A REVIEW OF THE HOMEWORK LITERATURE

A REVIEW OF THE HOMEWORK LITERATURE

Author: - Malcolm John Ferris M.Ed.

Historical Background to Homework

Homework has been a contentious area of discourse for over a

century moving in and out of favour globally within different

decades (Gill & Schlossman 2004; Hallam 2004a). In more recent

times the topic of homework continues to arouse emotions

(Cooper 2001; Kohn 2006; Bennett and Kalish 2006). Despite

years of discussion into the pros and cons of homework a

definitive consensus as to how it improves learning appears to

be unsubstantiated. In a positive light homework has been

deemed valuable for improving children’s achievement and

attitudes towards independent learning. Alternatively,

homework has been cited as an activity that can affect

children’s personal health and overall wellbeing which may

induce alienation towards study (Gill & Schlossman 2004).

Objections towards homework can be traced to the early part of

the twentieth century. For example, within the USA parents

lobbied educational institutions against homework due to

emerging research findings that found no correlation between

homework and academic achievement (Ibid). Moreover, rather

than increase achievement, homework was viewed by some as an

activity that could have the opposite effect due to its

alleged disruption to personal health, home exercise, play

and family bonding (Ibid). Similar concerns emerged within the

United Kingdom, for example in 1929 an article was released in

1

the Times Educational Supplement which reported a need for

homework to offer significant educational value against the

interruptions it placed on family life (Hallam 2004b).

Homework and Academic Achievement

Bennett and Kalish (2006) and Kohn (2006) collectively

criticise homework claiming there is a lack of evidence

linking homework to increased academic achievement. Their

publications portray children as the recipients or erratic and

insipid homework that fails to embrace their individual needs

and abilities. Both inform of the difficulties that parents

can encounter when monitoring and supporting their children’s

homework, such as the family tensions that can arise from

parents having to coerce their children to complete homework,

parents lack of knowledge to assist and not always knowing

what the homework is supposed to achieve. What can be deduced

from these authors’ theoretical perspective is that homework

appears to be paradoxical in its nature; if the purpose of

homework cannot be definitively established why bother to

issue or engage with it? However, Kohn's stance on homework

has been considered provocative by some. For example,

Professor Daniel Willingham (2009: paragraph 6) stated:-

Kohn specializes (sic) in attacking conventional wisdom in

education.  He takes a common practice that people think is

helpful and then shows it’s not helpful, and in fact is

destructive. Most people think that homework helps kids

learn, praise shows appreciation and makes them more likely

2

to do desirable things, and self-discipline helps them

achieve their goals.

However, from Willingham’s statement one might infer that

homework is deemed beneficial merely by assumption and

indoctrinated into people’s beliefs. For example, Kralovec

(2007) highlighted how difficult it is to criticise or curtail

homework due to its historical legacy within education. Kohn

has decided to break with convention and tackle the

educational establishment to question homework’s reason for

being. If Kohn's arguments are valid, it is reasonable to

suggest that if teachers, children and parents encounter

difficulty in the homework process there should be some form

of identifiable benefit for their efforts, e.g. an improvement

in a child’s grade, say.

However, identifying the benefits of homework is not straight

forward. The dynamics of many variables makes the research

into homework complex as the focus for scientific

experimentation is not easy to define (Trautwein & Kӧller

2003). As such, finding a positive correlation between the

sole activity of homework and achievement or in fact any

alleged benefit is difficult. For example if a child improves

by a grade in a curriculum subject, did this arise from their

face-to-face work in class, their own informal pursuits

outside of school, or actually from the homework activity?

This problem might be explained by the theoretical perspective

of Desforges & Abouchaar (2003:12) who stated: -

3

Pupil’s achievement and adjustment are influenced by many

people, processes and institutions […] attempts to ascertain

the impact of any singular force in shaping achievement must

proceed with some conception of how the many forces and

actors might interact with each other.

Research appears to validate this claim, for example an

international meta-analysis study investigating homework

identified some correlation between homework and achievement

but based upon many diverse variables that can impact within

the equation, such as topic, age, ability, socio-cultural

background, environment and the parent/peer support base

(Queensland Dept of Education of Arts 2004).

In the research conducted by Cooper et al (1998) the quantity

and completion levels of homework were examined to see whether

they affected primary and secondary school children’s grades

and test scores. For primary school children homework was

found to have an adverse effect on their grades. In contrast,

for secondary school children their grades improved in

relation to the amount of homework they completed; however the

value of correlation was very small. In response to his

critics, Cooper (2008) suggested that the most efficient way

to examine the differences in achievement is to examine those

who are, or who are not assigned homework. However both Kohn

(2006), Trautwein and Kӧller (2003) respectively questioned

his findings claiming Cooper’s tests were designed to match

4

the recently assigned homework, pupil samples were small and

the statistical data focussed on the whole class results

rather than the individual pupil.

Homework and Non-Academic Achievement

Carrying out homework might allow the development of non-

academic achievement, such as fostering time management and

responsibility skills (Kralovec 2007). As children mature they

may learn to better manage their homework (Warton 1997) but in

general the literature in this area is sparse. In contrast,

Kohn (2006) hypothesised that through abolishing homework a

child might develop non-academic artistic, social and physical

skills by purely performing social pastimes; this is

fundamentally the same argument offered within the early part

of the 20th century.

Pupil Engagement with Homework

When homework is compulsory a certain degree of pupil

engagement can be leveraged via coercion under the threat of

school sanctions, such as detentions. However, schools who

decide to follow a non-compulsory homework policy can

encounter criticism by parents as research has found that

parents can gauge the credibility of the school based upon the

quality of its homework practice (MacBeath and Turner 1990).

Pupils’ attitudes to homework can be affected by many

variables such as socio cultural background, affluence,

positivity towards school environment, curriculum subject,

5

motivation and peer support (Leung 1993). However, in MacBeath

& Turner’s (1990) study they pragmatically examined children's

attitudes towards homework and identified some key points for

stimulating homework engagement and completion rates. These

are summarised as thus (ibid):-

*Homework should be relevant to class work, manageable

against time and consistently issued.

*Teachers should provide guidance and resources to aid

homework completion.

*Homework should be varied to accommodate individual learning

styles and ability.

*Homework should allow for individual creativity, ownership

and self-expression.

*Teachers should offer feedback or reward for homework

completion.

However, there is some criterion here that teachers might find

impracticable to achieve; namely the elements of

personalisation, such as differentiating activities to meet

learning styles. For teachers to move away from the ‘one-size-

fits-all’ approach they will need more time for planning and

designing multiple homework activities to meet different

learning needs and individual abilities. As Leadbetter (2005)

elaborated, traditional teaching places the transmission of

skills and knowledge purely in the hands of the teacher to

deliver to the child; by introducing personalised elements to

6

homework the teaching adjustments needed may appear

logistically and culturally challenging.

Looking at the example of feedback, if class sizes are large

the detailed marking of submitted homework can take a

considerable period of the teacher’s time (Kohn 2006; Hallam

2004b). If homework is differentiated this might result in

children submitting non-generic work which is not so easy to

mark against discrete learning objectives. For instance, how

might a child’s written essay be marked in comparison to a

child who submits a video presentation, say? As teacher

feedback has been deemed essential for stimulating homework

motivation (MacBeath & Turner 1990; Hallam 2004b; Doorn et al

2010) the complexity of personalising homework might delay

teacher feedback further, as such the trade-offs need to be

considered.

Parental Engagement with Homework

The literature highlights the importance of parental

engagement with their child’s education (Battle-Bailey et al

2004; Epstein 2001; Cooper et al 2001). In the United Kingdom

this importance has been recognised through government

policies which have manifested into the concept of home-school

learning contracts (DfEE 1998). These contracts aim to empower

7

children and their parents to become more active and

responsible participants within their associated school’s

educational processes. Through their assistance in homework,

parents might become better informed and equipped to support

their child’s learning (Battle-Bailey et al 2004). This might

be beneficial as a survey by Bryon (2009) reported that 82% of

parents wanted to be better informed of their child’s

schooling.

A key role within parental involvement is supporting learning

at home (Epstein 2001), in other words supporting homework.

However, there are questions raised as to how an untrained

parent can perform the role and bidding of the teacher due to

their lack of formal training (Trahan & Lawler-Prince 1999).

Parents can also become disillusioned with assisting in home-

school partnerships if their child finds school difficult

(Hallam 2004b). Research has found that a child’s

difficulties encountered in school can be transferred into the

home via homework, consequently leaving resentful parents to

pick up the pieces (Dudley-Marling 2003). Parent involvement

can also be counterproductive to learning if children act

ignorant and get their parents to do the work (Hallam 2004b)

thereby work submitted is not representative of the child’s

learning ability but in fact their parents.

Collaborative Pupil & Parent Engagement with Homework: Finding

the Time

8

The issue of time to complete homework is cited as a

significant challenge for both children and their parents

(Dudley-Marling 2003; Ellsasser 2007; Galloway & Pope 2007;

Kohn 2006). Teachers can fail to appreciate how much time a

child has available to engage with homework against their home

life (Ellsasser 2007). As such, children can encounter stress

if homework competes with their time to otherwise engage with

their social and family life activities (Galloway & Pope

2007). However, Hallam (2004a) suggested that some children

are more resilient and can simply adopt different patterns in

their homework engagement to accommodate leisure time, for

example working on homework later into the evening.

There may be difficulties for parents to find the time to

assist with homework as they might work, deal with other

siblings, perform household chores and seek their own leisure

pursuits (Hoover-Dempsey 1995, DfCSF 2007). Teachers might

consider consulting parents to understand how their families

are constituted thereby establishing a better understanding of

their time available to assist. For instance, are they a

single parent, do they work in the evenings et cetera (Dudley-

Marling 2003).

Although UK government directives have indicated recommended

amounts of time for carrying out homework based upon the

pupils’ age (DfEE 1998), the time for completing homework can

depend on the child’s ability, attitudes and their support

base; some children might need less or more time to complete

9

it (Hallam 2004b). In Cooper’s (2001) research findings he

claimed that secondary children’s achievement levels peaked at

two hours of homework per night. However, in the context of

mathematics, De Jong et al (2000) found no evidence of

increased achievement in secondary children based upon the

frequency or time they spent on homework.

Collaborative Pupil and Parent Engagement: Motivational

Orientation

Research has found that children’s motivations to complete

homework can be negatively affected when parents are

disinterested (Battle-Bailey et al 2004). Hoover-Dempsey et al

(2001) discovered a correlation between parents’ quality of

assistance and increases in their child’s homework engagement.

Knollman & Wild (2007) claimed that a child’s level of

reliance on their parent’s support depends upon the child’s

dominant motivational orientation. Intrinsically motivated

children require homework that allows for self-concept and

autonomy whereby controlled and directed parent support can

lead to negative emotions. In contrast, those with a

predominant extrinsic motivational trait can experience

positive emotions from parent directed instruction. As such,

parents need to be aware of when to reduce their support based

upon the changing dynamics of the child’s motivational

orientation (Ibid).

Collaborative Pupil and Parent Engagement: Interactive

Homework

10

To foster interactivity between pupils and parents, Battle-

Bailey et al (2004) suggested that homework should be designed

in an enticing way that might increase the likelihood or

parental interaction, such as homework designed around a

common interest. Through the concept of ‘interactive homework’

activities might be presented to allow the child to model

their own knowledge, yet stimulate meaningful interest for

their parent’s support too. Homework might be pedagogically

designed around a mutual theme of interest, such as an outdoor

hobby, whilst remaining relevant to the academic ability of

both parties (Ibid).

Homework and Technology

Efficient synchronous communication is said to be crucial for

stimulating parents’ interest and engagement in their child’s

learning (Hollingworth et al 2009). Traditionally this type of

school communication has been achieved through providing

parent evenings and learning workshops on school premises.

However, research has found that learning between school and

home can be disconnected (Ibid). As homework is a form of

distance learning, it is proposed that technology can be

beneficial for emulating the rich type of communication that

might otherwise occur on a face-to-face basis between

children, parents and teachers; such as providing homework

help, guidance and feedback through e-mail or online forums

(Ibid). As such, technology might address the communication

gap between school and home learning providing schools and

teachers actively monitor and respond to parental

11

communications, for example checking and replying to e-mail

queries and collaborating with online forums.

In the studies of Lewin and Luckin (2010) they examined a

technology led homework project that was purported to increase

parental engagement. However, teachers, pupils and parents

participated in the homework project’s design. Consequently

all stakeholders had the opportunity to reshape the learning

content and use of technology so both became purposeful for

their personal circumstances and learning needs. Parents could

better understand the purpose of homework and technology by

actively being involved and teachers could witness the

difficulties that pupils and parents encountered during the

homework processes. However, Lewin and Luckin (ibid) noted how

parent needs can be complex, as such they emphasised the need

to avoid technological determinism by addressing parent

learning needs in stages without causing a technological

overload (Ibid).

Through the lens of social cultural theory this might be

prudent as Vygotsky (1978) proposed that the development of

higher psychological functions stems from the internalisation

of knowledge through the association of cognitive ‘tools’

against ‘signs’ within the culture of an individual. For

instance, a smart phone might symbolise the affordance to have

a conversation, the phone is a ‘cognitive tool’ that

represents ‘the signs’ of a communication device. However, to

12

the technically savvy teenager the phone might represent the

‘sign’ of a social networking device.

What might be derived from this theoretical perspective is

that one cannot assume technology will be useful to all

people. In a research project of how technology is used in the

home, Sutherland et al (ibid) found that parent’s perceptions

of a computer’s affordance varied, from being viewed as a

games system, a babysitting tool to entertain their child or

used for business or study (Ibid). What might be learned

through this rudimentary example is that families’ use and

acceptance of technology is not necessarily uniform.

Sutherland et al (2000) informed of the need to establish how

human action can be constrained or enhanced by a cognitive

tool in correlation to the human perception of the tool’s

affordance.

Parents may also have negative attitudes towards technology;

these attitudes need to be addressed sensitively so they do

not act as barriers to engagement. In the research by

Hollingworth et al (2009) they found that parents can be

sceptical about technology when it is not formally related to

traditional learning practices (Ibid), such as delivering a

homework activity through a social networking website like

Facebook rather than asking for the submission of an essay.

Parents can also mistrust technology due to fears about online

safety and the impact on health. Parents with low levels of

digital literacy may feel inadequate to assist their children

13

in technology based learning (Ibid). As such, it appears

prudent to survey children and parents about their attitudes

towards technology, examine their levels of digital literacy

and discover what device or learning platform might embrace

their personal circumstances.

Homework, Technology and Pedagogy

Consideration should be made to an appropriate pedagogical

design that can suitably harness technology to address

homework learning objectives. Within the research into web-

based homework Bonham et al (2001:296) proposed that “[…]

technology itself does not improve or harm student learning,

but rather the underlying pedagogy is the critical issue”.

This view is reinforced by Nicholls (2006:3) who spoke of the

problem of ‘technocentrism’ and its effect on e-learning, he

stated:-

Technocentrism is a term popularised by Papert (1990) to

describe the tendency of some computer enthusiasts to assume

that technology is itself educational, in that better

technology will bring better education. But sound pedagogy

coupled with unreliable or complex technology results in

frustration, and unsound pedagogy that uses such technology

is educationally disastrous […].

Within the literature a specific pedagogical design for either

traditional or online homework design could not be

established. However, the learning theories of behaviourism

14

and constructivism are respectively identified as being useful

for homework practice. For ascertaining the levels of a

child’s understanding the behaviourist principles of

standardised tests can be useful to give a short term

indication of the homework’s effectiveness in fulfilling

learning objectives (Cooper 1994). However, one might argue

that if tests are performed online they sit outside of a

controlled classroom environment. Cheating might occur, such

as the parent answering questions which can result in an

inaccurate measure of the child’s progress (Ibid).

Social constructivism has been deemed desirable for increasing

homework completion as it can scaffold a child towards

learning autonomy (DeVries & Kohlberg 1987). Research has

found a positive correlation between children’s levels of

learning autonomy and homework completion (Bronstein &

Ginsburg 1993). The reason why social constructivism might

foster learning autonomy can be deduced by the studies of

Vygotsky (1978). Vygotsky (ibid) proposed that a child’s

higher developmental learning functions are influenced by

their cultural background and social interactions with other

people within their community, such as parents, peers and

teachers. Vygotsky (ibid: 57) put forward the proposition

that:-

Every function in the child's cultural development appears

twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the

individual level; first, between people (inter-psychological)

15

and then inside the child (intra-psychological). This applies

equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the

formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as

actual relationships between individuals.

As such, if homework design and delivery can foster the

transition from the inter-psychological and intra-

psychological phase of the child’s cultural development this

appears desirable to move the child towards what Vygotsky

(1978) defined as the ‘zone of proximal development’. The ZPD

basically means the differences between the difficulty level a

child can do on their own and what they can achieve without

help (Mayer 2008). Ultimately if children can reach their ZPD

they may become more able to derive their own learning

conclusions and more able to participate alongside their

fellow students and teachers (Ibid) rather than relying on

their parent’s help.

If homework is delivered online there are two learning models

that might foster the transition from the child’s inter-

psychological to the intra-psychological phase of cultural

development. These are Laurillard’s Conversational Framework

(Laurillard 1993) and Salmon’s E-moderating framework (Salmon

2000). The former is fundamentally a teacher centred

methodology as the teacher to pupil communication flow

basically follows the principles of “I do, you do, I correct,

and you do” (Ferris 2011). This might be an effective model

for scaffolding a child’s knowledge and learning autonomy due

16

to the cyclic nature of dialogue between teacher and pupil;

the teacher consequently adapts the learning activity based

upon the juncture of the pupil’s understanding. As the child

gains mastery in the learning activity, the teacher retracts

assistance.

Salmon’s E-moderating framework may require less intervention

by the teacher as learning is derived through active learners

communicating and providing learning support to each other, as

such it is a student centred methodology. The teacher

facilitates the learning process, mentors and moderates

discussion to steer it towards the desired learning outcomes.

However the success of Salmon’s framework might be reliant on

like-minded learners who have a sufficient degree of learning

autonomy and are prepared to collaborate with each other

online (Lisewski & Joyce 2003). Laurillard’s Conversational

Framework might be an ideal starting point for pupils who have

rudimentary levels of knowledge, lower levels of learning

autonomy and initially rely on guided instruction. It might be

the case that Salmon’s framework is used to offer homework

extension activities for those who have higher ability and

greater learning autonomy, thus both frameworks are used in a

two tier approach for delivering online homework. As both

learning frameworks are conversational models, if harnessed to

technology they might be ideal for bridging the communication

gap between school and home learning (Hollingworth 2009).

17

Using Technology to Manage, Measure and Promote Homework

Engagement

Traditional homework has been reliant on the child using paper

based homework lists, planners and diaries to manage their

workload. The paper-based approach has been deemed effective

for increasing homework completion providing it is closely

monitored by teachers and parents (Stormont-Spurgin 1997). A

typical example of paper-based monitoring is where the child

completes their homework, the parent signs the child’s

homework diary to confirm completion and the teacher checks

for this confirmation (Ibid). In effect, this is a coercive

method that uses positive enforcement by placing both child

and parent under scrutiny.

Through the paper-based approach, homework has to be collected

in class, checked off in a register and then manually marked.

Data about homework completion and progress at best might then

be placed into a spreadsheet. In a research project that

examined six UK schools in 2009, five were still using paper-

based recording of student data, including homework (AERS

2009). Paper-based recording has a weakness in that data

cannot easily be shared for analysis (Ibid). However, if

homework is provided via a learning management system there is

greater potential for deriving rich data about homework

engagement, completion and academic progress (Romero et al

2007)

Learning management systems such as Moodle generate a

considerable amount of rich data in the form of electronic

18

access logs. Through the analysis of these access logs much

can be learned about the child’s learning behaviour such as

their knowledge needs, which people they interact with,

preferred times of engagement, results of assignments/tests,

frequency of access and time spent on task (Ibid).

By evaluating these access logs teachers might be better

informed to gauge the effectiveness of their teaching methods

with a specific learning audience and react accordingly by

adapting the homework’s content and structure (Ibid).

Research has also found that online homework can significantly

improve learning engagement over the pen and paper approach

when children know their homework engagement and progress is

being electronically recorded (Singh et al 2011, Mendicino et

al 2009). In essence this is similar to the paper based

monitoring approach accept both parents and teachers can

scrutinise a child's homework progress online at anytime and

anywhere. If homework is provided via a learning management

system, homework notifications and reminders can automatically

be e-mailed to the participants and this might be an efficient

way to promote homework completion and increase engagement.

For instance, Lewis (2003) discovered that she could improve

the completion rates and quality of returned homework by using

voice messaging to alert pupils and parents to online homework

assignments and giving feedback. Lewis (ibid) reported that

92% of parents favoured homework reminders and feedback

through the use of technology. Kashima et al (2011) also found

19

positive gains by alerting learners to homework by using SMS

text messaging.

Using Technology for Online Learning – Financial

Sustainability

Online learning may offer various performance, value or

societal benefits (Cukier 1997) that are relevant to different

educational sectors, such as making learning more accessible

and flexible to new and existing students, coping with

saturated campuses and sharing pedagogic practice to name a

few (Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates 1999). However, the provision

of online learning can be very costly and time consuming (Lei

& Gupta 2010); particularly at the initial development stages

(Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates 1999, Siminson 2006).

Whereas teachers were primarily sole agents in their design of

learning content and resources for their face-to-face practice

(Siminson 2006), online learning might require more human

resource to support it, such as web-designers, technicians and

trainers et al. As online learning can blur the boundaries of

time, distance and space (Kashima et al 2001, Lei & Gupta

2010, Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates 1999) teachers might need to

support students outside of their normal working hours (Ibid),

and consequently remuneration might need consideration. When

delivery costs of labour are combined with the need for

20

capital and recurrent expenditure in software, hardware and

internet infrastructure there is a need to understand whether

the benefits of online learning are financially viable. As

Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates would put it (1999:1) “Is the

investment justified?”

However, a cost-benefit analysis might be subjective depending

on the type of educational sector being examined. For example,

an online HE course might benefit a university by increasing

student numbers, say, with the cost recovered from student

fees (Ibid). However, a state school pursuing a benefit from

online learning, such as increasing homework engagement would

unlikely receive such remuneration.

Bartolic-Zlomislic & Bates (1999:15) explained that online

learning can be judged successful if it meets the “values and

goals of the organisation." A cost-benefit analysis can also

be dependent on the differing perspectives of the educational

actors, all of whom might value the benefits of online

learning in different ways (Cukier 1997). Judging the

quality/benefit of a learning experience is fundamentally in

the 'eye of the beholder' and likely to differ amongst diverse

social-cultural groups (Twigg 2001). For example, through Lei

& Gupta’s research (2010) they demonstrated how the cost-

benefits of online learning varied according to the

institutions, faculty’s and student’s perspective; therefore,

the 'scale' of benefits might also need consideration.

21

Galloway (2005:21) states: - "The effectiveness of any

training endeavour can be measured using any outcome that the

organization deems relevant", however, in tune with Lei &

Gupta's (2010) findings, Galloway (2005) informs how such

narrow criteria can introduce bias. Therefore, one might carry

out an analysis using a specific cost-benefit schema. For

example, Kirkpatrick's levels of learning and evaluation

(1998) examines learner satisfaction, measures of learning

occurred, behavioural change and evidence of financial savings

versus quality improvements; hence it might accommodate the

different 'value and goal' perspectives of the organisation

and its actors. In similarity, the Bates ACTIONS model (1995

cited in Bartolic-Zlomislic & Brett 1999) can also be used to

examine the strengths and weaknesses of using technology in

education whilst incorporating the factor of cost.

Hartnett (2002 cited in Siminson 2006) highlighted several

approaches for estimating the cost of online learning

provision, such as the 'best estimate', seat time', 'time

feel' and 'comparative project' methods. Taking one example,

the comparative project method examines the fixed and variable

costs of how something was previously or currently done and

compares it with the cost of how it might be alternatively

done (Cukier 1997).

Ultimately, the positive outcome of a cost-benefit analysis

hinges on the 'goals and values' of the organisation, its

ethos. If the benefits of online learning are considered

22

against cost, then one needs to ask what is an acceptable

price to pay for one pupil's/student's learning, a whole

class, year group, department or the school/college/university

in its entirety? In which case, the cost-benefits of online

learning appear to be extremely subjective and dependent on

the economics of scale.

Literature Review Conclusion

The literature highlights that homework is a paradoxical topic

where its pros and cons have been discussed and scientifically

examined for nearly a century. However, after all this time it

appears society is none the wiser as to its true value.

Although some benefits to homework have been proposed by the

likes of Harris Cooper, others would argue that these benefits

cannot be treated as a generic hypothesis applicable to the

whole practice of homework (Trautwein & Kӧller 2003); in other

words homework research findings might be context specific and

not necessarily transferable into other contexts.

Nevertheless, the literature offered a comprehensive insight

into the barriers that may affect pupil and parent homework

engagement.

In general the literature informs of the constant call to

understand individual pupil and parent needs, and how a

pupil’s action or inaction within homework can affect their

parent’s action and vice versa. Likewise, a teacher’s

inaction, such as not providing feedback or adequate support

might affect both the pupil’s and parent’s action. Technology

might be useful to alleviate some difficulties that pupils and

23

parents face within homework, although the acceptance of it

might be dependent on individual attitudes as to its

affordances. Therefore, one may argue that the only way to

increase homework engagement and completion is for teachers to

consult all pupils and parents about their attitudes towards

homework; in other words homework has to become more

personalised. It is through consultation that teachers may

establish a better way to accommodate and support pupil and

parent needs using online technology as the ‘glue’ to maintain

the homework processes.

As to the benefits of homework, it might be the case that

these can be discovered via a more pragmatic approach through

smaller contexts of exploration. However, as the provision of

online learning can be labour intensive it can be costly.

Consequently, there is a need to understand whether the scale

of any such benefits can warrant the investment and be

financially sustainable.

Bibliography

AERS (2008) How do schools in Scotland measure their own

progress? Applied Education Research Scheme, AERS Feedback to

Schools, no. 1, June 2008, University of Edinburgh.

Barker, I (2012) Sacré bleu! So I'll have no homework at all?,

Times Educational Supplement Magazine, 26th October 2012.

Available from

24

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6297638, [accessed

December 12th 2012].

Bates, A (2011) Models for selecting and using technology: 1.

The challenge, Online Learning and Distance Learning Education

Resources Website, June 13, 2011. Available from

http://www.tonybates.ca/2011/06/13/models-for-selecting-and-

using-technology-1-the-challenge/ [accessed February 25th

2013].

Battle-Bailey, L & Silvern, S & Brabham, E & Ross, M (2004)

The Effects of Interactive Reading Homework and Parent

Involvement on Children’s Inference Responses, Early Childhood

Education Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, December 2004.

Bartolic-Zlomislic, S & Bates, A (1999) Investing in On-line

Learning: Potential Benefits and Limitations. Canadian Journal

of Communication, North America, 24, Mar. 1999. Available from

http://www.cjconline.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1111/10

17 [accessed January 29th 2013].

Bartolic-Zlomislic, S & Brett, C. (1999). Assessing the costs

and benefits of telelearning: A case study from the Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education/ University of Toronto.

Available from

http://det.cstudies.ubc.ca/detsite/researchproj.htm [accessed

February 23rd 2013].

25

Bates, A (1995) Technology, E-Learning and Distance Education,

London/New York : Routledge

Bennett, S & Kalish, N (2006) The Case Against Homework: How

Homework is Hurting Kids and What Parents can do About It,

Three Rivers Press, New York

Bonham, S & Beichner, R & Deardorff, D (2001) Online Homework:

Does it Make a Difference? The Physics Teacher, Vol 39, May

2001. Available from

http://www.ncsu.edu/per/Articles/OnlineHomeworkArticle.pdf

[accessed July 22nd 2012].

Bronstein, P. & Ginsberg, G.S. (1993) Family factors related

to children's intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientations

and academic performance. Childhood Development, 64, 1461-

1474.

Byron, T (2009) The "oh, nothing much" report: The value of

the after-school conversation, Becta, Coventry, UK. Available

from: http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/Value-of-After-

School-Conversation-6027270/ [Accessed July 2nd 2012].

Cooper, H (1994). Homework research and policy: a review of

literature. Available from

http://www.hisparks.com/MathHelpers/Homework_Research_and_Poli

cy.pdf [accessed June 13th 2012].

26

Cooper, H & Jackson, K & Nye, B & Greathouse, S (1998)

Relationships Among Attitudes About Homework, Amount of

Homework Assigned and Complete, Student Achievements, Journal

of Educational Psychology 90 70-83.

Cooper, H (2001) The battle over homework: An administrator’s

guide to setting sound and effective policies (2nd ed.),

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cooper, H (2008) Homework: What the Research Says, National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Available from

http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Research_News_and_Advocacy/

Research/Clips_and_Briefs/Brief%20-%20Homework%20What

%20Research%20Says.pdf [accessed May 1st 2012].

Cukier, J (1997) Cost-benefit analysis of telelearning:

Developing a methodology framework, Distance Education, 1997;

18, 1; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 137. Available from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0158791970180110

[accessed 30th January 2013].

De Jong, R & Westerhof, KJ & Creemers, B (2000): Homework and

Student Math Achievement in Junior High Schools, Educational

Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory

and Practice, 6:2, 130-157.

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/1380-

3611(200006)6:2;1-E;F130 [accessed August 2nd 2012].

27

Desforges, C & Abouchaar, A (2003) The Impact of Parental

Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil

Achievements and Adjustment: A Literature Review, Department

for Education and Skills, Research Report RR443, Queens

Printer.

Available from

http://bgfl.org/bgfl/custom/files_uploaded/uploaded_resources/

18617/desforges.pdf [accessed April 10th 2012].

DeVries, R, & Kohlberg, L (1987) Constructivist early

education, Overview and comparison with other programs,

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of

Young Children.

DfCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007)

The Children’s Plan Building brighter futures, Crown, TSO.

Available from

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/

The_Childrens_Plan.pdf [accessed August 3rd 2012].

DfEE (1998) Home-School Agreements: Guidance for Schools,

London: Department for Education and Employment.

Dudley-Marling, C. (2003). How school troubles come home: The

impact of homework on families of struggling learners. Current

Issues in Education [On-line], 6(4). Available from

http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number4/ [accessed November 11th

2012].

28

Ellsasser, C (2007) Do the Math: Redesigning Homework to

Create More Time for Learning, New Thinking about Homework,

Encounter Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 20 (4),

20-24, 2007. Available from

http://stophomework.com/pdflinks/ENC--Ellsasser.pdf [accessed

May 22nd 2012].

Epstein, J. L. (2001) School, Family and community

partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ferris, M (2011) E-Tutoring Assignment for M.Ed. Studies,

University of Hull. Available from

https://ebridge.hull.ac.uk/portal/tool/e5a67c31-a6bb-41c2-

b840-8957ad467360?pageName=%2Fsite

%2F12692_1011S1%2Fmalcolm+ferris&action=view&panel=Main&realm=

%2Fsite%2F12692_1011S1

Galloway, D (2005) Evaluating Distance Delivery and E-

Learning: Is Kirkpatrick's Model Relevant? Performance

Improvement, April 2005; 44,4; Pro Quest, Pg.21. Available

from

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/13354653/266220362/name/fulltext.

pdf

[accessed 1st February 2013].

Galloway, M & Pope, D (2007) Hazardous Homework? The

Relationship Between Homework, Goal Orientation, and Well-

29

Being in Adolescence, Encounter Education for Meaning and

Social Justice, 20 (4), 25-31, 2007. Available from

http://stophomework.com/pdflinks/ENC204print.pdf [accessed

June 3rd 2012].

Gill, B & Schlossman, S (2004) Villain or Savior (sic)? : The

American Discourse on Homework, 1850-2003, Theory into

Practice, Volume 43, Number 3, Summer 2004, College of

Education, Ohio State University. Available from

http://www.history.cmu.edu/docs/schlossman/villiain-or-

savior.pdf [accessed April 24th 2012].

Hallam, S (2004a) Homework: Its Uses and Abuses, Institute of

Education, University of London.

Hallam, S (2004b) Homework: The Evidence, Institute of

Education, University of London, Bedford Way Papers.

Hartnett, J (2002) Pricing secrets revealed: An insider’s

perspective on how custom course are priced. Online Learning,

6(3), 24-26

Hollingworth, S & Allen, K & Kuyok, K & Mansaray, A & Page, A

& Rose, A (2009) An exploration of parents’ engagement

with their children’s learning involving technologies and the

impact of this in their family learning experiences, IPSE &

London Metropolitan University & FPI, Becta. Available from

30

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/Research/ipse/

parents_engagement_children_final.pdf [accessed September 15th

2012].

Hoover-Dempsey, K. & Battiato, A & Walker, J & Reed, R &

DeJong,J & Jones, K (2001) Parental involvement in homework.

Educational Psychologist 36 (3). Available from

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/family-school/papers/homewor

k.pdf [accessed June 3rd 2012].

Kohn, A (2006) The Homework Myth: Why our kids get too much of

a bad thing, De Capo Press.

Kashima, T & Matsumoto, S & Ihara, T (2011) Proposal of an e-

Learning System with Skill-Based Homework Assignments,

Proceedings of the International Multi-Conference of Engineers

and Computer Scientists 2011 Vol. 2, IMECS 2011, March 16-18,

2011, Hong Kong.

Kirkpatrick, D (1998) Evaluating training programs, The Four

Levels, Philadelphia, PA: Berrett-Koehler.

Knollmann, M & Wild, E (2007) Quality of parental support and

students' emotions during homework: Moderating effects of

students' motivational orientations, European Journal of

Psychology of Education Vol. 22, 1, 63-76, I.S.P.A.

31

Kralovec, E (2007) New Thinking about Homework, Encounter

Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 20 (4), 2-3, 2007

Laurillard, D (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: a

framework for the effective use of educational technology,

London: Routledge.

Leadbetter, C (2005) The Shape of Things to Come: Personalised

learning through collaboration, Innovation Unit, Department

for Education and Skills, National College for School

Leadership, Crown Press. Available from

http://www.innovationunit.org/sites/default/files/The%20shape

%20of%20things%20to%20come.pdf [accessed April 23rd 2012].

Lei, S & Gupta, R (2010) College Distance Education Courses:

Evaluating Benefits and Costs From Institutional, Faculty and

Students Perspectives, Education, Summer 2010; 130, 4:

ProQuest Education Journals pg. 616

Leung, J. (1993) Children’s attitudes toward schoolwork and

perception of parental behaviours that support schoolwork.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 357 859).

Available from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED357859.pdf

[accessed June 22nd 2012].

Lewin, C & Luckin, R (2010) Technology to support parental

engagement in elementary education: Lessons learned from the

UK, Computers and Education 54 (2010) 749-759, Elsevier.

32

Available from:-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013150900

205X

via Athens Institutional Portal, [accessed May 14th 2012].

Lewis, A (2003) Using communications technology and parental

involvement to improve homework completion and quality. Action

Research Exchange, 2(1) Available from:-

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/vol2no1/pdf%20articles/annittal

ewis.pdf [accessed May 14th 2012].

Lisewski, B & Joyce, P (2003) Examining the five stage e-

moderating model: designed and emergent practice in the

learning technology profession, Association of Learning

Journal Volume 11, No.1, 2003. Available from

http://repository.alt.ac.uk/399/1/

ALT_J_Vol11_No1_2003_Examining_the_five%E2%80%90stage_e

%E2%80%90mod.pdf [accessed 26th October 2012].

MacBeath, J. & Turner, M. (1990) Learning out of school:

Homework, policy and practice. A research study commissioned

by the Scottish Education Department. Glasgow: Jordanhill

College.

Mayer, R. E (2008) Learning and instruction. (2nd ed.), Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

33

Mendicino, M & Razzaq, L & Heffernan, N (2009) Comparison of

Traditional Homework with Computer Supported Homework. Journal

of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3)

Nicholls, M. (2008) E-Learning in Context, E-Primer Series,

Laidlaw College, New Zealand. Available from

http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-661/n877-1---

e-learning-in-context.pdf [accessed 26th September 2012].

Papert, S. (1990) A critique of technocentrism in thinking

about the school of the future. Available from

http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html

[accessed 26th September 2012].

Queensland Department of Education and the Arts (2004)

Homework literature review: Summary of key research findings,

Dept of Education and the Arts.

Romero, C & Ventura, S & García, E (2007) Data Mining in

course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial,

Dept. of Computer Sciences and Numerical Analysis University

of Cordóba, Elsevier Science.

Salmon, G. (2000) E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and

Learning Online, Kogan Page: London.

Simonson, M (2006) It Costs How Much? Estimating the Costs to

Design and Develop a Distance Delivered Course, Distance

34

Learning; 2006;3,3; ProQuest Journals, Pg.84 Available from

http://www.schoolofed.nova.edu/~simsmich/pdf/costs_much.pdf

[accessed 1st February 2013].

Singh, R. & Saleem, M & Pradhan, P & Heffernan, C & Razzaq, L

& Dailey, M & O’Connor, C and Mulchay, C (2011) Feedback

during Web-Based Homework: The Role of Hints, Proceedings of

the 15th international conference on Artificial intelligence

in education Pages 328-336 Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg

Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1997) I lost my homework: Strategies for

Improving Organization in Students with ADHD, Intervention in

School and Clinic, 32:5, 270-274.

Sutherland, R & Facer, K & Furlong, R & Furlong J (2000) A

new environment for education? The computer in the home,

Computers & Education 34 (2000) 195-212, Pergamon, Elsevier

Science Ltd.

The Guardian (2012) Homework Guidelines Scrapped to Give Head

Teachers More Freedom, 4th March 2012, Available from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/mar/04/homework-

guidelines-scrapped, [accessed 2nd January 2013].

Trahan, C & Lawler-Prince, D (1999) Parent Partnerships:

Transforming Homework into Home-School Activities, Early

Childhood Education Journal, 27 (1), 1999 Human Sciences

Press, Inc.

35

Trautwein, U & Kӧller, O (2003) The Relationship Between

Homework and Achievement – Still Much of a Mystery,

Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 115-142, June 2003,

Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Twigg C. A. (2001): Innovations in Online Learning: Moving

Beyond No Significant Difference (Pew Learning and Technology

Program). Center für Academic Transformation. Troy, NY.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Warton, P (1997) Learning about responsibility: lessons from

homework. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 213-

221.

Willingham, D (2009) Alfie Kohn is Bad For You and Dangerous

For Your Children, Encyclopaedia Britannica Blog, February

2nd, 2009 Available from

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/alfie-kohn-is-bad-for-

you-and-dangerous-for-your-children/ [accessed March 2nd

2012].

© Malcolm John Ferris May 2013

36