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.
[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