You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

Terms of Use ▼


Program Description

Overview The Gevirtz Homework Project (GHP) is an after school program in three public elementary schools in Santa Barbara, California. GHP's goal is to provide students with academic support and improve their academic achievement through assistance with homework and study skills.
Start Date October 1997
Scope local
Type after school
Location urban
Setting public school
Participants elementary school students (fourth through sixth grade)
Number of Sites/Grantees three (now in six sites total since the completion of the pilot project)
Number Served approximately 70 per year (at the three original sites)
Components Students entered GHP in fourth grade and were expected to continue their participation through the sixth grade. The program: (1) provided specific homework assistance through a credentialed teacher and aide on a regular basis (three or four times a week over a three-year period) in order to build a strong academic foundation and establish study skills and (2) addressed student homework needs without parental involvement, so as to decrease parental stress and assure that students had the help they needed. Sessions ran for approximately 45 minutes per day. The principal at each school selected a K–6 teacher to conduct homework sessions. Either the teacher, the aide, or both were bilingual (Spanish and English). Attendance in three to four sessions each week was required.
Funding Level $150,000 per year (program and evaluation)
Funding Sources Don and Marilyn Gevirtz Founders, anonymous contributors, Bank of America, Frank and Katherine Baxter, K & F Baxter Family Foundation, Richard C. Blum Trust, Children & Families Commission of Santa Barbara, the Crawford Idema Foundation, Edison International Foundation, the Hutton Foundation, the Ann Jackson Family Foundation, Jewish Community Foundation, Kinko's Inc., Marquez Family Foundation, the New York Times Foundation, Nickoll Family Foundation, Nuevo Energy Company, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Santa Barbara Foundation, SJL Foundation, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., State Farm Companies Foundation, Venoco, Inc., Washington Mutual Bank Foundation, Wells Fargo Foundation, Whittier/Godric Family Foundations


Evaluation

Overview The evaluation of GHP focused on the program's outcomes for participating youth in order to expand understanding of the impact of after school homework assistance on elementary school children with a broad range of abilities.
Evaluators Merith Cosden, Gale Morrison, Ann Leslie Albanese, and Sandra Macias, from the Gevirtz Research Center at the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara
Evaluations Profiled Evaluation of the Gevirtz Homework Project: Final Report
Evaluations Planned none
Report Availability Cosden, M., Morrison, G., Albanese, A. L., & Macias, S. (2001). Evaluation of the Gevirtz Homework Project: Final report. Santa Barbara, CA: Gevirtz Research Center.

Cosden, M., Morrison, G., Albanese, A. L., & Macias, S. (2001). When homework is no home work: After school programs for homework assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 36, 211–221.

Cosden, M., Morrison, G., Gutierrez, L., & Brown, M. (in press). The effects of school-based homework programs and other after-school activities on school engagement and academic achievement. Theory Into Practice.

Morrison, G. M., Cosden, M. A., O'Farrell, S. L., & Campos, E. (2003). Changes in Latino students' perceptions of school belonging over time: Impact of language proficiency, self-perceptions and teacher evaluations. The California School Psychologist, 8, 87-98.


Contacts

Evaluation Merith Cosden
Gevirtz Research Center
Gevirtz Graduate School of Education
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Tel: 805-893-2370
Fax: 805-893-3375
Email: cosden@education.ucsb.edu
Program Merith Cosden
Gevirtz Research Center
Gevirtz Graduate School of Education
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Tel: 805-893-2370
Fax: 805-893-3375
Email: cosden@education.ucsb.edu
Profile Updated January 6, 2003

Evaluation: Evaluation of the Gevirtz Homework Project: Final Report



Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To test the following hypotheses: (1) students who participate in GHP will do more homework, demonstrate higher academic performance and study skills, and have more positive behavior/social outcomes than students who do not participate; (2) limited-English-proficiency students who participate in GHP will show significant gains in academic and behavior/social outcomes, compared to limited-English-proficiency students who do not participate in GHP; and (3) attendance in GHP and homework completion will be associated with the development of study skills, which in turn will be associated with academic outcomes.
Evaluation Design Experimental: All fourth grade parents at the three participating schools were contacted and offered the opportunity for their children to participate in the study. Parents of 146 students across the three schools gave consent. Students were randomly assigned to a participant or control group, stratified on the following criteria: gender, level of academic functioning (high, medium, or low), and English fluency (English Proficient [EP] or English Language Learners [ELL]). Teachers rated each student's academic functioning and English fluency during the first year of the program.

Of the 146 students, 74 were assigned to the participant group and 72 to the control group. By the end of the third year of GHP, 89 of these students remained (36 participants, 53 controls), and it was these 89 that were included in the analysis. Of the 57 students that left the sample, 33 had moved to other schools (16 from the treatment group and 17 from the control group), while 24 left GHP because they no longer wanted to participate. Statistical analyses found that across schools, and within each school, participant and control groups were equally representative with regard to gender, ethnicity, English proficiency, and level of academic functioning at the beginning of the study. Interview data revealed that about one-third of the control group participated in some other activity that included adult help with homework and a place to work, such as after school recreation programs (e.g., Boys & Girls Clubs).
Data Collection Methods Secondary Source/Data Review: GHP teachers recorded weekly estimates of students' homework completion as well as daily homework session attendance. Report cards were collected from the students' cumulative record files at their school, and measured effort and achievement grades in three areas: (1) reading, math, and language (five-point, A–F scale); (2) six facets of social skills (five-point scale), with scales for respects authority, gets along with others, uses self-control, accepts responsibility, is courteous, and follows class and school rules; and (3) study skills (averaged across eight study skills categories following a five-point scale), including completes and returns homework, works independently, works cooperatively, follows directions, contributes to class discussions, uses time productively, listens attentively, and produces neat and careful work. In addition, classroom teachers provided monthly estimates of both participant and control group's homework completion.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Student surveys were administered in the fall and spring of each project year. Surveys asked about students' school bonding, self-concept, self-efficacy, future aspirations, social support, parent involvement, parent supervision, and parent-child communication. Parent surveys asked about parent involvement, supervision, and communication.

Tests/Assessments: SAT-9 achievement test scores were obtained from the school district database.

Embedded in the student surveys were a number of assessments, including: (1) Psychological Sense of School Membership (Goodenow, 1993), measuring students' school bonding, including perceived ease, personal acceptance, inclusion, respect, and encouragement from others in the school; (2) Self-Description Questionnaire (Marsh & Smith, 1987), measuring students' peer relations (i.e., how easily they make friends and their popularity) and general school attitudes (i.e., their ratings of their ability and interest in “all school subjects”); (3) Individual Protective Factors Index (Springer & Phillips, 1995), measuring students' self-efficacy; (4) the Classroom Readiness Behavior scale (Berndt & Miller, 1995), measuring students' involvement in class and readiness for school; (5) a Social Support Scale (designed for this evaluation), measuring students' level of social support (e.g., When you want to learn something new, how often does somebody teach it to you?); and (6) the Future Aspirations scale (East, 1996), measuring attitudes and commitment toward finishing school and other aspects of the future. Student surveys also included three scales measuring parent-child involvement: Perception of Parent Involvement, Perception of Parental Supervision, and Perception of Parent-Child Communication. Each scale included four items from the National Educational Longitudinal Study Survey.

Teachers and parents completed behavior ratings on students using measures from the Teacher-Child Rating Scale (Hightower, et al., 1986), measuring teachers' ratings of students' acting out and learning properties (e.g., those who are underachieving, are poorly motivated to achieve, have poor concentration or limited attention) and the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (Epstein & McKelvey, 1996), measuring students' interpersonal strengths; school functioning (e.g., completion of school tasks on time); and intrapersonal strengths (e.g., enthusiasm about life, self-confidence).

References
Berndt, T. J., & Miller, K. E. (1990). Expectancies, values, and achievement in junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 319–326.

East, P. L. (1996). The younger sisters of childbearing adolescents: Their attitudes, expectations, and behaviors. Child Development, 67(2), 267–282.

Epstein, M., & McKelvey, J. (1996). Development of a scale to assess the emotional and behavioral strengths of children and youth. In C. R. Ellis & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders: Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Virginia Beach Conference. Richmond, VA: Commonwealth Institute for Child and Family Studies, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79–90.

Hightower, A., Work, W., Cowen, E., Lotyczewski, B., Spinell, A., Guare, J., et al. (1986). The teacher-child rating scale: A brief objective measure of elementary children's school problem behaviors and competencies. School Psychology Review, 15, 393–409.

Marsh, H. W., & Smith, I. D. (1987). Cross-national study of the structure and level of multidimensional self-concepts: An application of confirmatory factor analysis. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39(1), 67–77.

Springer, J., & Phillips, J. (1995). Individual Protective Factors Index (IFPI): A measure of adolescent resiliency. Sacramento, CA: EMT Associates.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected between 1997 and 2000.


Findings:
Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic No significant differences were found between the participant and control groups for academic performance, monthly homework completion, study skills, or perception of self as a student.

There was a significant interaction between participant/control group status and ELL/EP status for homeroom teacher ratings of mean percentage of homework completion (p<.05). ELL participant students completed more homework than ELL control students (86.9% vs. 80%), while EP participant students completed less homework than EP control students (78.9% vs. 88.2%).

There was a significant interaction between participant/control group status and ELL/EP status for report card ratings of mean effort in reading (p<.01) and math (p<.05). ELL participant students demonstrated more effort than ELL control students. This pattern was also true for report card ratings of study skills (p<.05).

There was a significant interaction between participant/control group status and ELL/EP status for teacher ratings of mean school functioning (p<.05). ELL participant students demonstrated better school functioning than ELL control students, while EP control students demonstrated better school functioning than EP participant students.

Sixth grade SAT-9 scores were significantly higher for participants in the high-program-attendance group (above the median split in terms of percentage of days attended) than for those in the low-program-attendance group (below the median split) in language (p<.05), math (p<.05), and reading (p<.05).

GHP participants' scores on measurements of perception of self as a student were significantly higher for students in the high-program-attendance group than for those in the low-program-attendance group in the domains of self-efficacy (p<.01) and future aspirations (p<.05).

Students' frequency of program attendance was not significantly related to their rates of monthly homework completion.

In a path analysis, evidence supported the model that GHP attendance in year 1 influenced study skills in year 3, which influenced homework completion in year 3, which influenced high academic achievement in reading and math in year 3. This pattern did not hold for language achievement and did not hold when attendance was measured across all three years (as opposed to solely in the first year).
Family No significant differences were found between the participant and control group for parent-child involvement measures.

There was a significant interaction between participant/control group status and ELL/EP status for parent report of providing parental supervision (p<.01). ELL participant parents reported more parental supervision than ELL control parents, while EP control parents reported more parental supervision than EP participant students.

No differences were found by frequency of GHP attendance for parent-child involvement.
Youth Development No significant differences were found between the participant and control group for social skills or social support.

There was a significant interaction between participant/control group status and ELL/EP status for report card ratings of social skills (p<.05) and teacher ratings of interpersonal skills (p<.05) and acting-out behavior (p<.01). ELL participant students demonstrated more positive scores on these ratings than ELL control students, while EP control students demonstrated more positive scores than EP participant students.

No differences were found by frequency of program attendance for social skills or support.

 

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project