results meaningless.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232544669_The_Impact_of_Schooling_on_Academic_Achievement_Evidence_From_Homeschooled_and_Traditionally_Schooled_Students

[Noelle]

On 3/13/2021 at 8:06 AM, 8filltheheart said:

You might want to also research cognitive development, imaginative play, metacognition.  A huge part of my parenting of my young kids was influenced by understanding how imaginative play influence cognitive development.  My research was back in the 80s and prior to day care being default.  My research showed that imaginative play led to higher levels of critical thinking and self-regulation.  I specifically do not "teach" preschool.  I have the deliberate goal of encouraging independent imaginative play and self-regulation when they are little.

I didn't read this entire thing, but here are a few pts that seem similar to my research back then:

Its connection to math education is not my intended pt, but I can share that my kids have learned all sorts of math connections through play (my physics geek "discovered" multiplication through playing with Legos.  When he was 6 he told me that he had made a discovery he wanted to share.  We were putting cookies on a pan and he told me if we put 5 rows of 4 cookies there would be 20 cookies on the pan.  In asking him questions, he pointed out that 6 rows of 3 window panes meant 18.  I asked him how he discovered this, and his response was by playing with Legos and the different blocks.  (He ended up taking alg at age 10.  🙂 )

All that is to say that sometimes the most important educational theories aren't directly related to education itself but developmentally appropriate approaches.  My opinion is that we as a society have lost sight of how much just playing independently impacts the ability to self-regulate and learn and have unfortunately decided that preschool academics equates to more learning.

Another area of research you might want to investigate is Bloom's Taxonomy.  http://www.bloomstaxonomy.us/

Thank you for sharing this. The benefits of combining adult-led play with child-led play are very interesting. I appreciate your mention of the importance of child-led play for independence and self-regulation. I have noticed something similar in my own children.

[Hillcottagemom]

8 minutes ago, Noelle said:

I’m not so sure about this. Here’s a study I found comparing structured vs unstructured homeschoolers against public school students. The researchers acknowledge that their unstructured sample size is small and discuss why that is problematic. But it seems clear that structured homeschoolers outperformed both unstructured homeschoolers and public school students, even controlling for mother’s education level and family income. There are many conclusions one can draw from this, even debating the desirability of standardized testing for elementary students. (I don’t have a problem with this, but I know some people do.) But I still wouldn’t call the results meaningless.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232544669_The_Impact_of_Schooling_on_Academic_Achievement_Evidence_From_Homeschooled_and_Traditionally_Schooled_Students

 Yes, this study suggests that if your goals include having kids who do well on standardized tests then perhaps unstructured homeschooling isn't the way to go (maybe). I would guess that most people who are unstructured dont consider standardized test skills to be a primary goal though. That's the tricky thing about a lot of the research that focuses on educational outcomes specifically. The outcomes that education professionals and researchers consider paramount dont necessarily match the outcomes that homeschoolers prioritize. There are different approaches that represent different visions of what it means to be well educated. 

[Noelle]

18 hours ago, Hillcottagemom said:

Rather than putting any homeschool ideology first, I've found it helpful to follow research on how children learn best and what kind of an environment produces happy, well-rounded people who confidently meet challenges. For me that led to lots of playing, focusing on effective effort and fostering intrinsic motivation, and putting relationships first. We're eclectic with a classical lean, but I could see applying evidence based approaches to a variety of different homeschool styles. 

There's tons of research out there about intrinsic motivation, but here's an article that sums it up:  https://www.healthline.com/health/intrinsic-motivation#extrinsic-motivation

Growth mindset is a theory that has done a lot to inform what I do as a parent in general. Ive found that the challenges presented by a rigorous classical education fit well with the idea that kids who are challenged develop tenacity and persistence. An article on growth mindset:  https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/people-who-adopt-a-self-compassion-mindset-in-2021-are-more-likely-to-achieve-their-goals.html and a book (written for school teachers but easily adaptable for home)  https://www.amazon.com/Growth-Mindset-Coach-Month-Month/dp/1612436013

 

The information on intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation is interesting. One of the reasons I like homeschooling is that public schools use a lot of extrinsic motivators to get kids to cooperate. I’m not putting down public schools—they have their own challenges, and they have to do what works best for them. But my oldest is a very compliant, academically gifted student, and when he was in public school, I noticed that all the little rewards/prizes/verbal praise for good behavior were becoming his main motivation for accomplishing things. Even at home, he started expecting some type of external reward for a job well done. I don’t think external rewards are always bad, but I’ve seen how they can become problematic when they are the primary mode of motivation.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I added it to my cart!

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Hillcottagemom said:

I disagree with the idea that the social sciences are "gobbledygook". Yes, studying people does pose unique challenges and there are people who overstate the generalizability/significance of their conclusions. However, as someone who made a suggestion about intrinsic motivation and growth mindset, I am 100% aware of the controversies and limitations surrounding the research. I found these things to be helpful for my kids though, so I'm fine with recommending that others look into them too.

Well, I don't think ALL of it is. And I do think ideas about intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation are interesting and helpful, but they are also very limited. It's very different to think about what it takes someone to do something fun for 20 minutes as opposed to something occasionally grueling for a year. 

I don't think you personally are saying this, but I've absolutely seen people cite this research as an example of why you must never provide any extrinsic motivation at all (it'll make your kid hate school! Look, it decreases inner drive!), whereas I think it's more complicated than that... what I tend to believe is that you need intrinsic motivation globally, but that it's fine to have extrinsic motivation to get us over the humps/get us organized/deal with the boring bits. But I don't think you get that kind of resolution with these papers. 

Gobbledygook is probably too strong, because I do tend to enjoy looking at social science papers... but there's also a serious replication crisis in social science, and I sometimes wonder whether social science should have ever become a quantitative science as opposed to just a collection of fascinating anecdotes. I learn just as much participating on here and hearing about people's experiences as I do reading social science papers, because to me, the STORY is very often what's interesting, and this story is not always quantifiable or easily sorted in little boxes. 

 

26 minutes ago, Hillcottagemom said:

 Yes, this study suggests that if your goals include having kids who do well on standardized tests then perhaps unstructured homeschooling isn't the way to go (maybe). I would guess that most people who are unstructured dont consider standardized test skills to be a primary goal though. That's the tricky thing about a lot of the research that focuses on educational outcomes specifically. The outcomes that education professionals and researchers consider paramount dont necessarily match the outcomes that homeschoolers prioritize. There are different approaches that represent different visions of what it means to be well educated. 

I've definitely seen people who think you can have your cake and eat it, too -- that you can have a solid education with no gaps and also be totally unstructured. I don't in any way prioritize standardized tests, but I also think standardized tests are largely too easy and not too hard. So in my opinion, if you are genuinely educated at math, and you don't have a learning issue that's keeping you from scoring well (slow processing, dyslexia, something like that), and you spend some time doing test prep, you can probably do well on a standardized test. 

But of course, this comes back to the issue of what, exactly, we can quantify. Subjective experiences are biased. Quantities may be measuring the wrong stuff. So you kind of have to pick and choose. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Lori D.]

"What do you wish you had read/seen/listened to before beginning homeschooling?"
You may find this thread ^^ of interest, as there are a number of responses posted links to educational philosophies and additional past WTM threads with discussions on various educational philosophies.

Here's a study with more on the value of imaginative play:

"The Impact of Pretend Play on Cognitive and Academic Development of Kindergarten Students"
The study begins with the statement that kindergarten teachers have moved toward more formal academics to meet requirements and focus on testing, turning kindergarten into "a structured environment with requirements to prepare children for standardized testing in kindergarten and the future," and have moved away from imaginative play, exploration and creativity which "develop higher mental functions." The study concludes that imaginative play causes cognitive development in skills such as joint planning, negotiation, problem solving, and goal seeking, as well as self-regulation skills. Additionally, child-initiated play resulted in higher levels of cognitive skills being developed when compared to teacher-directed work lessons. In addition, "play centers" contribute to academic achievement "in the areas of following directions, developing vocabulary and language, narrative language, sequencing, and creating stories" when the play centers were enriched with literacy materials.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Lori D.

[daijobu]

44 minutes ago, Noelle said:

But my oldest is a very compliant, academically gifted student, and when he was in public school, I noticed that all the little rewards/prizes/verbal praise for good behavior were becoming his main motivation for accomplishing things.

I am 100% in agreement with you; I would also find this highly annoying and I also had generally compliant kids.  The thing is, even if the study found extrinsic motivation to be effective, I still would not deploy it, or I would deploy it sparingly as described earlier, in situations where a student found an activity to be particularly distressing.  (This was pretty much never and I used other tactics than rewards for unpleasant activities, ones that can't be effectively used in a schoolroom.)

I see on this board, several parents reward their kids after AP exams with pizza or ice cream or some sort of celebration.  We don't because my kids also did not feel it justified much of a reward (except for their scores).   

Again, this gets back to my 90% effective educational intervention.  If it doesn't work for my kids, then it may as well be 0%.  

I agree with PPs that it's the story that counts.  Is this an approach that works for my family, both philosophically and effectively?  

[Not_a_Number]

19 minutes ago, daijobu said:

I am 100% in agreement with you; I would also find this highly annoying and I also had generally compliant kids. 

And I don't. I do need extrinsic motivations sometimes, which I hate but have to use because I really don't have any choice. Like, occasionally penalties are the things that work around here, and sometimes rewards get us over humps. They are tools in my toolbox. 

[Not_a_Number]

I mean, the whole of economics is built on the idea of extrinsic motivation, lol. We can't just argue it's always totally ineffective without throwing out a LOT of stuff. 

[Noelle]

On 3/14/2021 at 5:03 AM, caffeineandbooks said:

*musing*  Plenty of parents don't do "scholarly research" about how to raise their kids, but do take advice from parents they know and respect or read books by parenting gurus.  To me, homeschooling is closer to parenting than to bricks and mortar schooling - perhaps that's why there's an overlap in this particular regard?  As with parenting, many homeschoolers don't have the luxury of years to absorb research and come to an impartial conclusion: we're in the thick of it right now, with flesh and blood people whom we know intimately and care very deeply about and whose needs seem to change as fast as we can adjust to them.  Arguably, discussing and reading widely with other parents/homeschoolers could be seen as a form of real time informal qualitative research.

Myers-Briggs INTJs - the natural student type - are over-represented among homeschoolers, and it seems to me we're particularly over-represented on this very forum 🙂  Nevertheless, I think it is possible to be a great homeschooler without being someone who geeks out on research studies, just as it is possible to be a great parent without doing so.  The idea is rightly suggested by a couple of posters up-thread that research, by its very nature, generalises; but as homeschoolers (and parents) we do not generalise but rather specialise long term in our own children.

I understand what you’re saying, but I’m also a firm believer that there’s nothing new under the sun.

In my own family, my kids are all neurotypical with no learning disabilities. We don’t have any extenuating circumstances or major disrupters in our household. In fact, we are pretty boring. So I don’t see any reason to think that general educational studies would be so removed from us that I couldn’t glean anything from them.

I took some education and child development classes in college, and I found some of the general principles helpful in parenting.

I also see where my own education could have been better, and one of my hopes in homeschooling is to give my kids a better education than I had.

There is wisdom to be gained from experience, and opinions can be helpful in solving problems. But I don’t see any reason to think that homeschoolers can’t benefit from some data-driven information as well. And my main problem with the group I discussed in my original post was that they were presenting opinion as fact rather than as just advice.

If that means I’m geeking out, I’m ok with that. 😀 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Noelle

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Noelle said:

If that means I’m geeking out, I’m ok with that. 😀 Also, while I know there’s disagreement about how accurate Myers-Briggs is, I’ve always tested as INFP when I’ve taken it.

I'm a fan of geeking out, lol. It's not like you NEED it to be a homeschool parent, but used judiciously, I think it can be valuable. (But the key word is definitely "judiciously.") 

[LostintheCosmos]

I don't think anyone has mentioned Daniel Willingham, yet, but you might like his book, Why Students Don't Like School, in which he tries to make findings from cognitive science relevant and applicable for teachers. 

I also like reading Timothy Shanahan's blog on literacy research. Again, the target audience is teachers, but I've picked up some interesting things from him over the years. 

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, LostCove said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned Daniel Willingham, yet, but you might like his book, Why Students Don't Like School, in which he tries to make findings from cognitive science relevant and applicable for teachers. 

I also like reading Timothy Shanahan's blog on literacy research. Again, the target audience is teachers, but I've picked up some interesting things from him over the years. 

Oooh, thank you. That is a cool blog. 

I occasionally read Marilyn Burns' math blog, although I don't always agree with her. But she's definitely interesting and thoughtful. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Rosie_0801]

1 hour ago, Noelle said:

There is wisdom to be gained from experience, and opinions can be helpful in solving problems. But I don’t see any reason to think that homeschoolers can’t benefit from some data-driven information as well. And my main problem with the group I discussed in my original post was that they were presenting opinion as fact rather than as just advice.

The thing is, I have an education qualification. I spent the first half of it "learning" one thing, and the other half "learning" the complete opposite. Both of these agendas were someone's opinion and both were true and also nonsense. The only really interesting thing I read was about identity theory, and that wasn't even part of the curriculum. I wanted to write essays that would answer some education questions I had and I *couldn't* because there weren't any journal articles that had been published. I was told I wasn't smart enough to think of questions that hadn't already been answered, but I managed it more than once. It was very frustrating.

I believe in giving people what they need to grow. In the end, that's what sensible advice advocates. But there's a lot of studies out there that conclude that giving the system what it wants is ultimately the best thing for student outcomes. And, funnily enough, one of the things we studied in this education qualification was how teachers rarely, if ever, read education research.

My conclusion was that education research should be taken with a significant amount of salt, just like I take everybody else's opinions, (and that I'm going to stay away from the education faculty in the future because it is painful.)

[Not_a_Number]

29 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

My conclusion was that education research should be taken with a significant amount of salt, just like I take everybody else's opinions, (and that I'm going to stay away from the education faculty in the future because it is painful.)

I think good research is better than random opinions, but most research is not good 😉 . So I've simultaneously learned a bunch from math education research and think a lot of it is really wrongheaded. 

[daijobu]

2 hours ago, Noelle said:

I also see where my own education could have been better, and one of my hopes in homeschooling is to give my kids a better education than I had. An example is that I was taught to memorize math facts and equations without understanding the reasons behind them. I made an A in every math class I ever took, but I was just good at memorizing. I never had a conceptual understanding of it. So I’m interested in the research behind modern math education and how to teach conceptual math.

In that case, you might enjoy the studies published Liping Ma.