Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area
(USC Thesis Other)
Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
HOMEWORK BELIEFS AND PRACTICES OF MIDDLE SCHOOLTEACHERS
IN RELATION TO STRUCTURE-BASED STANDARDS
FOR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
CONTENT AREA
by
Alex Pierre
________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2007
Alex Pierre
Copyright 2007
ii
Dedication
I dedicate this study to Alice, Emerald, and Efrem,
without whose help it could never have been completed.
I will forever be grateful for their patience and understanding during this undertaking,
their individual commitment to my happiness,
and their support in pursuing my goals.
iii
Acknowledgments
I wish to say thanks to my advisors—Drs. Eugenia Mora-Flores and Gisele Ragusa—for their help and for
allowing me the freedom to make choices in exploring my research interest. Their tolerance, respect, and support were
invaluable. I will always remember their positive regard and openness to ideas. No one could hope for better research
advisors.
I also wish to say thanks to Dr. Tatiana Melquizo for her advice and consideration. Her teaching,
resourcefulness, and scholarly approach to quantitative research methods set a great model for me to use in my own
research. I will always remember and value her lectures and counsel in my first accountability course. Her broad
knowledge challenged me to find the correct path.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
CHAPTER I: The Problem 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Questions 9
Significance of the Study 10
Assumptions of the Study 10
Limitations of the Study 10
Definition of Important Terms 11
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 12
CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature 13
Introduction 13
History of Homework in the United States 15
19
th
Century 15
Progressive Period 16
Academic Excellence Period 17
Post-Academic Excellence 17
Teacher Homework Practices and Beliefs 19
Homework Practices and Achievement at Grade Level 19
Homework Practices and Achievement in ELD Content Area 25
Teacher Beliefs and Practices in Content Areas 28
Concept of Structure in Homework 32
Positive Consequences of Homework 41
The Homework Critics 43
Theoretical Framework for Guiding Teachers 45
Conclusion 48
CHAPTER 3: Methodology 51
Introduction 51
Sample and Population 53
Participants 53
Context 54
Data Collection and Instrumentation 55
Developing and Validating the Instrument 55
Observation Protocol 58
Homework Survey 59
Data Analysis Procedure 61
v
Ethical Considerations 62
Limitations of the Study 62
CHAPTER 4: Data Analyses and Interpretations 64
Homework Belief and Homework Practice of the
Middle School Teachers 65
Homework Beliefs of the Middle School Teachers 65
Homework Practices of the Middle School Teachers 69
Differences in Homework Beliefs and Homework Practices
by Experience Level 76
Homework Beliefs and Experience Level 76
Homework Practices and Experience Level 78
Relationship Between Beliefs and Homework Practices 79
CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 84
Conclusions and Findings 84
Limitations 88
Recommendations for Practice 89
Recommendations for Research 91
Conclusion 92
Bibliography 94
Appendices 98
Appendix A: Observation Protocol 98
Appendix B: Observation Ratings (Raw Scores) 99
Appendix C: Homework Survey 100
Appendix D: Homework Survey Ratings (Raw Scores) 101
Appendix E: IRB Approval 102
Appendix F: IRB Certification Notice (a) 103
Appendix G: IRB Certification Notice (b) 104
Appendix H: Research Information Sheet (a) 105
Appendix I: Research Information Sheet (b) 106
Appendix J: Research Information Sheet (c) 107
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Teachers by Grade, Subject, Gender, and Experience 53
Table 2: Criteria for Scoring and Interpreting Practice Levels 59
Table 3: Criteria for Scoring and Interpreting Belief Levels 61
Table 4: Homework Belief: Means and Standard Deviations 65
Table 5: Homework Practice: Means and Standard Deviations 70
Table 6: Homework Belief and Experience Level: Chi-Square Analysis 76
Table 7: Comparison of Agree Responses by Experience Level 77
Table 8: Homework Practice by Experience Level: Chi-square Analysis 78
Table 9: Comparison of Observed Practices by Experience Level 79
Table 10: Homework Beliefs and Homework Practices: Item Means 80
Table 11: Homework Beliefs and Homework Practices: Item Means 80
Table 12: Homework Belief and Homework Practices: Correlation Analysis 81
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Task Structures Supporting StudentAchievement 46
Figure 2: Homework Belief: Activity Mean Rating 66
Figure 3: Homework Belief: Frequency Distribution of Item Means 68
Figure 4: Homework Practice: Activity Mean Rating 71
Figure 5: Homework Practice: Frequency Distribution of Item Means 74
Figure 6: Homework Belief and Homework Practice: Correlation Analysis 82
viii
Abstract
Homework research in academic content areas has typically focused on student commitment, but what
about teacher commitment? In particular, how committed are middle school teachers to homework in ELD
content areas? This research examined the homework beliefs and practices of 12 middle school teachers
assigned to ELD grades 6, 7, and 8 to determine the extent of their commitment to three structure-based
strategies adapted from the Ames (1992b) task-structure model: workload, purpose, and feedback. For each
teacher, two 60-minute observations were conducted to rate and describe the frequency of 20 homework
behaviors used for performing these strategies. A cross-sectional, Likert-scale survey was given at the end
of the second observation to rate teacher beliefs about the importance of the same 20 homework behaviors.
The study concluded that the teachers lacked commitment to practicing the strategies for homework in that their
areas of weakness far outnumber their strengths. Regardless of experience level, teachers reported strong
approval of most homework behaviors. Still, there were several areas where teachers’ homework was
lacking: (a) ambivalence in homework beliefs, (b) not considering workload important, (c) low application
of homework strategies, (c) preference for traditional and non-explanatory type methods, (d) discrepancies
over value of workload, (e) lower frequency practice among less experienced teachers, and (f) inconsistency
between beliefs and practices. These findings reinforced the need for curriculum and training to assist teachers in
developing more desirable beliefs and practices when implementing structure-based strategies for homework in
ELD content areas.
1
CHAPTER 1
The Problem
Introduction
Homework is often a source of friction between home and school. Parents protest that
homework is too long or too short, too hard or too easy, or too ambiguous. Teachers
complain about a lack of support from parents, a lack of training in how to construct good
assignments, and a lack of time to prepare effective assignments. Students protest about
the time that homework take away from their leisure activities and consider homework a
chief source of stress in their lives (Cooper, Robinson, & Patall, 2006, p. 3)
Given Cooper et al.’s (2006) recent comments above, there is little reason to doubt a great deal of
misunderstanding about homework still exists in some American schools. Of particular significance to
Cooper et al.’s observation is the idea that since the inception of the Progressive Reform Movement of
1892, teacher beliefs about homework and its efficacy in children’s learning have remained a subject of
much debate in American education. Some schools may not have a clear homework policy for helping
novice teachers achieve instructional objectives, and mediocre homework is often acceptable practice
(Bourke & Fairburn, 1993). Thus homework practices of teachers in middle and secondary schools are now
at the center of an intense national debate in countries such as Dominica where present educational
guidelines for homework have generally epitomized 1955 Academic Excellence initiatives.
On one side of this debate are educators who argue that frequent homework assignments must be
considered a necessary ingredient for developing instructional policies which reduce the achievement gap
among low achieving students (Gill & Schlossmann, 2003c). The perception is that homework should
frequently be assigned as a supplement to in-school learning (Cooper et al., 2006) so that failing English
learners (ELs) can have the extra time needed to master academic content. With the English curriculum in
higher grades requiring more independent work for students to meet standards, the frequent assignment of
homework is a means for teachers to maximize learning during limited class time.
In a recent study of homework-based literacy practices with second, third, and fourth grade
Hispanic students in an independent school district in California, Espino (1999) found the frequency of
assigning homework was the most important predictor of high writing performance in both English and
Spanish when parents discussed the daily assigned reading with students.
2
Thus, as students transition from elementary into middle school and beyond, some teachers have come to
perceive in-class activities as only one part of the instructional process: for EL students to achieve
academically, they must also do regular homework.
However, while some educators support homework for its value in reinforcing daily learning,
currently there is a growing backlash against this practice (Bempechat, 2004). On the other side of the
debate are educators who oppose homework on the grounds that research on the subject has produced
inconclusive results, with homework’s effects on achievement of elementary students being at best unclear
(Wildman, 1968).
In the report Take-Home Lessons, Silvis (2002) argued that “homework is archaic, unscientific,
and may even inhibit children's learning” (p. 4). A serious question raised in the Silvis report is whether
regular homework makes students perform better, or if it is instead the other way around. More recently,
homework critic Kralovec (in Mc Inness, 2004) warned that as frequent “homework could make students
feel satiated with academic information” (p. 3), it should be abolished from the school curriculum. In fact,
the most recent research data as set forth in Review of Educational Research are beginning to demonstrate
in quite an alarming manner homework’s apparent lack of value in promoting student learning. Cooper et
al. (2006) in a synthesis of research from 1987 to 2003 report that homework “can have a negative
influence on attitudes toward school by satiating students’ academic pursuits” (p. 8). They argue that
academic activity “remains rewarding for only so long,” and that children may become overexposed to the
academic tasks” (p. 8).
In an earlier 1970 initiative, the National Commission on Excellence in Education refuted
arguments from Academic Excellence advocates on the premise that curriculum models in many schools
often require teachers’ arduous devotion to homework, but provide few guidelines appropriate for its
instructional design and follow-up. Thus, a knowledge gap pertaining to configuration of homework tasks
is apparent, especially in the practice of beginning ELD teachers at the middle school level.
Of particular concern in some middle schools is the lack of clear homework policy for ELD
programs and the misperceptions held by less experienced teachers who face the challenge of designing
homework suitable for meeting the special learning needs of language minority students.
3
This consequence may not be readily apparent; nevertheless, its costs can be far-reaching to teachers,
students, and parents.
In a study examining the effects of take-home lessons, Silvis (2002) states “among major
problems are teachers loading students up with five or six major assignments one night, hardly assigning
anything the next night, and having students practice mistakes by doing drill worksheets over and over ” (p.
4). If this observation from 4 years ago is correct, ELD students with the “fewest resources at home will
gain less from homework than students from more privileged backgrounds. And parents who are not fluent
in English may not be able to provide their children with much help when it comes to homework” (Silvis,
pp. 4-5). True or not, the fact remains that homework and its efficacy in the learning process has remained
a major source of controversy for American educators.
With a sizable proportion of EL students failing to achieve mandated targets on district English
assessments, the time to address teacher homework beliefs and practices is now. If middle school teachers
believe homework contributes little to achievement, particularly in the writing of EL students, then
continuing this practice makes little sense. As Bempechat (2004) contends, there is no reason for teachers
to persist in an activity that promotes conflict with parents, interrupts extracurricular activities, and burdens
overstretched second-language parents who are more likely to be at a disadvantage in helping their children
read and write in English.
Ultimately, the best recourse may be to minimize or eliminate homework for EL students
altogether. Clearly, the persistent questions about the value of homework in the learning of EL students
need to be addressed, with perhaps a good starting point being to describe more clearly the homework
activities teachers in grades 6-8 believe are important for EL students and the activities that currently define
teachers’ homework in content area classes. More precisely, as the writing achievement gap widens for EL
students, how committed are middle school teachers to structure-based standards (viz. workload, purpose,
and feedback strategies) when giving homework in English language development content areas?
Several researchers have addressed the problem of homework by exploring its impact on a
variety of achievement outcomes in multiple academic subjects ranging from elementary to
secondary levels.
4
These studies tended to approach the problem of homework in one of three ways.
A small group of homework studies used experimental manipulation of external factors (e.g., grade
level, subject matter, and student characteristics) in assigning participants to either a homework or
no-homework condition through both random and nonrandom means (e.g., Espino, 1999; Mc Grath,
1992; Townsend, 1995; Van Voorhis, 2003). When nonrandom designs were utilized, the researchers
employed either “a priori matching or post hoc statistical procedures to equate the homework and
no-homework groups” (Cooper et al., 2006, p. 13).
Cooper et al. further summarized some key features included in this research design:
(a) number of students and classrooms as units of analysis in the homework and no-
homework conditions; (b) grade level of students; (c) the subject matter of homework
(English language arts, math, science, social studies, foreign language, or multiple
subjects); (d) the number of assignments per week and their duration; and (e) standardized
achievement test, teacher-developed unit test, textbook chapter unit test, class grades, overall
grade point average, composite achievement scores as measures of achievement (p. 13)
A second, larger group of studies took a naturalistic approach in analyzing the ways
teachers set homework by measuring the perceptions of the amount of effort students invest on
assignments (e.g., frequency, time, and number of exercises) and matching these independent
measures to achievement-type outcomes (e.g., Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, & Greathouse, 1998; Keith,
Diamond-Hallam, & Fine, 2004; Pezdek, Berry, & Renno, 2002). As with the previous set of studies,
this type of design also employed statistical procedures to equate students in the homework and no-
homework groups, thereby controlling effects of confounding variables influencing the homework–
achievement relationship. Unlike the previous set of studies, the focus of these researchers was
teacher beliefs regarding “amount of time student spent doing homework, as measured by self-
reports” (Cooper et al., 2006, p. 13).
A third, considerably larger group of studies employed simple correlation analysis between
teacher beliefs about the amount of time students spent doing homework and achievement-related
indicators (e.g., Bailey, 1999; Swank, 1999; Cooper et al., 2001; Farrow, Tymms, & Henderson, 1999).
No control procedure was used to equate teachers on variables that might confound homework
measures.
5
In general, findings generated from these three major research approaches are almost
uniformly consistent in showing that teachers who assign daily structured homework
assignments reap substantial academic rewards. However, three major deficiencies have
been noted in the previously mentioned studies. First is the apparent lack of empirical studies
attempting to answer the question of what ELD teachers working in middle school grades believe and
practice for homework and whether these beliefs and practices support what is currently viewed as effective
structure-based teaching. With all the debate about teachers and the importance of homework, research on
this topic is surprisingly inadequate. To date, few studies have paid attention to the ELD program as the
focus of investigation to evaluate whether ELD teachers who believe in homework give it frequently. What
is more, almost nothing is known about the ELD teachers’ personal beliefs about the importance of
homework and its impact on their homework practices. According to Wiesenthal, Cooper, Greenblatt, and
Marcus (1997), “the homework literature to date has a long record of analyzing students and their
homework completion in relative isolation” (p. 13).
A familiar data collection procedure in many homework studies is to ask students how much
homework they do and how much time they spend doing it, then compare these results with test grades.
For instance, Haag and Mischof (2005) focused on homework load in which the time students spent
completing homework was counted and the results correlated with writing grades. Van Voorhis (2003b)
also compared the time students spent interacting with parents on English homework with writing grades.
These and other studies (e.g., De Jong, Westerhof, & Creemers, 2000; Huffman, Lawrenz, & Palmer, 1999;
Keith et al., 2004) are characteristic of a "student-oriented” school of homework research.
While these studies are useful, they raise serious questions about the role of teachers in the
homework process. Most appear to overlook the significance of teacher beliefs in the practices of assigning,
grading, and returning homework or how this may motivate students to invest more time in it. In the words
of Wiesenthal et al. (1997), “it is one thing to blame students for not doing their homework; it is quite
another to determine if, in fact
,
teachers themselves value homework and give it” (p. 13). Only a few
studies (e.g., Battle-Bailey, 2003; Espino 1999; and Konold, Miller, & Konold, 2004b) have examined
whether teacher homework beliefs and practices (i.e., teaching tasks addressing workload, purpose, and
feedback) have the instructional impact indicated.
6
Given teachers’ common practice of combining the three previously mentioned strategies in their
instructional cycle for giving and following up on homework, it is surprising that schools continue to
advocate a practice on which there has been so little research.
A second deficiency summarized in Cooper et al. (2006) is that the empirical studies addressing
homework have mostly looked at reading and math instruction of students whose primary language was
English. Cooper (2006) indicated the need to examine effects of homework on a broader range of teaching
outcomes, especially with nontraditional students in middle school grades.
A third, more serious deficiency identified in past homework studies is the lack of a standard
definition of homework. Some researchers did not examine whether homework had the educational
advantages reported using a clear, “commonly accepted definition of homework for the purpose of their
study” (Fairburn, 1993, p. 6). Only a handful of studies provided a clear definition of the term homework
(Fairburn; Keith et al., 2004; Simplicio, 2005).
In fact, the majority showed little distinction between homework defined as home-study and
homework defined as practice, revision, and extension assignments. Accordingly, definitions have varied
from "class work sent home by teachers" (Fairburn, 1993, p. 4) to broad statements about "time students
spend outside the classroom in assigned activities for practice, reinforcement, or application of newly
acquired knowledge” (Fairburn, p. 17). While a few researchers did define homework, many failed to
specify the kinds of activities involved. Did homework assignments require voluntary private study for
weekly tests, or did they include only teacher-assigned exercises or projects? As studies cannot produce
consistent results when homework is defined as including all these variant forms of activities, it is very
important to first clearly define what homework means. Hence, the extent to which middle school teachers
commit to structure-based homework as a strategy for teaching in ELD content areas remains a question in
need of future research.
Statement of the Problem
It is very unfortunate that there is a lack of information as to how to structure effective
homework in a school because this is precisely the kind of knowledge principals need if they are to develop
a suitable homework policy for beginning in-service teachers.
7
A common problem, especially among less experienced teachers, is to give either too much or too
little homework. It can be especially hard to fight the temptation of giving too much homework in schools
where principals “push for more homework and assume that the best teachers assign the most homework”
(Paulu & Darby, 1998, p. 29). A first-year teacher may respond to this pressure by overburdening students
with high amounts of homework when the real objective must be to motivate students to complete extra
work. An equally bad alternative may be giving too little homework, and in the process, deprive students
who need extra learning time.
If Silvis’s (2002) study, Take-Home Lessons, is correct, the homework dilemma for some teachers
is deciding how much is enough, what purpose is appropriate, and what feedback is relevant. This study
reports guidelines from the National Education Association (NEA) as suggesting that teachers believe
students should do homework “four nights a week, for 10 to 20 minutes in first grade and increasing by 10
minutes a year to two hours in high school” (p. 2). Yet this same data also indicates that teachers make
“students spend almost twice as much time on homework in 2006 as their counterparts did in 1981. And
many first- through third-graders are doing three times the recommended amount” (p. 2). Whether giving
frequent homework has any significant academic impact remains an open question in need of further
investigation.
The fact that some middle school principals fail to provide a clear homework policy for supporting
instruction of less experienced ELD teachers is problematic because teachers require this sort of
information for guidance on how to reinforce work covered in daily lessons and how to create a more
meaningful dialogue with parents. With considerable numbers of ELD students in middle school grades
failing to achieve mandated targets on district writing assessments, the time has come for middle school
principals and others in educational settings to take a fresh look at what teachers believe about homework
and whether these beliefs are wholly consistent with practices effective for helping EL students achieve.
A well-defined homework policy is needed to foster positive homework beliefs so that teachers
working in ELD grades may better support students as they develop the study habits, discipline, and
responsibility required for meeting mandated assessment targets.
8
If principals and ELD program coordinators are to succeed in providing effective instructional guidance to
less experienced teachers on how to buttress skills covered in daily lessons, they will need to better
understand what teachers believe and practice. Thus a major task of educational research must be to
provide answers to the many unanswered questions about homework in ELD programs.
There are many reasons homework research focused on ELD teachers is important. First,
improvement in ELD students’ writing achievement is an urgent and valued goal in English learning, and
teacher homework practices have been determined to be an important factor contributing to student
academic success in middle school grades. Second, teacher beliefs and practices may be inconsistent with
standards required for effective homework. Of special importance is teacher commitment to optimizing the
workload, purpose, and feedback on assignments to motivate students to complete them. Third and most
important, ELD coordinators and others responsible for the professional development of teachers can have
the data needed from which to identify areas of weaknesses as they develop and implement curriculum and
training to improve homework effectiveness.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this mixed-method study is to describe middle school teachers’ commitment to
structure-based homework in the English language development content areas. To study teachers’
homework activities, this dissertation examined three main areas of homework: (a) homework beliefs and
practices of middle school teachers, (b) differences in teachers’ homework beliefs and homework practices
by experience level, and (c) relationship of homework belief and homework practice. Teacher homework
beliefs and practices are evaluated in one or more of these ELD content areas: English language arts, social
studies, science, and math. Employment of a mixed research design is a best-fit strategy for this
dissertation as a holistic perspective of teacher homework beliefs and behaviors may not be possible with
numbers alone. In the words of Patton (2002), “no single data source ever adequately revealed the different
aspects of empirical reality” (p. 56).
The homework literature has “a long record of analyzing students homework in isolation”
(Weisenthal, Cooper, Greenblatt and Marcus, 1997, p.13).
9
Familiar methods reported by Weisenthal et al. include asking students how much homework they
complete and how much time they spend doing it, then comparing the results with test grades.
Few researchers paid attention to ELD teachers’ commitment to structuring homework in ELD classes at a
time when the research shows that tasks must be appropriately structured to have desirable academic results
(Ames, 1992b). There is an apparent lack of empirical studies attempting to examine the gamut of
homework activities involved from design to follow-up, despite their frequent application by teachers. Also
missing from the homework literature are studies exploring the middle school teacher’s beliefs and
practices with language minority students.
Fortunately, two recommendations for addressing this deficiency in future research were identified
in the homework literature: (a) “examine the impact of homework on a broader range of [instructional]
outcomes” (Van Voorhis, 2003, p. 15), and (b) examine “homework in multiple grades and subject matter
other than reading and math” (Cooper, 2006, p. 54). Thus, this dissertation will focus on evaluating the
homework of middle school teachers in four academic content areas: English, math, science, and social
studies.
Research Questions
To study middle school teachers’ homework, this mixed-method study asked the following
research question: “How committed are middle school teachers to structure-based homework in English
language development content areas?” To answer this broad research question, the following specific
research questions and hypotheses were addressed:
1. How do the teachers rate on homework beliefs and homework practice?
2. Is there a difference in the teachers’ homework beliefs and homework practice based on experience
level?
3. Is there a relationship between the teachers’ homework beliefs and homework practice?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a difference in the teachers’ homework beliefs based on experience level.
Hypothesis 2 (H1): There is a difference in the teachers’ homework practice based on experience level.
10
Hypothesis 3 (H1): There is a relationship between the teachers’ homework beliefs and homework
practice.
Significance of the Study
As teacher homework activities are an important part of the instructional process in ELD classes, it
is critical that principals, ELD coordinators, and others in educational settings help in-service teachers in
ELD programs understand the areas where their homework beliefs and practices may need more critical
examination. The findings from this dissertation can be especially useful in helping principals and ELD
coordinators identify areas of weakness where curriculum and training can best be developed to remediate
deficient homework beliefs and practices. When school leaders know what teachers think and do relative to
the school’s homework policy, they can better provide the support needed for low-performing teachers to
move beyond the minimum so as to choose, persist, and expend effort for improving homework
effectiveness. The findings from this dissertation can be especially useful in helping teachers understand
and reflect on their homework strategies, as some middle schools continue to struggle with current
accountability demands to improve writing achievement of EL students.
Assumptions of the Study
The study is based on the following assumptions:
1. Scores and notes from an observation protocol are valid indicators of teacher homework
practices.
2. Scores from a homework survey are valid measures of teacher homework beliefs.
Limitations of the Study
Three main limitations are identified. First, this study deals specifically with only three activities
teachers perform when giving homework, which are workload, purpose, and feedback as outlined in the
Cooper et al’s (2006) Temporal Model of Homework. Hence, this study did not cover four activities
identified by Cooper et al. as important for good quality homework. This included (a) homework choice,
(b) completion deadline, (c) social context, and (d) incentives. Second, evaluation of teacher homework is
limited to only four academic subjects: English language arts, science, social studies, and math. Third, this
study limits the type of homework to those assignments set by teachers.
11
In conjunction with these limitations, the section below will examine definitions of important
terms used in this dissertation.
Definitions of Important Terms
An important task of any inquiry is to make sure all important terms are clearly defined.
Academicians Sid Bourke and Hedy Fairbairn (1993) of the University of Newcastle who are leading
researchers in the area of homework say it is essential for researchers to clarify what homework means,
with explicit statements about the purpose and types of activities involved. The following definition of
homework has been established: “Tasks assigned to students by school teachers, which are meant to be
carried out at home during non-school hours” (Cooper, 1989, p. 3).
In accordance with Cooper’s suggestion, the following types of homework are excluded from this
study as they may not have the same instructional impact as teacher-assigned tasks: (a) self-assigned
private study or tutorials; (b) study for quizzes, tests, or examinations; (c) home study courses conducted by
mail, television, audio cassette, or the Internet; and (d) extracurricular exercises, including sports,
recreation, and civic activities. The following types of homework are included: short-term assignments,
long-term assignments, and projects in any of the four academic subjects (English language arts, science,
social studies, or math).
In this dissertation, two main variables will be analyzed based on the Ames (1992b) task-
structure theory: (a) homework belief, and (b) homework practice. Homework belief is the independent
variable for evaluation. Drawing on existing definitions of beliefs (Cobb, 1986; Hart, 1989; Schoenfeld,
1985) and their categorization, I as the researcher define homework beliefs as “middle school teachers’
perception of the value of homework tasks intended for EL students.” The dependent variable
considered in this study is homework practice, defined as “middle school teachers’ implementation of the
homework tasks with EL students.” Each homework variable will be analyzed in each of three areas:
workload, purpose, and feedback.
These teaching activities are drawn from the Ames (1992b) theoretical framework on task
structure and supported by the Temporal Model of Homework (Cooper et al., 2006).
An operational definition of each variable identified for analysis is provided below:
12
(a) Homework beliefs: Scores in a range of 1 to 9 on survey items dealing with teacher beliefs
about the importance of homework tasks intended for ELD content instruction
(b) Homework practice: Scores in a range of 0 to 2 on observation items dealing with teacher
implementation of the homework tasks during EL content instruction.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
In order to describe the middle school teachers’ homework beliefs and practices with ELD
students, this dissertation proceeds in the following manner:
Chapter Two provides a literature review.
Chapter Three provides a description of the research method employed in answering the above
research questions. This includes an introduction giving an overview of the rationale for the research design
as well as a review of the study’s purpose and questions. This chapter also contains a discussion of sample
and population, data collection and analysis, and ethical considerations for following university and district
procedures for proper conduct of research.
Chapter Four describes how data collected for the dissertation is analyzed and interpreted.
Chapter Five provides conclusions and recommendations for educational practice and future
research based on the findings presented in the study.
Finally, relevant tables, figures, references, and appendices are presented.
13
CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
Introduction
Work teachers assign to be completed by students during out-of-school hours (referred to later in
this paper as homework) continues to be a controversial aspect of classroom instruction. Parents may
encourage or nag their children about homework, while teacher beliefs regarding its value in children’s
learning have shifted both as a function of educational research and fears that the United States is losing its
educational prominence in the world. Thus, over the last 100 years a plethora of research has surfaced that
addresses the subject of homework, particularly its influence on teaching and student achievement.
Present controversies over the academic value of homework have often focused on two opposing
perspectives. First is the teachers’ belief that homework plays an important, long-term role in children's
learning, especially in middle and secondary school (Cooper et al., 2006). For many teachers, homework is
a supplement to in-school learning (Cooper et al.) that provides students with extra time to master academic
content. With the curriculum in the higher grades and the more limited class time requiring more
independent work for students to meet the standards, some teachers believe homework is a vital means of
maximizing student learning. For example, in Espino’s (1999) study of homework-based literacy practices
with second, third, and fourth grade English learners, teachers report the frequency of assigning reading
homework as the most important predictor of writing achievement. Notably, some ELD teachers do not
believe student acquisition of writing proficiency is the product of in-class activities alone; it also requires
homework.
Second is the teacher belief that the impact of homework on student achievement in elementary
school is at best unclear (Wildman, 1968). In the Review of Educational Research, Cooper et al. (2006)
recently demonstrated homework’s apparent lack of value in promoting student learning when they wrote:
“homework can have a negative influence on attitudes toward school by satiating students’ academic
pursuits” (p. 8). Their belief is that homework can be academically rewarding for a specific period, but lose
its effectiveness thereafter.
14
True or false, the fact remains: educators are still “far from unanimous in their beliefs about the academic
merit of homework” (Cooper et al., p. 4).
At present, education research is inadequate to describe what middle school teachers typically
believe and practice for homework in ELD classes. One reason, as framed by Cooper et al. (2006), is that
“influences on homework are complex, and no simple, general findings apply” (p. 3). A second related
reason is the rejection of contrary results. Thus Cooper et al. argue that homework “research is plentiful
enough that a few studies are often found to buttress whatever position is desired, while the counter-
evidence is ignored” (p. 3). A third reason is the scarcity of research examining teacher homework beliefs
and practices in combining major strategies of the instructional cycle.
Clearly, if teachers are to succeed in preparing English learners for the demands of middle school
and beyond, research must do more to address these gaps. A good starting point may be articulating more
clearly how teacher homework beliefs and practices impact instruction in content area classes.
Effectiveness of homework requires practices based on a solid foundation of empirical evidence.
Research should provide a guide to less experienced middle school teachers on ways to set up homework
that help ELL students learn. Although since 1987, a great deal of research has been conducted on the
subject of homework and its effects on achievement in a variety of academic subjects (Gill & Schlossmann,
2003), the purpose of this study is to attempt to contribute to this research by addressing the third gap
described above pertaining to teacher beliefs and practices when using three common teacher activities for
giving homework. These activities are both drawn from the Ames (1992b) task structure model and the
Temporal Model of Homework (Cooper et al, 2006). These will be addressed as follows: workload,
purpose, and feedback.
Hence, this literature review will examine teachers’ homework beliefs and homework practices
using current homework research focused on the K-12 setting. The purpose here is to review as much of the
homework research studies done between 1998 and 2006 as possible. While this literature review may not
cover the gamut of issues on homework, it will hopefully be sufficient to address the problem under
investigation.
15
In presenting this literature review, the following five areas will be examined:
1. History of homework in the United States
2. Teachers’ homework practices and beliefs
3. Positive consequences of homework
4. Homework critics
5. Theoretical framework for guiding teachers
History of Homework in the United States
To understand homework practices in the middle school classroom, it is important to start by
examining the history of homework, particularly as to teacher attitude. Do teachers regard homework as a
viable instructional strategy, or do they view it simply as a task the principal, students, and parents require?
How much effort goes into actual implementation of homework practices? Answers to these types of
questions reflect teacher attitudes towards homework, and by implication, the degree of success homework
may have in a school’s academic program. Thus, the first issue examined in this study is the history of
homework, with a look at what teachers believe and practice.
Several studies have attempted to address the issue of teachers’ homework beliefs and practices in
schools across the country since 1887 (e.g., Bourke & Fairburn, 1993; Cooper, 1989; Cooper et al., 1998;
Cooper et al., 2006; Gill & Schlossmann, 2003a; Gill & Schlossman, 2003b). A common finding reported
in the above studies is that teacher beliefs about homework in the United States have been cyclical. This
means that homework beliefs often changed from positive to negative and back again several times, with
far-reaching effects on both homework teaching practices and student learning. This phenomenon is
examined in four major educational periods later in this section: 19th century, progressive, academic
excellence, and post-academic excellence.
19th Century
Before the 20th century, teachers believed homework was an important means for disciplining
children's minds (Cooper et al., 2006), and seldom considered it a problem. In the words of Gill and
Schlossman (2003a), “complaints about homework were few” (p. 9), and demands for its completion rested
primarily on secondary school students.
16
Accordingly, teachers mostly gave 2-3 hours of homework a week in which they tended to approach the
practice as a mental process requiring drill and memorization. Giving homework was a way for many
teachers to increase test scores, extend school hours, and develop students’ sense of responsibility. For
most school principals, homework was proof that teachers were doing a good job, and even students
reluctantly accepted the idea that homework improved academic achievement (Bourke & Fairburn, 1993).
Overall, 19th-century teachers held homework in a positive light and generally approved the practice as an
inevitable part of the learning process.
Progressive Period
All that changed during the progressive period. The 1900s to 1950s initiated the first major
criticism of homework in American public education, after Dr. Joseph Rice (in Gill & Schlossman, 2003c)
concluded from his spelling research that “children’s arduous devotion to practicing spelling at home was
unrelated to later spelling ability” (p. 2). The teacher attitudes framed by Rice’s research was that drill and
memorization exercises as practiced in word-writing homework were needlessly exhausting and therefore
ineffective for student learning.
The fundamental change in educational discourse on homework resulting from Rice’s finding was
supported by other education researchers in the 1900s who produced over 400 papers on the subject of
homework, most of them opinion pieces (Walberg, Paschal, & Weinstein, 1985). A major argument presented
in these papers was that homework promoting drill and memorization was ineffective. Teacher emphasis on
“developing problem-solving abilities, as opposed to teaching through drill, was touted a central task of k-12
education” (Cooper et al., 2006, p. 3).
A second major critic was the Life-Adjustment Movement, which opposed homework on grounds
that it intruded on students’ at-home activities. According to Gill & Schlossman (2004), “homework
burdens faced by high school students received much criticism” (p. 2), and accordingly teachers reduced
homework in lower grades. Again, writers to the Ladies' Home Journal and School Review called for
abolition of homework from the school curriculum, arguing that it constituted a health hazard, deprived
students of outdoor play, and interfered with family time (Walberg et al., 1985). In the mid-1930s, Cooper
et al. (1998) described homework as a tool of teacher oppression, used to pressure students to learn.
17
The general consensus of this era was the teacher belief that homework contributed little
to academic achievement whenever it replaced social activities and denied students opportunities
for sleep (Cooper et al., 1998). Thus, during the progressive era, the value of homework as a
pedagogical practice was seriously questioned by many educators who called for more nurturing
of student creativity and initiative in the homework process.
Academic Excellence Period
However, in the late 1950s, the trend toward less homework was reversed after the Russians
launched the Sputnik satellite (Cooper et al., 2006). Some in the teaching community became concerned
that students’ lack of academic effort posed a threat to future educational and career outcomes as compared
to that of Soviet students (Cooper et al., 1998). Once again, teachers perceived homework as a mechanism
for promoting academic excellence through acquisition of knowledge and skills. Particularly, beliefs about
new “excellence” standards coincided with more aggressive instructional reforms, which mandated that
teachers give more homework to consolidate skills taught in class.
Gill and Schlossmann (2003b) summarized two major findings from a Purdue Opinion Panel Survey,
which explained in part American teachers’ altered attitudes during the academic excellence era. First,
teachers substantially increased the homework load for secondary students. Accordingly, in the early and
mid-1960s, more secondary students received in excess of two hours of daily homework as compared to the
progressive period. Second, teacher criticism of homework in the 1960s increased, with many “accusing
American public education of being soft and anti-intellectual” (Gill & Schlossmann, p. 6).
Hence, during the 1960s, teachers held more favorable beliefs about homework, “requiring more
homework, longer school years and higher educational standards” (Gill & Schlossmann, p. 6).
Post-Academic Excellence
By the 1970s, attitudes again had shifted, and once more many teachers considered homework a
source of stress on student learning. Some questioned homework’s merit and pointed to its possible
negative effects on student achievement. Others argued that homework could not fulfill student learning
needs because it replaced social activities, recreation, and sleep.
18
However, by the 1980s, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (in Cooper et al., 2006)
reported that teacher beliefs had again changed to a more positive appraisal of homework. In a 1983
report, A Nation at Risk, Cooper (1989) attributed this shift to present concerns about the widening
achievement gap for minorities and other underprivileged groups. As the 20th century drew to a close,
fears about the United States losing its educational advantage had once more renewed calls for academic
excellence, with homework again being considered a useful teaching strategy.
At present, the issue of homework and its importance for teaching remain a source of much
controversy in some public schools. Given the shift in teachers’ homework beliefs and practices over the
last century, a systematic research of problems affecting middle school teachers’ homework practices in
ELD programs can perhaps inform principals and other education leaders about developing relevant
homework policy for better guiding less experienced teachers as the teachers reflect on how they think
about homework in relation to practice. As prominent homework researcher Cooper (1989) indicated:
“Reviews of homework research give appraisals that generally fit the tenor of their times. However,
through selective attention and precise weighting of evidence, research can be useful” (p. 86) in helping
teachers detect current problems.
In summary, the history of homework in the United States seems to indicate that teacher
homework beliefs and practices have fluctuated from positive to negative several times over the last 100
years, mainly because of advances in educational research and public concerns about the U.S. ability to
compete on an international level. In the 19
th
century, homework was rarely considered a problem, with
instruction stressing practice, drill, and memorization. However, during the progressive period, school
teachers questioned the importance of homework and assigned very little due to prevailing beliefs that high
amounts of homework requiring memorization had no beneficial impact on student achievement, while
developing problem-solving was believed to be a major contributor to effective homework instruction.
During the academic excellence era, teacher homework beliefs and practices changed due to concern that
lack of academic rigor in U.S. schools could lead to failure in keeping up with foreign competition.
Many now believe that homework can enhance acquisition of knowledge and skills; therefore,
teachers should require students to do more homework and study harder.
19
Yet despite the present focus on academic excellence in U.S. public education, homework and its effects on
children’s learning has remained a contentious issue. Thus the next section of this literature review will
examine the research regarding homework practices and beliefs, and their effects on student achievement.
Teacher Homework Practices and Beliefs
Homework Practices and Achievement at Grade Level
Elementary grades. A major theme emerging from the research from 1998 to 2006 seems to suggest
the effects of teacher homework practices on student achievement vary as a function of grade level (Cooper et
al., 2001). In the elementary grades 3, 5, and 6, researchers (Bailey 1999; Cooper et al.; Farrow et al., 1999) report
inconsistent relationships between homework practices and achievement. These empirical studies support two
contrary findings: First, those elementary teachers who let students have their parents’ help on English homework
turn out higher test scores. This finding is consistent with Ortiz and McCarty’s (1997) idea that when elementary
teachers let students read with a parent at home, they produce more proficient writers. In brief, these empirical studies
report that elementary teachers improve literacy levels when they give homework requiring parental help.
To illustrate, Bailey (1999) measured homework completion rates, attitude, and writing test scores of 120
fifth-grade students based on data collected for analysis from Homework Help Center in the Los Angeles area. This
intervention evaluated the beliefs of teachers, students, and parents about the value of using Homework Help Centers.
A primary question was: To what extent does homework completed at Homework Help Centers improve literacy
achievement of fifth grade students? An analysis of homework data revealed that fifth grade students who use
Homework Help Centers for support with assignments complete more homework and show higher writing scores.
Results for this elementary sample also reported significant gains in three academic areas: (a) homework completion
rates, (b) frequency and duration of participation, and (c) help-seeking.
The above results support Cooper et al.’s (2001) findings. These researchers analyzed homework survey
ratings from 709 subjects, including Tennessee teachers working in second and third grades, their students, and
parents. The purpose of the study was to assess effects of homework on student achievement. Two homework
measures examined were completion rates and work attitudes. As with Bailey (1999), significant results were
apparent in both homework completion rates and writing scores when teachers involved parents with homework.
Students who completed more assigned homework produced significantly higher test scores.
20
However, the work attitude of parents and students did not significantly impact student homework completion rates
and writing scores. Writing grades were affected only by teachers involving parents.
This study differed from past ones in differentiating between the amount of homework teachers set and the
proportion students completed. However, two criticisms were noted in regard to the sample homogeneity (over 90 %
Caucasian) and low survey response rate (35%), as these participants may have more favorable homework attitudes
than non-participants. That noted, Cooper et al. (1998) concluded that homework was effective in promoting learning
among these children even if its effect was weak.
In contrast to the above studies, Farrow et al. (1999) attempted to analyze effects of English homework in
combination with math and science homework. A sample of 20,000 sixth-grade students from 492 schools in
England responded to survey questions dealing with homework completion: number of books at home, use of local
library after school, and teacher support for assigned home readings. Test scores in English, math, and science were
also examined to determine achievement levels. Unlike the above studies, a major finding regarding this elementary
sample was that homework has no impact on academic performance when given too frequently or in high quantity.
Notably the highest test scores were found for students who reported receiving homework once a month in each core
subject, while the lowest test scores were found for students who reported getting homework more frequently than
once a month. Contrary to the positive results reported in Cooper et al. (2001) and Bailey (1999), these sixth graders
increased their test scores solely when teachers gave homework with only moderate frequency. One conclusion was
that the relationship between homework practice (i.e., amount of in-class time teachers invest) and knowledge
acquisition was inconsistent. In the words of Farrow et al. (1999):
It is probably like an uneven, rising, but ever flattening curve. Students gain sudden insight which can then
provide a basis for rapid progress when a new topic or branch of learning is first introduced. Later, the speed
of acquisition drops and may fall off entirely once a certain level is reached. (pp. 7-8)
If Farrow et al.’s comment is true, it would be reasonable for teachers to expect students who receive high quality
homework, in moderate amounts, to produce higher test scores. Thus, the evidence reported by the above empirical
studies seems to reinforce the notion that teacher homework practices in elementary grades have inconsistent effects
on academic achievement.
Middle school grades. The research further indicates that students in middle school benefit
academically from doing homework.
21
Three recent studies that examined effects of middle school teachers’ homework practices were Haag and
Mischo (2002), Van Voorhis (2003a), and Van Voorhis (2003b). In Haag and Mischof’s (2005)
quantitative study, 69 middle school students were sampled from 3 seventh-grade classes, with the time
teachers spent working on Latin homework being recorded each day for 6 weeks. With its focus on second
language learners, this study examined the degree to which the time teachers spent discussing Latin
homework improved writing grades. Correlation analysis of homework teaching time and writing grades
revealed significant achievement increases for students who spent more time discussing homework with
their teacher; however, the distribution of homework teaching time for low achievers in this sample was “u-
shaped,” meaning that more homework teaching time did not always result in higher writing grades for low
achievers. The result showed that student achievement increases when teachers spend either more or less
time discussing homework assignments. This perhaps suggests that simply investing more time reviewing
homework in class may be ineffective with middle school students unless teachers employ alternative
strategies to enhance effectiveness such as varying the purpose of the homework and providing
constructive feedback that supports student effort.
Two more studies reviewed in Van Voorhis (2003) seem to report similar results for writing and
science homework. However, a major difference between these two studies and the research of Haag and
Mischo (2002) is the significant effect reported when teachers design homework so as to have parents help
their children. Van Voorhis (2003a) has demonstrated the academic benefit of writing homework on the
writing proficiency of sixth and eighth grade students who received parental help. The results of surveying
80 students in one inner-city middle school revealed that students who completed assigned interactive
homework with parents also produced higher writing grades. This finding was the same as that by Cooper
et al. (2001). The idea was that the teacher’s involvement of parents played an important role in improving
student homework attitudes, and ultimately writing grades. Despite inconsistent results reported for
homework in studies with elementary samples, Van Voorhis (2003) suggests that when students move to
middle school, doing homework is more strongly related to high test scores. But one point is clear:
Teachers who involve parents as partners are more successful in empowering students to write.
22
As Uhlenberg and Brown (2002) explained, increases in achievement are inevitable because teacher
collaboration with parents often communicates a sense of efficacy to students.
A second empirical study addressing homework practices of middle school teachers and effects on
achievement is Van Voorhis (2003b). Subjects in this 2-month experimental study were 74 students
selected from 3 sixth-grade classes of similar ability levels. As with the first study, teachers designed the
homework using a To Involve Parents and Student (TIPS) model in which parents helped with English
language arts and math assignments, with the outcome being compared with student writing grades. Unlike
the previous two studies by Haag and Mischo (2002) and Van Voorhis (2003a), this intervention employed
an experimental design, with data collection extending to 1 year. Teachers gave TIPS homework to one
class, while a second class received homework with no TIPS, and a third class received no homework. This
analysis reported two findings: (a) TIPS homework related positively to students’ overall English language
arts grades, and (b) parent participation in TIPS homework positively influenced the overall quality of
student writing skills. Thus TIPS homework supports writing achievement of middle school students.
Secondary grades. In addition, four empirical studies support the common finding that teachers
reap more substantial academic results from giving homework in secondary grades: De Jong et al. (2000),
Huffman et al. (1999), Keith et al (2004), and Simplicio (2005). This finding is also reported in Black
(1997) that “in [secondary] school, homework substantially raises student achievement” (p. 1).
For example, De Jong et al. used a sample of 1,084 Dutch secondary school students to investigate
the effects of math homework over a 12-month period. Surveys and interviews were used in a mixed-method
design to assess teacher and student perceptions of the amount of homework assigned, student study strategy,
and parent involvement. The amount of homework was considered in terms of the number of assignments
teachers gave each week and the total number of assignments students completed over one school year.
Writing tests scores were then analyzed as a measure of achievement. Compared to the majority student
population, this sample received homework two times per week, with each assignment consisting of
approximately six exercises; all assignments included between one and nine exercises. Four major findings
were reported:
1. Positive correlation between number of assignments and achievement
23
2. Number of assignments best predicted achievement
3. Negative correlation between teachers’ checking for homework completion and achievement
4. No significant correlation between homework frequency and achievement
This evidence appears to show that homework can be effective for secondary students when
teachers give more homework and students actually complete it. However, checking as to whether students
completed homework does not appear to have been a helpful practice with this sample.
Another empirical study addressing the effects of teacher homework practices with secondary
students is Huffman et al. (1999). Unlike the previous study, participants in this research were much more
diverse. Huffman et al. sampled more than 2,000 students to evaluate effects of math and science
homework across three school levels: secondary grade 12, middle grades 7-8, and elementary grades 3-4.
This intervention was the largest study of its kind conducted in the state of Minnesota, with the large
sample making it possible to generalize findings to students across the country. It is important to note that
Huffman et al. defined homework practices with reference to criteria identified by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Based on these NCTM criteria, the data revealed that secondary
teachers with higher achieving students got more homework completed and engaged in more discussion of
these assignments with students. This evidence is supported by De Jong et al. (2000), who reported that
when teachers increase the amount of homework, secondary students improve their class grades.
Thus, the important question for teachers is: Where is the best place for students to do class work?
As many ELL students have less home support, they may find it more helpful to complete assignments at
school. In some schools, after-school homework programs have been instituted to support less privileged
students. Keith et al. (2004) and Simplicio (2005) sought to answer this vital question with studies
comparing the efficacy of in-school homework and out-of school homework among secondary students.
These empirical studies reported two different findings, with the first being that homework had substantial
effects on grades only when completed out-of-school (see e.g., De Jong et al. 2000 and Huffman et al.
1999). The second finding was that homework has a substantial impact on grades only when completed in
school.
24
This first finding is illustrated by Keith et al. (2004), who analyzed the effects of in-school and out-
school homework in relation to class grades. This study employed 160 secondary students in addressing
the question: What is the merit of in-school homework following early dismissal? The results showed a
positive correlation between the amount of out-of-school homework teachers give and class grades. This
finding is significant, as it raises important questions about the value of early dismissal in some schools as a
traditional practice for students to complete homework. Although in-school homework may have the
potential to increase homework completion rates for ELL students with less home support, some teachers
may be skeptical about students taking precious class time to complete homework. However, the evidence
here suggests that as out-of-school homework can have positive effects on grades, teachers should
encourage secondary students to complete homework at home, rather than in school, where there is already
so little time in the daily schedule for learning.
However, the contrary finding by Simplicio (2005) is that homework has a substantial impact on
grades only when completed in school. This meta-analysis included studies done from 2000 to 2004 using
both secondary and elementary samples. Unlike the above study, the major question examined was, “How
does more in-school homework, with teachers’ help and supervision, improve learning among secondary
students?” Three significant results reported in this study were: (a) higher quality homework, (b) more
effective progress assessment, and (c) more teacher-student interaction. Simplicio concluded that by
“setting aside fixed times at the end of each school day for completing homework teachers can better meet
educational goals” (p. 4). In contrast to the logistical concerns raised in Keith et al. (2004), the idea is that
teachers working with students immediately after class to reinforce concepts taught that day can probably
increase student achievement.
To summarize, evidence from nine studies conducted between 1998 and 2005 appears to show that
effects of homework vary as a function of grade level. Cooper (2001) probably best summarized homework
effects across grade levels: “In high school, homework substantially raises student achievement; in junior
high, it raises student achievement about half as much; and in elementary grades, it has little discernible
effect” (p. 1). Teachers reap more benefit from homework in secondary grades than in elementary grades.
25
Considering the influence of grade level on homework practice, one might also wonder: Does
academic subject matter? Indeed, several researchers have expressed the view that subject matter is a key
exogenous factor influencing homework effectiveness (Cooper et al., 2006). Hence, the next section is
devoted to examining research in the area of homework practice and achievement in the ELD content area.
Homework Practices and Achievement in ELD Content Area
The next major theme emerging from the 1998-2006 research is that the impact of teacher homework
practices on student achievement varies as a function of subject matter. The following section reviews
research exclusively in the ELD writing area. In many schools, homework is an important component of the
writing curriculum, particularly in lower grades when students are developing early writing skills.
Three empirical studies report the common finding that writing achievement of English learners
varies depending on how many home literacy activities teachers integrate into their lesson plans: Senechal,
LeFevre, Thomas, and Daley (1998); Aram and Levin (2002); and Barillas (2000).
In the first study reported here, Senechal et al. (1998) attempted to examine whether teacher support
of home literacy activities was associated with acquisition of written language skills of 80 kindergarten and
first grade ELL students. Among the three areas addressed were: (a) association between teacher support for
parental teaching and storybook reading, and (b) relation between teacher support for parental storybook
reading and teaching and written language skills. This study reported that teacher support of storybook
reading predicted written language skills, including receptive vocabulary and phoneme awareness, but teacher
support for parental teaching predicted written language skills such as alphabet knowledge and word-writing
such as invented spelling. Teacher support for parental teaching did not account for any additional variance in
word-reading; however, storybook exposure had a small, direct association with children’s writing at the end
of the first grade. This finding is especially relevant to this dissertation because it indicates that teachers
giving homework supportive of parental teaching predicts written language skills.
Other contributors to empirical research addressing the effects of teacher homework practices on
student writing are Aram and Levin (2002). They investigated the relationship of homework practice
incorporating “maternal mediation” in joint writing and storybook reading with kindergarten-age children
regarding emergent literacy.
26
Two major questions were examined: first, whether the quality of maternal mediation in joint writing
and joint storybook reading homework impacts emergent literacy skills, and second, whether the quality of
maternal mediation in joint writing and joint storybook reading homework explains the same variance in
kindergartner skills, or whether each factor adds uniquely to the prediction. Participants in this study consisted
of 41 Israeli mothers, their kindergarten children, and teachers. These teachers made parents share a variety of
writing activities with the children on two afternoons, including joint writing and playing with letters. Literacy
sessions of mother-child joint writing were videotaped, and class grades were assessed to determine the
children’s emergent literacy skills in areas of phonological awareness, orthographic awareness, and word-
writing/recognition.
The data reported two findings. The first was that homework using maternal mediation in joint
writing correlated substantially with all independent emergent literacy skills, namely word writing/recognition
(r = 0.82), phonological awareness (r = 0.59), and orthographic awareness (r = 0.52). The second was that
homework using both a child’s report and mother's report of storybook reading were significantly correlated
with word-writing/recognition (r = 0.34 and r = 0.52 respectively), with phonological awareness (r = 0.35, r =
0.39), and with orthographic awareness (r = 0.39, r = 0.49). The above evidence suggests that teachers who
let parents practice joint writing with their kindergarten-age children as homework can enhance early writing
acquisition.
The above finding is supported in Barillas (2000). This study examined the impact of Interactive
Writers' Workshops (IWW) on the writing development of more than 33 sixth-grade ELL students from low
socioeconomic status communities in southern California. Students were of Mexican, Mexican American, and
Central American origins. Using the IWW homework model, teachers gave students and their parents the
same writing prompts sent home on a lined piece of paper, with directions on one side for parents and the
other for students. Both students and parents provided a written response in the primary language, then read
and discussed the finished draft with one another. Students writing outcomes found to be related to IWW
homework included: (a) a liking for writing; (b) engagement in collaborating, publishing, illustrating, and
sharing of written work at school; (c) frequent in-school and out-of-school writing; (d) reading and discussion
of written work with parents, and (e) respect and appreciation of ELL students’ language and cultural identity.
27
The common thread among the three studies is that teachers’ involvement of parents in writing homework
relates to more writing success for ELL students. The above finding again supports the Cummins (1986)
notion that second language learners are empowered to learn writing skills to the extent that teachers use the
student’s primary language and involve parents as partners.
The 2003 study by the American Speech Language Hearing Association (ASLHA) also corroborates
the alleged relationship between homework practice and writing acquisition. As with the above studies, an
experimental homework treatment with 8 subjects indicated that writing performance improved among
students doing both teacher-assigned homework involving repeated copying and recall of target words, and
self-assigned homework involving repeated copying and recall of extra target words. In contrast to the above
studies, homework was completed without parental participation, with the subjects having only limited
writing proficiency as a result of aphasia—a condition contributing to cognitive and linguistic impairment.
Thus, to examine writing outcomes, ASLHA teachers gave daily homework to 8 aphasic students with no
parental help. This homework treatment was administered in clinical sessions using a Copy and Recall
Treatment (CART) model that required teachers to teach 46 target words from weekly spelling lists by
repeatedly writing each word in the presence of a picture stimulus, followed by recall trials of written spelling.
This data showed improved spelling of target words for students using CART teaching supported by
daily writing homework: First, “four of 8 students mastered spelling of at least 80% of words after 8 to 12
weeks, plus 2 to 5 words following one extra month of self-directed homework” (ASLHA, p.10). Second,
“three other students learned spellings of some words but failed to achieve required target” (ASLHA, p. 10).
The writing performance demonstrated by these students on target words appears to indicate that teacher-
assigned homework and self-initiated homework are effective for improving writing skills; still, every student
did not learn word-writing using the same teaching approach. As linguistic deficiency can make CART less
effective with some students, teachers may have to vary the homework design to better meet individual needs.
The research indicates the impact of teacher homework practices varies under three conditions: (a)
when teachers give homework requiring parental involvement in home literacy activities, (b) when teachers
give writing homework with no parental involvement, and (c) when students engage in self-initiated home
study.
28
Now that homework has been examined for its effect on the writing process, this dissertation turns to the
research pertaining to teacher homework beliefs in academic content areas.
Teacher Beliefs in Academic Content Areas
Teacher beliefs are a vital part of a school education standard, yet many school leaders do not pause
to check out how teacher beliefs affect homework practices in the classroom. The current research
examines 12 middle school teachers and investigates the extent to which their beliefs reflect what is
currently viewed as effective structure-based teaching. Some researchers have suggested that teaching
becomes more structured-based in the presence of a clearly defined curriculum; however, the greater degree
of change seems related to teacher beliefs, knowledge of subject matter, and years of teaching experience
(Roehrig & Kruse, 2005). Principally, more experienced teachers with student-centered beliefs have been
reported as demonstrating the highest level of structure-based teaching (Haag & Mischo, 2002; Van
Voorhis, 2003a). These studies seem to reinforce the need for schools to examine teacher beliefs as a means
of raising homework standards.
Homework practices in U.S public education seek to enhance achievement in content area classes for
all students regardless of language background (National Research Council, 1996). Within this framework,
educators look forward to most ELL students obtaining the literacy knowledge and skills required to
become productive members of the school community. In achieving these goals, U.S. education researchers
have long argued the need for teachers to create structured-based learning environments. Regrettably, there
is little evidence that all teachers are utilizing pedagogy aligned with structure-based standards. In reality,
homework critics Kralovec and Buell (2001) exposed an ongoing emphasis on worksheet practice in
teacher delivery of homework in K-12 classrooms. Reviews of worksheets commonly used in many of
these schools find few accompanying application-type activities (Paulu & Darby, 1998).
Although strategies exist to give homework a more inquiry focus (i.e., Van Voorhis, 2003b), there
are only isolated examples of teachers attempting to make homework more inquiry-based (Simplicio,
2005). Some less experienced teachers may not know how much homework is enough, while others may
need support in setting a purpose for homework that aligns with standards conducive to learning for ELL
students.
29
Structured–based teaching has been suggested as one tool to aid student achievement (Paulu & Darby,
1998). The facets of structure-based teaching as an instructional model are clearly delineated in Ames’s
(1993b) theoretical framework and reflect current views of motivation research about the presentation of
classroom tasks that can help students maximize learning. A primary criterion of structure-based teaching is
that teachers stress moderation, variety, and comprehensive feedback as opposed to intermittent practice
and drill. Thus, Thomas and Pedersen (2003) advise that structured-based teaching in U.S. schools be
accompanied by a complete appraisal of teacher beliefs.
Instructional reform in middle schools has often had unsatisfactory results because of teachers’
mistaken beliefs (Roehrig & Kruse, 2005). Effective homework practice requires teachers to abandon
invalid assumptions if those teachers are to better serve as facilitators of learning who inspire ELL students
to do out-of-class work. If a teacher holds homework beliefs that are different from commitments to
structure-based standards, the outcome may be ineffective teaching. In this respect, teacher beliefs are
central to their homework practices, with there being broad support in previous research studies to suggest
that teacher beliefs contribute considerably to performance in teaching practice. This point is corroborated
by several researchers (e.g., Hedrick, Harmon, & Linerode, 2004; Morrell, Flick, Lawrence, Wainwright &
Camille, 2004; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Thomas & Pedersen, 2003; Wiesenthal et al., 1997), whose
statistics confirm a significant correlation between teacher beliefs and practices in a variety of instructional
contexts.
In their study of 12 chemistry teachers, Roehrig and Kruse (2005) collected data via classroom
observations and interviews. They found that teacher practices became more reform-based when a new
chemistry curriculum is introduced; nevertheless, the magnitude of change was associated to levels of
teachers' science-teaching beliefs, content knowledge, and teaching experience. Roehrig and Kruse’s
analysis specifically showed that teacher beliefs about the importance of content area subjects strongly
influence their actual practice of content standards.
Evidence obtained by Roehrig and Kruse seems to demonstrate without question that a teacher’s
beliefs are an important factor in determining outcomes of teaching behavior.
30
For example, some teachers in this sample who did not believe chemistry homework was essential for
helping students improve test scores in their classes were observed to devote less than 5% of their teaching
time to dealing with homework.
In a similar study of in-service middle school teachers, Wiesenthal et al. (1997) concluded that
teacher beliefs about homework have with varying degrees of consistency been cited as predictors of their
homework behaviors. In this research, the relationship was evaluated between teacher attitudes and
homework behaviors in middle school content classes. The primary question examined was: Are teachers
who believe in the virtues of homework as a learning device and as a convenient means for communicating
with the home more likely to give, collect, mark, and return homework to students than teachers who see no
benefit? Wiesenthal et al. gave the Homework Attitude and Behavior Inventory for Teachers (HABIT) to
120 teachers in 2 middle schools with a comprehensive, focused homework policy, and 2 schools without.
The data showed a significant correlation between teacher homework beliefs, homework behaviors, and
homework purposes (examples including practicing, preparing, and exploring new ideas). This data also
established that “the schools with a well-defined homework policy had teachers who gave, collected,
marked, returned, and believed in the usefulness of those assignments significantly more often” (p. 1) than
schools without such a policy.
In their study of pre-service science teachers, Thomas and Pedersen (2003) remarked that “beliefs
held by teachers were used as frames of reference for their own teaching practices” (p. 1). This study
analyzed pre-service teachers' self-reported beliefs about past stereotypical school learning experiences of
science teaching. An important hypothesis tested was that a long history of stereotypical science learning
experiences (in elementary school, high school, and college) powerfully impacts what teachers believe and
how they actually teach. A total of 150 pre-service teachers enrolled in science methods courses completed
drawings of themselves as science teachers at work, with these images then analyzed to determine beliefs
formed about science teaching. The evidence revealed that teacher beliefs do impact implementation of
science instructional practices. As Thomas and Pedersen explained, the teacher’s beliefs and teaching
behaviors are formed from personal convictions and philosophies developed from early school experiences.
31
In these authors’ opinion, teacher beliefs about teaching may be a representation of personal images typical
of practices observed from respected teachers they could see themselves becoming. Hence, beliefs teachers
develop about how much homework is enough, what purpose is relevant, and what manner feedback must
be provided in science content areas may be drawn from their own personal convictions as well as from
past teachers’ homework practices. Thomas and Pedersen concluded that teacher beliefs “powerfully
influence the projected practices they will apply as teachers” (p. 2), and that “only through intensive
professional development, over an extended time period, can some teachers confront their [beliefs]” (p. 8)
and embrace alternative viewpoints about how subject matter should be presented.
In a related study on teacher beliefs and science teaching with student teachers, Morrell et al. (2004)
agreed that implementation of content standards in a K-12 science curriculum often requires radical
changes in teacher beliefs through professional development training. As with the previous study, data was
collected from case studies of middle school teachers in a teacher preparation program. Morrell et al.
conducted observations and interviews with 17 student teachers to examine the relationship between the
teachers’ beliefs and their observed classroom teaching. Yet again the evidence appears to show that
teachers’ beliefs were consistent with practices observed in their classrooms.
Still, the previous findings were not supported by Hedrick et al. (2004). This study examined the
beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in social studies classes. The researchers used self-reported
surveys to evaluate teacher beliefs and practices for supporting vocabulary learning in social studies.
Several discrepancies became apparent in the data between what teachers believed about vocabulary
learning and their actual practices. Whereas teacher beliefs seemed to reflect what was currently viewed as
effective vocabulary teaching, their reported practices more closely resembled traditional methods found in
social studies’ textbook manuals. A second finding was that experience level made no difference in the
rankings of teacher-related beliefs about vocabulary learning in social studies classes. However, unlike the
previous studies, beliefs reported by this sample of teachers did not predict their actual practices, nor did
their beliefs and practices differ by teaching experience level.
After examination of research on teacher beliefs, it is possible to draw two conclusions regarding
practice of structure-based homework teaching in content area courses.
32
The first is that teachers may enter the classroom with established beliefs about how homework should be
designed, given, and checked, but the second is that teacher beliefs about homework may or may not
influence their actual practices of structured-based standards, including adjusting workload, setting
purpose, and giving feedback.
Now that teacher beliefs have been examined, the next section will be devoted to exploring the
concept of structure in homework.
Concept of Structure in Homework
It has been recognized that an educational task needs to be well structured if it is to be effective in
student learning (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). For the most part, research examining teacher concepts of
structure has focused on the characteristics of the learning tasks and teaching practices related to those
tasks. The concept of structure in homework has roots in Cooper et al.’s (2006) Temporal Model of
Homework Teaching, but is also supported in the Ames (1992b) theoretical framework, Goals, Structure,
and Student Motivation. Central to these works are three common teacher standards for giving homework
to students: (a) optimal work load, (b) task variety, and (c) feedback. The intent of this study is to better
understand middle school teachers’ beliefs and practices when implementing these three structure-based
standards in content area classes. This dissertation now presents the literature examining the teacher’s role
in utilizing each homework strategy.
Workload. Workload is one of the most important factors teachers must consider when giving
homework to students. If it is to motivate students, homework load must be appropriately set to provide
optimal levels of difficulty. This means teachers must adjust the amount, frequency, and time invested in
homework to meet student needs. A typical approach, especially for teachers working with large classes, is to
provide what they perceive as a moderate workload to ensure the quantity of homework assigned fits the
learning ability level of the majority of the students in class; otherwise, even the most committed teachers
may not be able to motivate students to do the homework.
In a review of over 120 studies on homework teaching practices, Cooper (2001) identified difficulty
level as an important factor affecting student motivation to do homework. How then does teacher workload,
particularly with regards to amount, frequency, and time invested in homework, impact student achievement?
33
Three empirical studies conducted between 1998 and 1999 have attempted to address this question: Bents-
Hill, Boswell, Byers, Cohen, Cummings, and Leavitt (in Cooper et al., 1998), Farrow et al. (1999), and Swank
(1999). These studies report two main findings, with the first being that homework produced more positive
effects on achievement when given in moderate frequency. This finding was consistent with Farrow et al’s
idea that when sixth grade teachers set English homework more than “once a month,” students generally
attained lower grades. In contrast, Silvis (2002) argued that in first grade, “students should study four
nights a week, for 10 to 20 minutes, and increasing by 10 minutes a year to two hours in high school” (p.
2). Evidently there are conflicting opinions regarding how often constitutes “enough” for students, so
future researchers might consider taking a fresh look at the instructional impact of giving frequent
homework.
To examine teacher management of workload with third and sixth grade students, Bents-Hill et al.
(in Cooper et al., 1998) correlated the number of days students completed homework with competency test
scores. This study included a stratified random sample of 7,690 third and sixth grade students from 51 school
districts in Indiana. Bents-Hill et al. analyzed parent survey responses and student competency test scores in
four core subjects: English, math, science, and social studies. When frequency of homework was correlated
with test scores, two different outcomes were discovered: For third graders, the correlations between
frequency of homework and achievement were negative, while for sixth graders, correlations between
frequency of homework and achievement were positive, but weak. It appears that assigning more daily
homework, as commonly practiced with these students, may be too simplistic an approach to supporting
learning in content area courses unless teachers also tailor the frequency of homework to the students’
grade level.
The above results are also supported by Swank (1999), who examined frequency of homework in
relation to achievement of fourth graders. Teachers gave 21 students weekly homework quizzes consisting
mostly of math word-problems, and then computed their weekly averages. Unlike the Bents-Hill et al.’s
study, students chose whether to complete the homework, sample size was small, and time for collecting
data was short.
34
The results show that frequency of homework had minimal effects on overall academic
achievement. Students given more homework produced high scores during some weeks, but low scores in
others. Swank attributed these mixed results to smaller sample size, less data collecting time, and student
decisions as to whether to do homework.
The next contributors to empirical studies attempting to describe the teacher’s role in managing
homework load are Farrow et al. (1999). Participants in this study were 20,000 sixth-grade English students
from 492 schools. Surveys were administered to assess homework frequency (in reading, math, and science)
in combination with students’ home support and work attitude. In contrast to the previous studies, this
intervention offered the advantage of measuring achievement in terms of “value-added” scores; that is to
say, pre-test scores were subtracted from post-test scores, with the difference used as the measure of
achievement. This method of analysis allowed Farrow et al. to control validity threats arising from varying
ability levels. Specifically, this analysis reported the way students given similar frequency of homework
differed in achievement scores. The study also took a different approach by considering reading in
combination with math and science homework and by employing an extremely large sample of over
20,000.
Two major results were reported: (a) a negative relationship between homework frequency and
value-added scores, and (b) a finding that homework assigned "once a month” predicted highest value-
added scores. Contrary to common beliefs that more frequent homework improves achievement, this data
seems to show this is much too simplistic a theory, as students generally improved their grades only when
teachers gave homework in moderation. As Farrow et al. (1999) explained students often gain sudden
comprehension, which initially provides a basis for rapid progress; however, when optimal time is
expended, speed of acquisition subsequently drops. Hence, the relationship between frequency of
homework and acquisition of knowledge is, in the words of Farrow et al. (1999), “probably like an uneven,
rising, but ever flattening, curve” (p. 23). Based on this finding, one might expect more substantial results
for teachers whose frequency of homework given at grade level avoids exhausting students.
35
The second finding of three empirical studies, namely Espino (1999), Pezdek et al. (2002), and
Van Voorhis (2003), is that the time teachers allow for students to complete homework significantly affects
achievement when parents are involved. Espino demonstrates this using the Cooperative Integrated
Reading and Composition (CIRC) model to assign English homework to Hispanic ELL students in grades
2, 3, and 4. The purpose of the intervention was to examine how students transitioned from Spanish to
English with parental help with homework. Teachers allowed students in an experimental group to work
with parents on independent reading exercises. All students were asked to pick a book of their choice to
read each night for a minimum of 20 minutes. Parents then discussed the reading and signed a form to
indicate the student’s completion of the assignment. Teachers subsequently gave students a weekly reward
(points) based on the length of time spent reading with their parents. In addition, one control group
received reading homework with no parent participation.
This longitudinal study reports four major outcomes for teachers giving homework with parent
help: (a) higher writing performance evidenced by longer, more detailed drafts; (b) increased speaking and
social skills; (c) more value for primary language; and (d) greater motivation to learn a second language.
These findings were validated by Chen and Stevenson (in Pezdek et al., 2002), who analyzed four studies
to examine the relationship between the time teachers allowed for completing homework and achievement
using Japanese, Chinese, and U.S. students in grades 1 and 5. Unlike the previous study, achievement was
measured as a composite of reading and math scores. Pezdek et al. reported wide variation in time allotted
for students to complete homework and achievement scores, noting that the more time mothers spent
helping their children with homework, the lower the achievement, and that 8 to 9 hours per week spent on
homework produced higher test scores. This evidence suggests that more time spent on homework with
mothers’ help was not supportive of achievement for this sample. Given the above evidence, it is
unfortunate that the average elementary students now “spend almost twice as much time on homework as
their counterparts did in 1981, and many first-through third-graders are doing three times the recommended
amount” (Pezdek et al., p. 2).
A third, more recent empirical study addressing teacher management of homework load comes from
Van Voorhis (2003).
36
The purpose was to examine the academic effects of time teachers spent on homework using a Teachers
Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) science homework model. Participants in this study were teachers,
parents, and sixth and eighth graders from 10 classes. The homework data in this study was collected
through a quasi-experiment employing multiple measures: time spent on homework, homework accuracy,
homework attitude, achievement, and family involvement. Unlike the previous studies, this sample was
older and randomly assigned to either a TIPS or no-TIPS condition. The analysis by Van Voorhis reports
TIPS subjects as earning significantly higher science report card grades than no-TIPS subjects after
controlling for differences in background characteristics such as prior science report card grades, teacher
effects, and percentage of homework given. These findings seem to indicate that the time teachers devote to
homework is beneficial when students discuss assignments with family members. Given these results, it is
safe to say the teacher’s role in managing the workload on homework can have either a positive or negative
impact on student motivation and learning in content areas classes. Of particular significance were teacher
attempts to optimize difficulty level by giving homework requiring moderate levels of frequency and time
commitment.
Purpose. Homework must also have a clear purpose, directed to achieving a variety of teaching
outcomes. Because of pressure from principals and parents, teachers in some schools can be more
influenced by commonly established practices than sound instructional guidelines when setting
performance goals for homework. Some common reasons teachers give homework may include practice of
what was taught, review of class material, or even punishment. Although these reasons emphasize the
academic purposes of homework, their educational value remains questionable.
A more useful educational taxonomy of homework purposes has been identified by Paulu &
Darby (1998), Battle-Bailey (2003), and Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001). These studies report two
main findings pertaining to the educational purpose of homework.
The first is that teachers vary their homework assignments. In other words, after students master a
lesson concept, teachers must set clear objectives for homework that include both practice and application-
type exercises.
37
In Paulu and Darby’s (1998) meta-analysis, studies from 1987 to 2004 were reviewed to provide guidelines
for elementary, middle, and secondary teachers on what constitutes effective writing homework. This
analysis reported the four primary purposes below:
1. Practice: Homework given after a lesson to master specific skills (e.g., writing sentences and labeling
grammatical elements)
2. Preparation: Homework given before a lesson for orientation to a subsequent skill (e.g., writing
discussion questions to get ready for next lesson)
3. Extension: Homework given after a lesson to transfer skills to new situations (e.g., writing book reports)
4. Integration: Homework given after lesson to apply skills (e.g., writing short stories)
These findings are consistent with Pintrich and Schunk’s (2001) belief that educational tasks are effective
when designed to address a variety of purposes.
Briefly stated, daily homework should require students to do more than just practice previously
introduced content: it must engage students to prepare, extend, and integrate content knowledge and skills.
Otherwise, homework “can be ineffective, inadvisable, and patronizing” (Battle-Bailey, 2003, p. 4).
The second finding by Battle-Bailey (2003) is that teachers should involve parents. She analyzed
over 20 studies from 1980 to 2001 looking at the broad question: what purposes of homework support
academic achievement for K-3 ELL students from Hispanic background? Unlike the above study, this
review focused on pre-service teachers enrolled in reading and writing workshops. This analysis focused on
identifying specific homework practices effective for promoting literacy development. Some of the
guidelines reported for teachers in this study were: (a) use “interest inventories” to evaluate student and
parent homework interests, (b) write clear directions that incorporate parent-child dialogue about
homework, and (c) encourage parents to tutor students on homework (Battle-Bailey, p. 4). This data
showed that homework can positively impact K-3 ELL students’ learning when its purpose was to allow
“parent involvement in home literacy activities” (Battle-Bailey, p. 3). This conclusion is also corroborated
by Espino (1999), Pezdek et al. (2002), and Van Voorhis (2003), who add that many single parent families
and families with working mothers tend to have difficult circumstances that hamper student homework
completion.
38
Thus, in considering parental involvement in homework, teachers may need to differentiate between
parents’ expressed interest and actual help with homework assignments. This may mean clearly
communicating guidelines regarding homework policies and involvement expectations. Rather than
conceiving the purpose of homework as skill practice, the teacher focus must also be on how to vary the purpose
of homework to make use of parental input.
Thus far, the research has described three specific strategies that contribute to effective homework
teaching. First, manage the workload to appropriate levels of difficulty so that frequency, time-requirement,
and amounts of homework enable students to complete assignments without frustration or boredom.
Second, vary the homework to achieve multiple learning objectives such as involving parents.
Now that workload and purpose of homework has been examined as essential strategies for
teachers to consider when giving homework to students, the next section will consider the third strategy,
teacher feedback on homework.
Feedback. The research has further established that teacher recognition of student work through
feedback on accomplishments is essential for effective learning (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). This guideline
has useful practical implications not only for work covered in-class but also for homework. Feedback on
completed homework is particularly critical in providing teachers with information as to how well students
understand a lesson’s content. When feedback is informative and given consistently immediately after
completing homework, students can receive sufficient guidelines to help them correct their own mistakes.
Anderman and Maehr (in Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) have suggested that teachers focus feedback on
standards of “self-improvement, progress, and mastery of learning task, rather than avoidance of failure”
(p. 222). Unfortunately, this type of teacher feedback is seldom practiced in some classes, with simple
corrections such as check marks, crosses, or letter grades used as the standard practice.
What kind of homework feedback supports student achievement in writing classes? Four empirical
studies have attempted to answer the question of how teacher feedback impacts the writing process: Konold
et al. (2004), Delgado and Prieto (2003), Wiltse (2002), and Packard and Holmes (2001). These studies
report two main findings, with the first being that feedback on completed homework has positive effects on
achievement when it is consistent, informative, and immediate.
39
In other words, teacher feedback on homework is effective to the extent that it clearly communicates to
students what their mistakes are and how to correct them. Besides letter grades, effective homework
feedback should include written and verbal comments.
In Konold et al.’s meta-analysis, a review is provided about various kinds of feedback and how
each promoted oral reading and writing for low achievers. Among the three research questions considered
were: (a) what kind of feedback was appropriate when students engaged in oral reading? and (b) what kind
of feedback was appropriate for writing homework? This analysis shows that teachers’ consistent feedback
on completed homework positively affects writing achievement for low achievers. Two kinds of feedback
and related strategies were recommended as appropriate for writing homework:
(a) Elaborated feedback:
1. Teacher engages in a one-on-one conference with the student after writing homework is complete.
2. Teacher provides in-depth verbal feedback to inform the student about strengths and weaknesses.
(b) Written feedback:
1. Teacher engages in a one-on-one conference with the student after writing homework is complete
2. Teacher provides in-depth assessment of error patterns evident in student’s writing.
3. Teacher highlights each error and then writes comments about how to correct it.
This evidence seems to suggest that feedback on homework can be effective in promoting writing when
teachers do more than just mark responses “correct” or “incorrect” or assign letter grades. In particular,
Konold et al. (2004) make it clear that to help students master writing content, feedback on homework must
be informative.
The above finding is also supported by Packard and Holmes (2001) who used homework modules
to give immediate written feedback on wrong answers involving practice of word problems to over 200
students enrolled at a Midwest college. The purpose was to investigate effects of immediate feedback in the
form of written explanation of errors on student achievement. Unlike the above study, feedback was web-
based. Students selected, completed, and received immediate written feedback on homework. Analysis of
the final two semesters’ quiz grades revealed that students using a web-based homework program produced
an average of 20% percent higher performances than students not using the web-based homework program.
40
It appeared that when teachers provided immediate written comments on wrong answers, this helped
students identify strengths and weaknesses and achievement subsequently improved. Still, the Packard and
Holmes conclusion needs to be viewed with appropriate caution given the lack of information regarding
whether the web-based assignments were completed in-school or out-of- school.
A second finding in two of the above studies, namely Delgado and Prieto (2003) and Wiltse (2002),
is that homework feedback negatively affects performance when students are low achievers and the
teacher’s instructional goal is performance-oriented. This means that if students are anxious about failing,
and teacher feedback on homework is evaluative, achievement can decline. A good illustration is Delgado
and Prieto’s experiment that examined effects of test item feedback on performance. A total of 240
undergraduate students received instruction involving the crossing of two manipulated variables—Penalty
for errors (no: S
1
/yes: S
4
) and Item feedback (no/yes)—on a 50-item, computerized vocabulary test. Two
hypotheses tested were: (a) there would be a positive effect of item feedback on scores when instruction
included explanation of penalty for error, and (b) there would be a larger beneficial effect of item feedback
on female scores.
In contrast to the previous studies (i.e., Konold et al. 2004 and Delgado and Prieto, 2003), teacher
feedback on test items did not positively predict test performance for groups given instructions informing
them of a penalty for errors: In fact, students who received feedback committed more errors than students
who did not receive feedback. Moreover, more item feedback did not significantly increase female scores.
The key point being that when teacher feedback is evaluative, homework is unlikely to be effective.
Wiltse (2002) obtained similar results when she gave questionnaires to 181 secondary students to
examine the effects of teacher feedback on writing homework. The broad question explored in this study
was: What are the interrelationships among writing apprehension, writing outcomes expectations, writing
self-efficacy beliefs, and teacher feedback on homework? Unlike the Delgado and Prieto’s study, students
received feedback on writing content and mechanics of their first-draft writing homework assignment. This
data showed that poor writers do not benefit from teacher written comments on stories because of the
students’ writing apprehension and low self-efficacy beliefs. Low achievers who repeatedly failed tended to
ignore teacher feedback when revising a first draft.
41
Of three affective factors examined, writing apprehension had a significant negative effect on student use
of teacher comments and suggestions for revising, while effects of expectancy and efficacy beliefs were not
significant. Wiltse concluded that consistent teacher feedback on writing homework can be unhelpful when
low achieving students feel anxious about failing. By implication, teachers may do better to give feedback
that promotes a view of failure as part of learning to encourage mastery rather than focusing on avoiding
failure. The conclusion is that student writing achievement varies as a function of consistency, timing, and
type of feedback teachers provide on completed writing homework.
This section has established two major points regarding the impact of homework on writing
achievement. The first major one was that homework effects on achievement vary as a function of grade
level; teachers produce less academic results, in terms of student test scores, in elementary grades than
middle and secondary grades. The second major point as framed by Cooper et al. (2006) is the idea that
homework effects on achievement vary as a function of subject matter, particularly in writing; teacher
homework strategies—namely workload, purpose, and feedback—play an important role in homework
effectiveness, and hence, the achievement outcomes of ELD students. Because homework appears to be
increasing ELL students’ achievement in writing, with teacher instruction being a vital variable in
execution of this process, the next section will further illuminate academic consequences of teacher
homework practices.
Positive Consequences of Homework
Researchers have suggested an extensive list of positive consequences of homework. Cooper et
al. (2006) identified four main categories: (a) immediate achievement and learning, (b) long-term
academic, (c) nonacademic, and (d) parental and family benefits. A major reason teachers assign
homework is for its immediate effect on achievement and learning. Homework supporter Silvis (2002)
extends this idea, arguing that homework has an immediate impact on the understanding and retention of
skills taught in class. This means that children who complete class work at home can enhance knowledge
acquisition because this increases time spent learning —a finding also reported in Mc Inness (2004).
42
Among long-term academic benefits identified by Cooper et al. (2006) include: (a) motivating
students to learn during leisure time, (b) increasing favorable attitudes toward school, and (c) improving study
habits. Furthermore, teachers may set homework for its nonacademic benefits in helping students develop
positive behaviors that transfer to non-school roles. Doing homework requires less teacher supervision but
more individual time management; hence, some students can be encouraged to take more personal
responsibility for their own achievement. In elementary grades, Silvis (2002) suggests “homework fosters
responsible character and helps children recognize that learning can occur at home as well as at school" (p.
3). Such proficiencies are important to students both in-class and out-of-class.
Mc Inness (2004) has addressed the parental and family benefits of homework in a meta-analysis
of nine studies conducted between 1997 and 2002. A major finding reported in the Mc Inness study is that
homework may have positive effects on parents. Teachers may set homework to develop parental
appreciation of what students are learning. Specifically, when homework is interactive, this can encourage
“more positive parent attitudes towards children’s achievement and accomplishments” (Mc Inness, p. 2).
Teachers can also assign homework to dialogue with parents regarding what students are learning and
invite more active participation in the learning process (Aram & Levin, 2002; Barillas, 2000; Battle-Bailey,
2003; Espino, 1999; Senechal et al., 1998; Van Voorhis, 2003). Mc Inness further contends that effective
communication with parents may have the added benefit of enhancing the quality of the home-school
connections for the benefit of all concerned.
Van Voorhis (2003) concluded with two important points about parental and family benefits of
homework. The first is that teachers can encourage parents’ valuing of children’s education by giving
homework if it incorporates “clear content and appealing format, linked to unit test” (p. 17). The second
point is that teachers can assign homework to encourage professional collaboration: The opportunity to
write homework assignments as a team presents special opportunities for ELD teachers to work with peers
in other subject areas to identify relevant content for homework. This collaborative process may strengthen
teacher understanding of content area courses as they clarify understanding of selected topics and plan
appropriately challenging and varied homework relevant to student needs (Van Voorhis).
43
The results of the research cited above indicate that homework appears critical in promoting
academic skills. Still, for this to happen, teachers must optimize difficulty, vary the purpose, and provide
feedback that informs the ELL students about competence.
Now that homework has been examined for its positive consequences on achievement, this review
will consider the homework critics who oppose it.
The Homework Critics
In contrast to homework supporters, some homework critics oppose homework on the grounds
that it has negative effects on learning. In the words of Mc Kinnes (2004): “educators should stop
squeezing time out of family life for the questionable benefits of homework” (p. 3). Researchers who have
criticized teacher homework practices in American schools also include Kralovec and Buell (2001a) and
Kralovec (in Silvis, 2001).
For example, Kralovec and Buell (2001a) argue that teacher homework practices do not increase
achievement, especially when assignments are given in large amounts to elementary students. Kralovec
and Buell call homework “a black hole in the education process, which leaves teachers unaware of
students’ true educational progress” (p. 2). Using reviews from 13 empirical studies, these researchers
oppose what they view as “three myths” about the value of homework, with the first being that homework
increases academic achievement. Unlike homework supporter Cooper, Kraiovec and Buell (2001a) argue
insufficient proof exists to verify that homework develops independent learning, and that regrettably
parents of elementary students are being asked to accept (with little evidence) the belief that homework
improves achievement. These researchers further contended that research supporting homework’s positive
effects on achievement of elementary students was highly contradictory.
The second myth was that giving less homework renders U.S. students incapable of competing
successfully at the international level. Kralovec and Buell (2001b) rejected this view, arguing that although
Japanese eighth grade students complete less homework, they achieve higher math scores. According to a
1998 TIMSS report, this performance difference may be due to Japanese teachers having longer preparation
periods, more collaborative teaching, and more instructional time.
44
Rholen and Le Tendre (in Kralovec & Buell, 2001b) agree, adding that the “Japanese classroom is a sacred
space which does not allow for interruptions” (p. 3).
The third myth was that homework motivates students to work harder. Kralovec and Buell (2001a)
contend that previous research affirming the value of homework in the school curriculum (e.g., Cooper,
2002; Huffman et al. 1999; Keith et al. (2004)) is unsubstantiated; students may be motivated to work
harder only when teachers “design rigorous academic work, scaffold new knowledge, and coach new study
habits” (Kralovec & Buell, p. 3). Thus, schoolwork is more effectively done at school, not at home.
Related to the previously stated argument is Simplicio’s (2005) criticism that teachers frequently
give homework for students to practice and memorize basic knowledge and skills covered in previous
lessons. Opponents of drill and practice point out that homework requiring spelling of lengthy word lists
may have little impact on writing achievement unless teachers help students understand how to apply
spelling skills meaningfully in writing. Drill and practice exercises intended to reinforce skills students
acquire are seen as repetitious, boring, and time-wasting. In the words of Simplicio: “some students do not
learn coherent, viable strategies from doing this homework” (p. 3).
Other researchers oppose homework on the grounds that it interferes with family life (Silvis,
2001). As a pedagogical strategy, Kralovec (in Silvis) calls homework “archaic, unscientific, and inhibiting
to children's learning” (p. 4). In other words, when teachers give homework, this may widen the
achievement gap between high achieving and low-achieving students, particularly when differences in
socioeconomic and linguistic status are present.
This criticism was further demonstrated in Silvis’s (2001) meta-analysis of over 100 studies
examining effects of homework on at-risk students. This analysis highlighted the following account:
Students with fewest resources at home tended to gain less from homework than students from
more privileged backgrounds. Parents who were not fluent in English or whose educational
backgrounds were limited were not able to provide their students with much help when it comes to
homework. (p. 5)
Evidently, students with less home support may not benefit as much from homework as students with more
home support. There may be no quiet place to read a book or persons sufficiently knowledgeable to help
with assignments. For these students, homework given to consolidate daily learning can be a time-
consuming exercise with little academic value.
45
Conversely, students with more home support may have greater access to resources that allow for
successful homework completion.
The above finding supported Mc Inness’s (2004) research. She analyzed 9 studies between 1998
and 2004 to examine whether homework should be part of the primary school curriculum. A major finding
reported in this study was that involving parents in the learning process can have negative consequences.
This finding supported three more specific conclusions. First, “homework interferes with what parents
want to teach their children” (Mc Inness, p. 4). Second, “homework causes fights, forcing parents to do
students work” (Mc Inness, p. 3); this also has the potential to encourage cheating as students typically
come to depend on parents for help with their homework instead of taking responsibility for their own
learning. Third, “parents can confuse students on homework if the instructional technique differs from
those of teachers” (Mc Inness, 2002, p. 3), or if they are unfamiliar with the assignments.
In other words, homework can be a major source of family stress. Although homework supporters
think it a good idea, the above evidence points to serious negative consequences for learning and family life
when teachers give homework. As homework critic Kralovec argues, “three factors that make the most
favorable impact on students are smaller class sizes, more classroom resources, and professional
development” (in Silvis, 2002, p. 5). That noted, one may reasonably question whether funds allocated to
maintain homework programs might not be better spent on other school initiatives.
As researchers who oppose homework have established the negative effects on learning and
family life as the basis for criticism of this teaching practice, especially when high amount and practice-
type assignments are used with elementary students, the next section is devoted to examining a theoretical
framework for guiding teachers on how to make homework effective in the classroom.
Theoretical Framework for Guiding Teachers
As teachers grapple with the underachievement of English learners as demonstrated on district
writing tests, this review provides some rather compelling implications for future educational research.
According to the Ames (1992b) task-structure theory, teachers should consider student motivational goals
to better understand and "confront" underachievement.
46
How then does teacher structuring of homework affect student motivation and learning? Past
“research on motivational goals has often conceptualized students’ goal orientation as a classroom situated
construct that is amendable to change, depending on environmental cues and presses” (Pintrich & Schunk,
2003, p. 232). This means the various kinds of instructional approaches teachers employ to design and
follow up on homework may either improve or hinder student motivation to achieve. Pintrich and Schunk
have identified six essential teacher activities (structures) that affect students’ motivation to achieve in
content area classes: “task design, recognition of students, distribution of authority, grouping arrangements,
evaluation practices, and time allocation” (p. 232). The problem presented in this study is examined based
on the first two teacher activities adapted in the Ames (1992b) theoretical framework below:
Figure 1. Task Structures SupportiveofAcademic Achievement.
Structures Teacher Activities Behavioral Consequences
Note: Adapted from Ames (1992b)
Recognition
I. Workload
a. frequency
b. amount
c. time
II. Purpose
a. practice
b. preparation
c. extension
d. integration
III. Feedback
a. explanatory
b. immediate
c. consistent
Achievement
Task
Mastery
Goal
47
The Ames (1992b) goal orientation theory suggests a “central element of learning is the structure
of classroom tasks and learning activities” (p. 262). In reflecting on Ames’s words, a focal question is:
What are the primary factors that influence middle school teachers’ pedagogy as they actively make
choices, expend effort, and persist in giving homework to ELL students? In answering this question, the
Ames model identifies teacher structuring of (a) tasks, and (b) recognition as essential in helping students
master academic knowledge and skills. It follows that teacher homework practices may motivate student
learning in one of two ways.
The first is when the tasks are structured to “provide optimal levels of challenge, meaning it is
neither too easy to produce boredom nor too hard to produce anxiety” (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002, p. 233).
The idea is that the frequency, amount, and time invested on homework may either boost or diminish
student participation in learning. The second way teacher homework practices motivate students is when
tasks are structured for variety. In other words, when teachers give homework that requires students to
prepare, extend, and apply skills rather than simply practice and repeat, interest in mastering subject matter
can increase, with positive results.
Hence, the traditional practice of having students practice previously introduced concepts, as often
required for homework in mainstream classes, may not be effective as this is intended to address only one
knowledge dimension. The teacher’s role in structuring homework tasks is important in providing the kind
of “information students need to make judgment about their ability and willingness to apply effortful
strategies” (Ames, 1992b, p. 262). What is more, Ames’s goal orientation theory advanced the idea that
teacher recognition in the form of feedback on student accomplishments develops motivation and mastery
of learning goals. Still, to be effective, teachers must “provide informational feedback to students about
their progress or competence” (Pintrich & Schunk, p. 233). As with other teachers, middle school teachers
need to provide homework with appropriate structure if they are to succeed in motivating ELD students to
achieve in content area classes.
Ames’s (1992b) theoretical framework explains an issue of tremendous importance for less
experienced teachers faced with the challenge of improving homework standards in writing and other
content area courses offered in ELD programs.
48
Giving more homework and extrinsic incentives, as commonly practiced in some ELD classes, may be
much too simplistic an approach for improving the efficacy of homework. Rather, Ames’s (1992b)
framework suggests that teachers can motivate students to achieve success by applying strategies that make
the structure of homework appropriate to student learning ability and interests.
The implications of Ames’s goal orientation theory for the problem discussed in this dissertation
are very clear: identify the tasks teachers believe are important for homework in ELD content areas and
how often they practice them. Hence, in developing effective homework guidelines for less experienced
teachers, it is important for school leaders to first identify and describe structures with respect to what
teachers believe and practice. Only then will school leaders be able to reasonably consider how homework
can best be integrated into ELD programs for better assisting language minority students.
Conclusion
The theoretical framework described previously will serve as a guide to understanding the
teacher’s role in the homework process. The specific focus here was on what structure-based practices
teachers consider important for enhancing the effectiveness of homework in the ELD classroom. In
addition to describing a theoretical framework for guiding teachers, this review of literature examined
teacher homework beliefs and practices by exploring four major areas of research.
The first, “History of Homework in the United States,” looked exclusively at teacher beliefs about
the importance of homework over the last 100 years and concluded that beliefs about its impact on student
achievement have shifted from positive to negative and back again several times. The second, “Homework
Practice and Homework Beliefs,” indicated that research evidence is mixed pertaining to teacher homework
practices and student achievement in elementary grades. However, the research seems to show that
homework in middle and secondary grades improves achievement when teachers give optimal amounts,
target a variety of knowledge dimensions, and recognize student efforts. A related point was that teacher
homework beliefs may influence their actual practices of these structured-based standards.
The third section explored “Positive Consequences of Homework” and established that homework
may have multiple academic and nonacademic benefits other than enhancing student achievement.
49
The research suggested that teachers give homework in content area classes and use it as a means to
collaborate with parents.
Finally, the fourth section discussed “The Homework Critics,” and concluded that researchers who
oppose homework do so based on evidence that it interferes with both students’ learning and family life. As
such, some researchers report homework adds little value to achievement in elementary grades and propose
that student efforts may be better spent completing schoolwork in class, not at home; still, the collective
effects of better workload management, varied purposes, and feedback help teachers to improve homework
effectiveness. In general, the research has established that teacher homework beliefs and practices are
important in ELL student learning in content area classes even if some researchers criticize it as
problematic.
Unfortunately, the literature suffers from deficiencies in regards to empirical studies attempting to
answer the question of what ELD teachers working in middle school grades believe and practice for
homework in relation to structure-based standards. Whether teachers’ homework beliefs are consistent
with practice and whether their homework beliefs and practices differ by experience level remain questions
in need of research. In the words of Weisenthal et al. (1997), “the homework literature to date has a long
record of analyzing students and their homework completion in isolation.” (p. 13). Few studies have
focused on teachers’ beliefs and commitment to homework in ELD programs. A second serous gap is what
Bourke and Fairburn (1993) called a “lack of commonly-accepted definitions of homework for the purpose
of study” (p. 8), as only a few studies (Fairburn, 1993; Keith et al., 2004, and Simplicio, 2005) provided a
clear definition of the term homework.
A third gap summarized by Cooper et al. (2006) was that mostly all the empirical studies
addressing homework deal with reading and math instruction using samples whose primary language was
English. Accordingly Cooper suggested examining homework on a broader range of teaching outcomes to
include middle school grades.
The present study intends to address the above gaps by seeking answers to the following
questions: How committed are middle school teachers to structure-based homework when teaching in the
English language development content area classes?
50
More specifically, how do the teachers rate on homework beliefs and homework practices? Is there a
difference in the teachers’ homework beliefs and homework practices based on experience level? Finally, is
there a relationship between the teachers’ homework beliefs and homework practices? In answering these
questions, this study can add to the growing homework literature and hopefully provide a better
understanding about areas of weakness where curriculum and training can best be developed to improve
teachers’ homework performance.
Now that teacher beliefs and practices have been established as contributing to the homework
process, particularly through student achievement in academic content areas, a solid foundation has been
set for considering the way three common teacher activities for giving homework (see, e.g Ames, 1992b
and Cooper et al., 2006) can be evaluated. Hence, the next section will describe the research methods used
for conducting this evaluation. This will be presented in four sections: introduction, sample and population,
data collection procedure, and ethical considerations.
51
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter describes the research methods for the proposed study. This will be presented in four
sections: introduction, sample and population, data collection, and ethical considerations. The introduction
reviews the research purpose, questions, and methodology. The sample and population defines how and
why the sample was selected and accessed. Data collection will describe the research design,
instrumentation, and data analysis. Finally, ethical considerations for following university and district
research procedures will be discussed.
As stated in Chapter One, the purpose of this mixed-method study was to investigate middle school
teachers' self-reported homework beliefs and practices in four ELD content areas and to look at how these
practices line up with structure-based research standards. Due to the lack of research in this area, it was
essential for the study to employ a mixed-method design to allow both descriptive and statistical analysis of
the data. Thus, the study examined three main components of homework based on the Ames (1993b) task-
structure model: workload, purpose, and feedback.
The study was conducted by means of a formative evaluation of 12 middle school teachers in one
ELD program located in a southern California middle school. Because of frequent parent complaints about
homework at the middle school that I as the researcher works in, this mixed-method study was intended to
contribute to the knowledge base by informing school leaders about areas where teacher use of homework
needs more critical analysis. Analysis of what teachers believe and do for homework in ELD classes will
indicate areas of weakness and strength where homework policy and staff development can be developed to
improve performance standards.
My first step in this research was to clearly define important variables and the research design
used for evaluating them. The two primary variables for research are teacher homework beliefs and
homework practices. Description of each term and related sub-categories are presented below:
(1) Homework Beliefs: The middle school teachers’ perception of the value of homework tasks
intended for ELD students
52
(2) Homework Practices: The middle school teachers’ implementation of homework tasks with ELD
students
The homework tasks used for describing teacher homework beliefs and practices cover three
subcategories from the Ames (1993b) task structure model: (a) workload (the degree of teaching and
learning invested in homework, (b) purpose (reasons associated with homework), and (c) feedback (follow-
up tasks designed to inform students of errors or corrections on homework). A mixed-method research
design was used to evaluate teacher homework beliefs and practices. This included quantitative data from a
survey and observation protocol and qualitative field notes written on the observation protocol by the
investigator at various dates during scheduled classroom visits. Using this mixed-method design was
helpful to compare teachers’ reported beliefs with their actual engagement in the homework practices of
assigning, collecting, grading, or returning homework. Second, for guiding the study, a mixed-method
design was used to answer the research question and hypotheses identified below:
Research Questions
How committed are middle school teachers to structure-based homework in English language development
content area classes?
1. How do the teachers rate on homework beliefs and homework practices?
2. Is there a difference in the teachers’ homework beliefs and homework practices based on experience
level?
3. Is there a relationship between the teachers’ homework beliefs and homework practices?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a difference in the teachers’ homework beliefs based on experience level.
Hypothesis 2 (H1): There is a difference in the teachers’ homework practices based on experience level.
Hypothesis 3 (H1): There is a relationship between the teachers’ homework beliefs and homework
practices.
53
Sample and Population
My second step was defining the sample and population. As the purpose of the study was to better
understand teacher homework beliefs and practices in the content areas, a purposeful sampling strategy
based on Patton’s (2002) model was employed. The study focused on one middle school, because
according to the California Department of Education 2005 statistics, although it had an active homework
program, it fell among the lowest proportion of writing passes on the 2005-2006 California English
Language Development Test (CELDT). Moreover, this middle school was selected for participation
because it had the second highest percentage of EL students in the 2005-2006 academic year.
Participants
The sample unit of evaluation included a total of 12 middle school teachers assigned to ELD
classes. Teachers were purposefully selected from grades 6, 7, or 8, with some teachers teaching more than one
grade (e.g., English to grades 6, 7, and 8). A demographic breakdown of grade and subject assignment,
gender, and teaching experience level of the sample are presented below in Table 1:
Table 1
Number of Teachers by Grade, Subject, Gender, and Experience Level
____________________________________________________________________________________
Grades Subject Gender Experience
____________________________________________________________________________________
Eight =4 English =6 Male =3 One-Five Yrs. =2
Seven =3 Science =2 Female =9 Six-Ten Yrs. =4
Six = 5 Math =2 Eleven and More Yrs. =6
Social Studies =2
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Table 1 shows 5 teachers were working in grade 6, 3 in grade 7, and 4 in grade 8. The teacher sample
was also very diverse by subject taught: 6 respondents taught English, 2 science, 2 mathematics, and 2 social
studies. The gender ratio was disproportionately female (i.e., 3 males versus 9 females). Teachers were also asked
to report "the number of years teaching," with two indicating 1-5 years teaching experience, four indicating 5-10
years teaching experience, and six reporting more than 10 years teaching experience. Thus, 50% of the sample
teachers had fewer than 10 years teaching experience while 50% had 10 or more years teaching experience,
reflecting a diverse level of professional maturity of the ELD staff in terms of number of years teaching. The
criteria used to select participants were as follows:
54
1. Teachers had to volunteer to be part of the study, to be observed, and to complete a survey.
2. They had to be in a full-time teaching position with the school district in grades 6, 7, or 8.
3. They needed to have at least 1 year teaching experience prior to the start of the study.
4. They had to be assigning homework in one or more of the following academic subjects: English
(reading or writing), science, math, or social studies.
A sample size of 12 teachers ensured a participation rate of at least 57% based on a class schedule
comprising core content areas, plus two to three elective sections. At a minimum, this design allowed
evaluation of teachers in each of the four content areas. The objective here was to sample teachers who
were “information-rich cases from which to learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the
purpose of the research” (Patton, 2002, p. 46).
There were three major considerations for these sampling criteria. The first was that after one
year of teaching, teachers should have an adequate knowledge of the school's homework expectations.
Second, as teachers were teaching a core subject, this typically required that more extra work be
completed outside class time. In this respect, core subject teachers could provide more substantial
information for illuminating the research problem. A third consideration was diversity. Sampling
participants of both multiple experience and grade levels made it possible to do a checks and balances on
what teachers truly believe and practice for homework. Given that “the size of the sample must be
determined by informational considerations” (Patton, p. 246), this sampling approach was considered
appropriate.
Context
The middle school for investigation serves an ethnically and linguistically diverse student
population in the Southern California area. It comprises an estimated 1,428 students: 12.2% African-
American, 37.7% Hispanic or Latino, and 34.2% Caucasian, with 15% of all students as English learners.
The school administrators have made a commitment to instituting homework reforms in content area classes.
Accordingly, the ELD program has adopted a homework policy of regular after school work to support all
second language learners in successfully completing the 3-year curriculum.
55
All teachers are required to assign homework for each class, Monday through Friday. Study Hall was
implemented in 2005-2006 for all sixth through eighth graders who needed additional help with homework or
class-based course content. Students who do not earn a “C” or higher on their progress report card are required
to attend Study Hall. These reforms reflect a significant effort in the homework practices of the middle school
teachers.
Access to the school site was obtained by means of written approval from the school district. This
was done in four phases: (a) a letter mailed to the district assistant superintendent-middle schools asking for
approval to conduct the research; (b) a meeting with the school principal to discuss the project and ask for
permission for the teachers to participate; (c) a packet of consent information distributed to all 12 teachers
introducing the investigator, explaining the project’s requirements, and requesting a commitment to
participate; and (d) information fliers sent to parents describing the broad purpose and nature of the
classroom observations required for the project.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The next step in the research was to clearly describe the data collection and instrumentation. Data
collection for the proposed study spanned a 3-month period between September and November 2006, starting
the third week of class when the assignment of a heavy homework load was likely to begin. Data was
collected by first conducting two 60-minute classroom observations of each teacher.
An observation protocol was used to rate the frequency of the teachers’ homework practices
and record written notes describing their manner of implementation. At the end of the second
observation, the teachers were given a cross-sectional, Likert-scale survey to complete. Quantitative and
qualitative data from these two sources were analyzed to examine teachers’ homework beliefs and
practices using appropriate statistical procedures discussed under Data Analysis in this chapter.
Procedures for building and validating the instruments used for evaluating teacher homework beliefs and
practices are provided below.
Developing and Validating the Instrument
The next important step in this research was to develop and validate a suitable instrument for
measuring teacher beliefs and homework practices.
56
In developing the instrument, I turned to the Temporal Model of Homework (Cooper et al., 2006).
Consistent with Ames (1993b), this revealed three common teacher activities for giving homework to
students, each of which was chosen as a subcategory for the instrument. Based on further reviews of each
subcategory, I then selected and modified 20 items adapted from instruments and writings by Hedrick et al.
(2004), Paulu & Darby (1998), and Kiefert (2004). These questions represented current practices teachers
discussed in weekly team meetings and implemented in their classes. Although the list does not include all
the homework practices employed by these teachers, it does represent a wide collection of homework
behaviors used in the K-12 classroom. In the words of Adams & Hsu (1998), “these can generally describe
the practitioner’s view of his or her instructional role in teaching the subject matter” (p. 557). A brief
description of each subcategory with sample items is given below:
Sub-category 1-Workload. Workload helps teachers to manage the difficulty level of homework.
One theme that emerged from the literature was that teachers must provide homework in “optimal levels of
difficulty” to make it effective (Cooper et al., 2006, p. 9). For example, Paulu and Darby (1998) found that
teacher adjustments of the amount, frequency, and time invested in homework may have either a positive or
negative impact on student motivation and learning. Hence, the homework instruments have a subcategory
for determining the degree to which teachers believe workload is an important homework practice. Using a
rating scale (9 points on survey; 3 points on observation protocol), I pilot-tested five items under the
workload subcategory, including such questions as:
When managing workload, it is important to
- (1)
“
set homework after each lesson"
- (2) “set homework at least 3 school nights each week"
Sub-category 2-Purpose. Purpose is also an important factor the teacher must consider when
designing homework. A significant finding in a large body of homework research is the supposed
relationship between teacher use of a variety of purposes for homework and student motivation to complete
it (Cooper, 1989). This assertion also has roots in the work of Paulu and Darby (1998), Battle-Bailey
(2003), and Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001), who suggested that teachers must set clear homework
objectives that include both practice and application.
57
These researchers recommended practice, preparation, extension, and integration-type activities (among
others) as equally essential for homework in K-12 settings. I pilot-tested 8 items under the Purpose
subcategory, including such questions as:
When setting homework purpose, it is important to
- (1) “practice what was taught in class”
- (2) “get ready for next class”
Sub-category 3-Feedback. Feedback on homework provides teachers with information on how
well students understand the material. A third theme in the literature was that somehow giving feedback on
completed homework gives teachers more knowledge about students’ learning, and thus improves teachers’
instructional behaviors; for example, Konold et al. (2004) discovered that teacher feedback on completed
homework has positive effects on student achievement when it is consistent, explanatory, and immediate.
Perhaps the collective effect of better workload management (subcategory 1), varied purposes (subcategory
2), and feedback (subcategory 3) is a better way for teachers to improve homework effectiveness. Thus, if
Roehrig and Kruse’s (2005) recent analysis is correct, teachers who believe these homework activities are
important could be more disposed to value and implement them, which is the main purpose of this
instrument. Seven items were pilot-tested under the “Feedback" subcategory, including such questions as:
When providing feedback on homework, it is important to
- (1) “collect it for review”
- (2) “grade it”
An important task of any inquiry is that research findings be valid from the perspective of
researchers, subjects, and stakeholders (Patton, 2005). In validating the instrument, I enlisted the help of
eight core subject ELD teachers at a second middle school in the school district where the investigation was
conducted. These teachers were given a preliminary version of the instrument during a weekly staff
meeting 2 weeks prior to the start of the project; they wrote comments about whether they thought the
questions were unsuitable or suitable. I then revised the questions using this feedback. Additionally, two lead
teachers (math coach and ELD program leader) were asked to verify the content validity of the revised
questions before they were given out to the participants.
58
Both possessed considerable knowledge (more than 15 years of experience) about their school’s homework
policies in their respective subject areas. They read and reported on the corrected version of the second list
of questions as being suitable for inclusion in the instrument. As this was a self-report measure of beliefs
and practices, traditional reliability measures such as split-half reliability computations were not done.
Based on the content information drawn from the works of leading homework researchers (Cooper
et al., 2006; Hedrick et al., 2004; Kiefert, 2004; Paulu & Darby 1998) and expert feedback from
experienced teachers, the 20 questions were assumed to have reasonable content validity for inclusion in
both the survey and observation protocol. A complete version of these two instruments can be found in
Appendices A and C. The next section describes each instrument in more detail.
Observation Protocol
The observation protocol measured the middle school teachers’ homework practices in
classroom settings. This was comprised of three main sections, corresponding to the dimensions identified
previously from the Cooper et al. (2006) model on task structure under Developing and Validating the
Instrument. Section One includes 5 items on workload; Section Two, 8 items on purpose; and Section
Three, 7 items on feedback. Each item was evaluated on a rating scale from 0 to 2, with 0=Not Seen,
1=Infrequent, and 2=Frequent. The observation protocol also contained space adjacent to each subcategory
for the observer to insert hand-written notes because a holistic perspective of teacher behaviors may not be
possible with numbers alone. In the words of Patton (2002), “no single data source ever adequately
revealed the different aspects of empirical reality” (p. 56). Thus, field notes I wrote on the observation
protocol allowed for multiple perspectives from which I could compare sources and check for discrepancies
in the data. Appendix A presents a complete listing of items on the observation protocol.
Two 60-minutes observations were conducted of each participant. These were done consecutively
and mostly unannounced on the Tuesday and Thursday in the period immediately before the teacher’s
conference time. Unannounced visits minimized the problem of teachers making extra preparation that
would distort what was typically done for homework. Moreover, observing teachers closer to midweek
sessions when homework teaching was typically higher and uninterrupted from weekend breaks perhaps
informed in a more substantial way what the teachers actually did for homework in their classes.
59
During each session, observations were overt and administered in “complete observer” mode. The
observer inserted checkmarks next to each item to indicate their use by the teacher, and inserted notes in the
space adjacent to each subcategory, describing significant teacher comments, behaviors, and classroom
context. After the second observation was completed, each teacher was given a survey with 20 items to fill
out. Theses items were similar to the items on the observation protocol, but rated on a 9-point scale instead
of the 3-point scale used for the observation protocol.
Scoring and Interpretation. To analyze these observation data, descriptive statistic measures were
applied to raw scores for all 20 practice items and hand-written field notes coded for patterns of meaning.
Criteria used for scoring and interpreting respondents’ homework practices on the observation protocol
were adapted from an instrument, developed by Bem (1974), which purports to capture both beliefs and
practice factors. Two modifications were made: (a) a 3-point scale score replaced the conventional 4-
point scale score and (b) “homework practice” replaced “gender beliefs” as unit of analysis. Practice levels,
scaled scores, and their interpretation are presented below in Table 2.
Table 2
Criteria for Scoring and Interpreting Practice Levels
____________________________________________________________________________________
Practice Levels Scale Score Interpretation
____________________________________________________________________________________
High 1.25-2.00 Frequently
(i.e., always, regularly, or consistently)
Moderate 0.76-1.24 Infrequent
(i.e., irregularly, occasionally, or periodically)
Low 0.00-0.75 Not Seen
(i.e., never, not observed)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Note: Based on a 3-point rating scale; 2= Frequent; 0= Not Seen
Table 2 shows the three practice levels used for analysis as follows: high (1.25-2.00), moderate
(0.75-1.25), and low (0-0.75). A low score on observation items indicated that the teacher was not
seen practicing the homework task frequently. A moderate score means the task was seen infrequently.
A high score indicated the teacher was seen practicing the homework task frequently
Homework Survey
The homework survey measured the middle school teachers’ beliefs about the importance
of homework practices in ELD content area classes.
60
The surveys consisted of the same three homework categories and 20 items reported previously for the
observation protocol (viz. workload = 5 items; purpose = 8 items; and feedback = 7 items). However, items
on the survey were rated on a 9-point scale ranging from 1=Disagree Strongly to 9=Agree Strongly. The
survey served two useful functions: First it minimized class disruption during the project as it was not
possible to spend extended periods of time talking to teachers about homework during regular class time.
Second, it allowed more efficient analysis of the quantitative research questions identified as 2 and 3 under
the Introduction of this chapter.
Procedures for administering the survey during the 3-month investigation were as follows: First,
one survey was administered to each teacher individually in the teacher’s classroom after completion of the
second class observation; for convenience, these were completed subsequently during the teacher’s
preparation time or at home. Administration of the survey after the class observations was meant to control
for biases that could arise in the research from teachers learning beforehand through the survey questions
what homework practices would be observed during the class visits. Without this prior knowledge, teachers
would perhaps be less able to manipulate the homework activities to their advantage. Completed surveys
were then picked up by the investigator for analysis. The criteria used for scoring and interpreting
respondents’ homework beliefs from the survey are illustrated below in Table 3.
Scoring and Interpretation. For analysis, the survey was scored by summarizing the responses to
all 20 belief items and applying descriptive statistical calculations to the results. A teacher’s score on the
survey indicates the degree to which that subject believed homework activities were important for
teaching ELD content. Based on the scoring procedure presented in the previous section, the following three
beliefs levels were used for analysis: high, moderate, and low. Adaptations included (a) a 9-point scale score to
replace the conventional 4-point scale score and (b) “homework beliefs” replaced “gender belief” as the unit of
analysis. Belief levels, scaled scores, and their interpretation are presented below in Table 3.
61
Table 3
Criteria for Scoring and Interpreting Belief Levels
_________________________________________________________________________________
Beliefs Levels Scale Score Interpretation
_________________________________________________________________________________
High 6.00-9.00 Agree
Moderate 4.01-5.99 Undecided
Low 1.00-4.00 Disagree
_________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Based on a 9-point Likert scale; 9= Agree Strongly; 1=Disagree Strongly
Table 3 shows the three beliefs levels in the following sequence: high (6.00-9.00), moderate
(4.01-5.99), and low (1.00-4.00). A low score on survey items indicated that the subject disagreed
about the importance of the homework activity for teaching ELD content.
A moderate score means the subject was undecided about its importance, and a high score indicates
the subject acknowledged the importance of the homework activity.
Data Analysis Procedure
Analysis of teacher homework beliefs and practices was carried out in the following sequence.
First, the data was prepared for analysis by adding the raw scores from the survey and observation protocol.
Consistent with the Adams & Hsu (1998) study, means and standard deviations were calculated for each
item corresponding to teacher beliefs and homework practices. Using mean scores from the survey and
observation protocol, teacher beliefs and practices were categorized and assigned to one of the three levels
listed in Table 1 and Table 2 above: high, moderate, and low. Chi-square, a nonparametric test, was utilized
to compare the differences in teacher responses to the 20 items in relation to experience level. A significant
chi-square value indicated that the variables were not completely independent, but may have been
systematically related beyond chance. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the
relationship between teacher homework beliefs and practices. Results of these computations were
organized into relevant tables and graphs for further analysis and interpretation.
The second step was a review of all the data by carefully reading through the survey and
observation data for patterns of meaning. The third step was to test the hypotheses.
62
This was done by applying the chi-square and Pearson correlation tests of significance for answering
appropriate research questions: For instance, the chi-square test allowed comparison of the proportion of
teachers responding to beliefs and practice items to see if differences were statistically significant.
Thus, this analysis contributed to answering sub-research questions Ic and Id considered in this
evaluation, namely: Is there a difference in teacher homework beliefs based on experience level? Is there a
difference in teacher homework practices based on experience level? The Pearson correlation tested the
question regarding what is the relationship between teachers’ reported beliefs and their homework
practices. An effect size analysis of the data was determined by setting a standard of at least (.50) for
practical significance.
Ethical Considerations
I attempted to take all necessary steps to comply with the Institutional Review Board’s (IRB)
expectations, policies, and guidelines to ensure the highest ethical research standards were maintained.
Once I had obtained district approval to conduct the research, each teacher was asked to read the Research
Information Sheet shown in Appendix G before consenting to participate in the study. The Research
Information Sheet disclosed the broad purpose of the study and expectations concerning teacher
participation. It also provided detailed disclosure of possible risks and the researcher’s responsibility.
Including this information was meant to convey to teachers that their participation in the research project
was voluntary.
Limitations of the Study
As a former ELD teacher, I have always been a strong advocate of homework. When I taught sixth
and seventh grades in the North Eastern School District in Dominica, I found assigning homework a very
effective means for students to increase study time in preparation for writing proficiency exams. Because I
am a former ELD teacher with favorable beliefs about the value of homework, this represents a potential
source of bias in favor of homework. However, although I support homework, I also realize there are many
teachers who oppose it as they believe it has little impact on children’s learning. Consequently, I tried to
exercise extra caution in not letting my favorable opinion of homework pose a bias while doing the teacher
observations and transcribing notes about my experiences during the project.
63
The small sample size also represents a considerable limitation, and my main ethical responsibility
in this investigation was to avoid generalizing the results to other groups. This means I attempted
everything possible to ensure the findings were not interpreted in any way to support a misconceived
conclusion.
64
CHAPTER 4
Data Analysis and Interpretations
The main intention of this study was to describe the homework activities of middle school teachers
in English language development content area classes. Three structure-based strategies adapted from the
Ames (1992b) theoretical framework on task design (workload, purpose, and feedback) were evaluated for
12 teachers in four academic subjects: English, math, science, and social studies. The analysis was based
on 24 classroom observations and 12 surveys of teachers working in ELD grades 6, 7, and 8. The following
research questions and hypotheses were addressed:
Research Questions
How committed are middle school teachers to structure-based homework in English language development
content area classes?
1. How do the teachers rate on homework belief and homework practice?
2. Is there a difference in teacher homework beliefs and homework practices based on experience level?
3. Is there a relationship between teacher homework beliefs and homework practices?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a difference in the teachers’ homework belief based on experience level
Hypothesis 2 (H1): There is a difference in the teachers’ homework practice based on experience level
Hypothesis 3 (H1): There is a relationship between the teachers’ homework belief and homework practice
In an attempt to answer the research questions with this sample of middle school teachers,
descriptive statistics (viz. means and standard deviations) were computed for items measuring teacher
homework beliefs and practices and observation notes coded for pattern of meaning. Chi-square, a
nonparametric test, was used to analyze differences in the middle school teachers’ homework beliefs and
practices by experience level relative to a 9-point and 3-point scale. The Pearson product moment
correlation was then used to examine the relationship between beliefs and practice means. A significant
value showed that the variables cannot be attributed to chance or sampling error.
65
Results of the study are presented in the following sequence: (a) homework belief and homework practice
of the middle school teachers, (b) differences in homework belief and homework practice based on
experience level, and (c) relationship between homework belief and homework practice.
Homework Beliefs and Homework Practices of the Middle School Teachers
Homework Beliefs of the Middle School Teachers
To determine how the middle school teachers rate on homework beliefs, descriptive statistics
(viz. means and standard deviations) were computed for each homework variable identified on the survey.
Table 4 provides a complete list of means, standard deviations, and number of teachers responding to the
items for homework beliefs.
Table 4
Homework Beliefs: Means and Standard Deviations
_________________________________________________________________________________
Variables M SD
_________________________________________________________________________________
I. Workload 3.07 0.80
Give after each lesson 4.17 3.61
Allow more than 20 min 3.25 2.38
Give on weekends 3.08 2.61
Set more than 8 questions 2.92 2.71
Require more than 40 min 1.92 1.38
II. Purpose 6.06 1.86
Practice what was taught 8.42 0.90
Review class material 8.33 0.98
Finish something started 6.58 2.15
Extend class work 6.83 2.37
Get ready for next class 5.50 2.50
Consolidate skills 5.67 2.67
Create something new 3.67 2.71
Involve parents 3.50 2.54
III. Feedback 7.11 0.71
Check if students do it 8.50 0.90
Collect it for review 7.25 1.71
Let students correct it 7.25 1.82
Go over it in class 7.17 2.66
Grade it 6.58 2.27
Mark it with comments 6.58 1.98
Returned it next 1 or 2 days 6.42 1.78
_________________________________________________________________________________
N=12
Table 4 shows that item means (with standard deviations in brackets) ranged from 3.07 (0.08) for
workload (least important) to 7.11 (0.71) feedback (most important).
66
Teacher feedback was not only rated most important by the teachers, but is also represented by one of the
smallest standard deviations. Purpose had the next highest mean, 6.06(1.86), and highest standard deviation
indicating less consensus among the teachers for this activity. The results show high agreement among the
teachers regarding the importance of purpose and feedback, but strong disagreement about the value of
workload. The belief mean rating for each homework activity is further illustrated below in Figure 2:
Figure 2. Homework beliefs: Activity mean rating
Means
Homework Activities
Figure 2 suggests an order of importance in the teachers’ beliefs about these homework activities:
workload, purpose, and feedback. For the homework activities the order of importance is: workload,
purpose, and feedback. It is to be noted that Figure 2 above shows that teachers seem to think feedback and
purpose the more relevant activities for giving homework in EL areas. Workload is the least important
homework activity, despite the fact that middle school teachers in some schools now advocate more
homework for EL students. The low rating of workload reported here indicates that this activity may still
lag behind others in the ELD classroom because of teacher beliefs.
This data seem to be consistent with attitudes of some ELD educators, promoting high quality
homework in moderate amounts as a more effective means for helping students increase performance on
class, district, and state assessments (Farrow et al, 1999, pp. 7-8). Thus it is no surprise that this sample of
middle school teachers believe that quality, involving more purpose and feedback, was more useful than
quantity.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Workload
Purpose
Feedback
67
Homework beliefs (with item means and standard deviation in bracket) teachers considered most
important for each teaching activity are presented as follows:
(i) Workload: (a) give after each lesson, 4.17 (3.61)
(ii) Purpose: (a) practice what was taught, 8.42 (0.90); (b) review class material 8.33 (0 .98)
(iii) Feedback: (a) check if students do it 8.50 (0.90); (b) collect it for review 7.25 (1.71)
Taken together, teachers beliefs stressed lower knowledge level behaviors to a greater degree than
higher knowledge level behaviors surveyed—a trend consistent with K-12 teachers promoting practice and
drill as a practical means for helping students prepare for class, district, and state assessments in content
area courses (see e.g., National Commission on Excellence in Education in Cooper et al, 2006; Gill &
Schlossmann, 2003). Thus, it is no surprise that this sample of middle school teachers believe that having
English learners review and practice what was taught (e.g., asking them to work similar types of in-class
problems that might appear on class assessments) and then checking if students do it in subsequent lessons
(e.g., by asking students to get their homework to have their stamp sheets checked before start of the day’s
lesson) are useful practices for doing homework.
The homework behaviors showing the highest degree of variation among these middle school
teachers was purpose, rating 6.06 (1.86). While 4 items rated “agree,” 2 reported “undecided” and 2 rated
“disagreed” for the importance of purpose. Lowest variation is reported for feedback beliefs. Thus, the
perceived value of setting purpose for homework is the primary issue of discrepancy among this sample of
ELD teachers.
The teachers’ level of rating on homework belief is also given by the frequency distribution of items
means in Figure 3.
68
Figure 3. Homework beliefs: Frequency distribution of item means
Figure 3 shows more high mean scores than low mean scores for the 20 belief items, with the
frequency of low items means disproportionately distributed in favor of the purpose and feedback sub-
scales: workload (0); purpose (4); and feedback (7). In general, teachers rated 30% of items in the low
range (i.e., Disagree from 1 to 4), 15 % percent in the moderate range (Undecided between 4 and 6), and
55% in the high range (i.e., Agree from 6 to 9). The teachers' homework beliefs showed high approval of
structure-based homework by viewing purpose and feedback activities as more important for homework
than workload. This result perhaps indicates that the teachers agreed with a trend in homework to consider
quality homework (viz more purpose and feedback) more effective for raising student achievement in subject
content areas than quantity (see Farrow et al, 1999).
10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00
Item Means
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mean =5.6745
StD.=2.04507
N =20
Frequency
69
Considering the special learning needs EL students bring to the classroom (low parental support with
homework, limited English literacy, etc.), teachers’ high beliefs for setting purpose and giving feedback is
encouraging; nevertheless, discrepancies regarding importance of purpose and workload (especially how much time
was appropriate to complete homework each school night), and disapproval of higher knowledge level
behaviors are areas of weakness where teacher homework beliefs may need more critical examination.
Based on the results summarized from the previous section, it was possible to conclude that
teachers rate high in their homework beliefs. Three main findings emerged from this data: First, purpose
and feedback was rated highly important in terms of survey mean scores (6.00 and 7.11), but
workload was not considered highly important for belief (M=3.07). Second, teachers rated traditional methods
(e.g., practice, review, check) higher than less traditional methods (e.g., create, get ready). Third, consensus
regarding importance of workload was low. Teachers rate high on homework beliefs but disagree about
workload.
Homework Practices of the Middle School Teachers
To determine the teachers’ homework practice levels, item means, standard
deviations, and number of teachers rated on homework practices are presented in Table 5.
70
Table 5
Homework Practice: Means and Standard Deviations
_________________________________________________________________________________
Items M SD
_________________________________________________________________________________
I. Workload 0.58 0.53
Assign after each lesson 1.33 0.78
Require more than 40 min 0.83 0.72
Set more than 8 questions 0.58 0.79
Allow more than 20 min 0.17 0.39
Give on weekends 0.00 0.00
II. Purpose 0.45 0.24
Practice what was taught 0.92 0.90
Review class material 0.17 0.39
Get ready for next class 0.25 0.62
Finish something started 0.33 0.49
Extend class work 0.33 0.49
Create something new 0.42 0.67
Involve parents 0.50 0.80
Consolidate skills 0.67 0.78
III. Feedback 0.70 0.33
Check if students do it 1.00 0.95
Collect it for review 0.83 0.58
Mark it with comments 0 08 0.29
Grade it 0.42 0.67
Let students correct it 0.83 0.83
Go over it in class 0.92 0.79 .
Returned next 1 or 2 days 0.79 0.29
__________________________________________________________________________________
N= 12
Table 5 shows that item means ranged from 0.45 (0.24) for purpose (least frequent) to 0.70 (0.33)
for feedback (most frequent). These results do not correspond to the teachers' homework beliefs. Purpose
was rated highly important for beliefs but was implemented on a low level for practice. Teacher feedback
was rated highly important for beliefs but was implemented on a low level for practice. The activity of
teacher feedback was not only rated most frequent by the teachers, it was represented by the second
smallest standard deviation. Thus there was strong agreement among the teachers regarding this homework
activity. Moreover, teachers’ workload activity had the next highest mean 0.58 (0.53) and smallest standard
deviation. The practice mean rating for each homework strategy are further illustrated in Figure 4.
71
Figure 4. Homework practice: Activity mean rating
Means
Homework Activities
Figure 4 also shows that there is an order of importance in the teachers’ practice of these
homework activities: purpose, workload, and feedback. Purpose seems to have jumped down in order of
importance, perhaps because the teachers find it more time-consuming to set less conventional types of
homework (e.g., get ready, extend, create). Feedback seems to be the easiest in actual practice, probably
because teachers do have the option of eliciting the help of students in execution of this activity. From these
results, it was possible to draw the following conclusions: (a) there is an order of importance in the teachers’
practices that includes application of all three homework activities on a low level, (b) teachers’ homework
practice levels did not correspond to their homework belief levels reported on the survey, and (c) teachers
tend to vary to a greater degree in practice of the workload activity.
Homework practices teachers considered most important for each teaching activity and their
practice levels (means and standard deviations) are presented as follows:
(i) Workload: assign after each lesson, 1.33(0.78)
(ii) Purpose: practice what was taught, 0.92(0.90)
(iii) Feedback: check if students do it, 1.00(0.95)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Purpose
Workload
Feedback
72
Taken together, teacher practices stressed the traditional methods (assign, practice, check) more
often than nontraditional methods surveyed—a trend reflective of homework in mainstream classes,
promoting practice and drill as primary means of improving student retention of content material. Thus, it
is no surprise that practice of similar types of in-class problems (purpose) after each lesson (workload) and
then checking stamp sheets at the start of subsequent lessons to verify homework completion (feedback)
emerged as the primary strategies in the homework practices of these teachers. These results were
consistent with the teachers’ beliefs.
The teachers’ practice of “give after each class” as the preferred strategy for managing workload is
corroborated by the following lesson agendas written on the observation protocol by the investigator at
various dates during the class observations (see e.g., step 4 on class activity list):
Agenda 10-26-06
1. Put last class homework on desk
2. Begin your DOG
3. Write out Introduction for your Essay
4. Write tonight’s homework in Planner: “Preview and read Chapter 3-Ancient Mesopotamia.”
(Sixth Grade, social studies)
Agenda 11-07-06
1. Take test or silent read if finish early
2. Collect homework: WB 4-1 and WB 1-12
3. Read sections 3-2 and copy notes as needed
4. Tonight’s Homework: Complete sections WB 4-2 in Dispatch
(Seventh Grade, science)
Agenda 08-09-06
1 Draw punette-squares for color-blind man
2. Homework 4-1 is due today
3. Color-blind lab
4. Homework and quiz on 4-2
(Seventh Grade, science)
Teachers did not give the homework before the lesson very often, or to be precise, they frequently
failed to give it for previewing content material prior to its introduction to students. This might be because
homework given last can potentially “reduce task difficulty” for ELD students if the concept is taught
before homework is assigned. But whether assigning after the lesson is a more effective means for teachers
to manage workload remains an open question.
When setting purpose for homework, the most highly rated item was (a) practice what was taught
0.92 (0.90), followed by (b) consolidate skills 0.67 (0.78).
73
These purposes for homework are not different from those reported for participants in the Gill and
Schlossman (2004) related study of secondary teachers’ homework attitudes. In fact, the small means
and standard deviation obtained for homework purposes in this present study compared closely with
data reported for subjects in that qualitative research (teachers mostly gave 2 to 3 hours homework a
week for practice and memorization); however, the sample considered here is smaller, and adjusting
the time spent on practice-type homework appeared among the most highly rated purpose strategy—
results not found in the previous study. Teacher preferences for practice as the primary purpose for
homework is illustrated in the following teachers’ instruction given at the start of these lessons:
All students must produce quality homework. If you do not meet the standard, you will get extra
examples to practice at home. Your parents must then sign off to indicate you have met standards
(Eighth Grade, English)
Last night homework was to practice what you did on types of sentences. Meanwhile, get out your
homework and stamp sheets. I am coming around to check that you have completed all the
sentences. (Sixth Grade, English)
A Reminder: To do better on the tests you have to practice the problems every night. If you match
the notes with your homework, it will help you on the test. (Eighth Grade, math)
Still, the low rating for higher knowledge-type practices (e.g., create something new) in the teachers’
purpose for homework is a cause for concern as this experience is precisely what ELD students need to
stimulate learning of content materials.
When providing feedback on homework, it was most important for teachers to Check if students
do it 1.00 (0.95). Sorry to say, it was least important to (a) mark it with comments 0.08 (0.29) and grade
0.42 (0.67) perhaps because of classroom management constraints imposed by large class size or heavy
instructional workload. The following teachers’ comments support the above assertion regarding teachers’
use of “check if students do it” as the primary feedback strategy for homework:
Take out your stamp sheets so we can get a quick view of last homework on sentence-types. Lorna
(name changed) is coming around to check your homework and take your stamp sheet. I will go
over it in a minute so make sure you have your answers filled in. (Sixth Grade, English)
Everyone needs to take out Homework 6-8 and put it on the desk. As you can tell, I do not collect
and grade the homework. I will check the students who complete it with “Credit” or “No Credit.”
Then I will go over question 10 since so many of you missed it (Eighth Grade, math)
Last night’s homework was to add more ideas to your organizer on the geography of
Mesopotamia. Please get out your homework and check that those around you have theirs out as
well (Sixth Grade, social studies)
74
The homework practice showing the highest degree of variation among these middle school
teachers was workload, 0.58 (0.53); while 1 item rated “high,” 1 rated “moderate” and 3 rated “low” on
frequency of practice. The lowest variation is reported for feedback and purpose beliefs. Thus, managing
workload for homework is the primary issue of discrepancy in the homework practices of this sample of
ELD teachers.
Teachers’ homework practice levels are further illustrated in the frequency distribution of items
means in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Homework practice: Frequency distribution of item means
Figure 5 shows more low mean scores than high mean scores for the 20 practice items, with the
frequency of low items means disproportionately distributed for the purpose sub-scales as follows:
workload (3); purpose (7); and feedback (2). In general, teachers rated “low” on 65% of items (i.e., from
0.00-0.75), “moderate” on 30 % of items (i.e., between 0.75 and 1.25) and “high” on 5% of items (i.e.,
from 1.25 to 2.00).
The teachers' homework practices showed low approval of all three homework activities (i.e.,
workload, purpose, and feedback) listed on the observation protocol.
1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00
Item Means
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mean=0.5338
StD.=0.36918
N=20
Frequency
75
This result perhaps indicates teachers’ conformity with a trend in homework to avoid “burdening” students
who are not fluent in English with completing class work at home where parents may not be able to provide
much help with homework (Gill & Schlossman, 2002). A next plausible interpretation might be an attempt
by teachers to focus less on workload when addressing the special learning needs of ELD students. The
following teachers’ comments written on the observation protocol by the investigator corroborate teachers’
emphasis on less workload for homework practice:
I don’t give as much homework as I used to since I no longer used textbooks. I think as you get
more experience in the business you tend to give less, focusing on quality rather than quantity.
(Eighth Grade, math)
For tonight’s homework each team will take one hand-out. You only have to do one of the
worksheets. It’s not how much you do but how well you do it. Write down the word “Escape” and
do the same steps to fill out your organizer. (Sixth Grade, English)
I always try to make things a little easier for you on the homework. Your homework for today is to
complete as best you can, questions 25 through 39. Skip numbers 30, 31, and 32 if you want to.
(Eighth Grade, math)
The homework practices reported for middle school teachers are meant to show approval of
structure-based homework for teaching ELD content such that “homework be done on a regular basis
to help students become more self-reliant, improve skills taught, and master course content” (Code of
Academic and Behavioral Excellence, 2000, p. 4). Yet the results make it clear that teachers practice
homework on a low level.
The following evidence summarized from the previous section supports this conclusion: First, no
homework activity (workload, purpose, or feedback) was highly practiced by teachers, with each reporting
a low mean score on the observation protocol (0.58, 0.45, and 0.75); a common response was: “I don’t give
as much homework as I used to.” Second, teachers used traditional methods (e.g., practice, check) more
frequently than nontraditional methods (e.g., create, get ready). Third, variation in homework practices was
low for all three activities, even if workload represents the primary source of discrepancy in the teachers’
homework practices.
Overall, the results reported for the middle school teachers show a low level of homework
practices. The inclination of this sample was more directed towards sporadic practice of the three
homework activities on the observation protocol—one in which subjects highly approve most
behaviors for beliefs, but scarcely practice them in their classes.
76
Considering homework’s academic benefits for retention of content material covered in class (Mc
Inness, 2004) and motivation of independent learning (Cooper et al, 2006), the mostly low support for
structure-based homework reported for teachers in this ELD program is disappointing. Low emphasis on
more purposes, preference for traditional methods, as well as discrepancies in implementing workload (viz.
time, frequency, and amount requirements) are areas of weakness where teachers’ homework practices may need
more critical examination in this ELD program.
. Differences in Homework Beliefs and Homework Practices
by Experience Level
Homework Beliefs and Experience Level
In an attempt to verify the hypothesis that there is a difference in teachers’ homework beliefs
based on experience level, two groups of six teachers were formulated based on the number of years
teaching: More Experience Group (comprised of 6 subjects teaching for 10 or more years) and Less
Experience Group (comprised of 6 subjects teaching for less than 10 years). The proportions of “belief
responses” (i.e., “agree” and “disagree” ratings) for all 20 homework items were computed for each group.
Chi square, a non-parametric test, was applied to the proportion of “belief responses.” Table 6 gives the
proportion of “belief responses”’ and chi-square value at the .05 level.
Table 6
Homework Beliefs and Experience Level: Chi-Square Analysis
_________________________________________________________________________________
ME Group LE Group
____________________ ___________________
Belief Raw Score Percent Raw Score Percent x
2
Tabled df
Responses x
2
_________________________________________________________________________________
Agree 67 55.8 65 54.2 0.07 3.84 1
Disagree 53 44.2 55 45.8
_________________________________________________________________________________
Not significant at .05 level; p< 1.00; ME=More experience; LE=Less experience
Examination of this chi-square test result indicated that teachers’ belief responses were not
significantly different at the .05 level. For these data, x
2
(1) =0.07, p<.1. A chance distribution might have
resulted in the same responses for these homework behaviors.
77
In fact, when the proportion of “belief responses” of all subjects in the sample were compared (both More
Experience Group and Less Experience Group), there was hardly any difference in homework beliefs,
which implies that when these middle school teachers make instructional decisions for homework, they
perhaps do not rely much on their level of teaching knowledge and skills to determine how much workload
is enough, what purpose is appropriate, or what feedback is relevant for homework in ELD classes. The
negative result reported for this sample is supported in Hendrick, Harmon, and Linerod’s (2004) finding
that teaching experience was not related to the ranking of teacher-reported beliefs about social studies
content instruction for grades four through eight. One explanation offered by Thomas and Pedersen (2003)
is that teacher beliefs may be defined by their own “personal convictions and philosophies” rather than
teaching experience level.
Still, Table 7 shows several noticeable differences in the proportion of “agree” responses. For
instance, more experienced teachers considered workload slightly more important for homework than less
experienced teachers (20% vs. 10%). Less experienced teachers considered purpose more important for
homework than more experienced teachers (66.7% vs. 60.4%), while more experienced teachers considered
feedback slightly more important than less experienced teachers (76.2% vs. 71.4%)
Table 7
Comparison of Agree Responses by Experience Level
____________________________________________________________________________________
ME Group LE Group
____________________ _____________________
Teaching Raw Score Percent Raw Score Percent
Activity
____________________________________________________________________________________
Workload 6 20.0 3 10.0
Purpose 29 60.4 32 66.7
Feedback 32 76.2 30 71.4
____________________________________________________________________________________
ME=More experience; LE=Less experience
The results support the following conclusions: (a) that adjusting workload is a homework strategy
more experienced middle school teachers in this sample consider helpful for teaching ELD content, (b) that
perhaps the more experienced teachers, concerned with addressing the special learning needs of ELD
students, believe more strongly that feedback is essential for meeting critical instructional targets, and (c)
that workload and feedback may not be as important in the homework beliefs of less experienced teachers.
78
Given these results, it is reasonable to say that middle school teachers in this sample do not differ
significantly in their homework beliefs by experience level, even if some noticeable differences were
reported for “agree” responses on the survey.
Homework Practices and Experience Level
In regards to hypothesis 2, that there is a difference in the teachers’ homework practices based on
experience level, as proportions of homework practice ratings from the observation protocol (i.e., observed
and not observed) were computed for the “more experience” group and “less experience’ group.” Table 8
gives the homework practice proportions and calculated chi-square value at the .05 level:
Table 8
Homework Practice and Experience Level: Chi-Square Analysis
___________________________________________________________________________________
ME Group LE Group
____________________ ___________________
Practice Raw Score Percent Raw Score Percent x
2
Tabled df
Responses x
2
___________________________________________________________________________________
Observed 73 60.8 53 44.2 6.68* 3.84 1
Not Observed 47 39.2 67 55.8
___________________________________________________________________________________
*Significant at .05 level, p < 0.01; ME=More experience; LE=Less experience
For these data, x
2
(1) =6.68, p< 0.01. In other words, when the chi-square value for “homework practices”
of all subjects in the sample was examined against the tabled critical values of x
2
(+ 3.84), the difference in
these proportions were determined to be statistically significant at the .05 level. Thus, hypothesis 2 was
supported by the results: There is a difference in teacher homework practices based on experience level.
This result indicated that teaching experience level perhaps influenced the frequency with which the
teachers implement the workload, purpose, and feedback activities for homework. This was not the same
results found for participants in the Hendrick, Harmon, and Linerod’s (2004) study of teachers’ social
studies practices in grades 4-8. They used a similar survey procedure for analyzing teacher practices and
beliefs, but did not find comparable effects for experience level as subjects in this study (x
2
(2) = 6.68,
p<0.01 vs. x
2
(2) =0.14, p< 1.00). Unlike the present study, experience level in Hendrick et al’s (2004)
produced no difference in teachers’ ranking of practice items involving social studies vocabulary content.
79
However, the sample employed over 100 teachers across multiple school districts, and teacher beliefs were
established to be the most significant factor affecting teaching of content material—results not found in this
present study.
Table 9 shows a higher proportion of “observed practices” for more experienced teachers on all
three teaching activities in the following sequence:
(i) Workload (70% vs. 46.6%)
(ii) Feedback (66.6% vs. 52.3%)
(iii) Purpose (50% vs. 35.4%)
Table 9
Comparison of Observed Practices by Experience Level
_________________________________________________________________________________
ME Group LE Group
____________________ _____________________
Teaching Raw Score Percent Raw Score Percent
Activity
_________________________________________________________________________________
Workload 21 70 14 46.6
Purpose 24 50 17 35.4
Feedback 28 66.6 22 52.3
_________________________________________________________________________________
ME=More experience; LE=Less experience
There may be several reasons for this. One perhaps is that workload, purpose, and feedback strategies
are more highly valued for homework by the more experienced teachers. It may also be that these
homework activities are easier for more experienced teachers to apply due to classroom-related factors.
Given these results, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a significant difference in teacher
homework practices by experience level.
Relationship Between Homework Belief and Homework Practice
It is often thought by education researchers that what teachers believe about instructional
tasks will be related, in part, to their classroom teaching involving these tasks (Adams & Hsu, 1998;
Morrell, Flick, Lawrence, Wainwright & Camille, 2004; Roehrig & Kruse, 2005; Thomas & Pedersen,
2003). In an attempt to test this hypothesis with this sample of middle school teachers, I summed the
teachers’ homework beliefs rating for the 20 items on the survey and homework practice ratings for
the 20 items on the observation protocol.
80
For each group of 20 items, I calculated the item means. Those means were the observations used
in analysis of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient presented below in Table 10 and
Table 11.
Table 10
Homework Beliefs and Homework Practices: Item Means
________________________________________________________________________________
Variables
Homework Belief Homework Practice
Items Means Means
_______________________________________________________________________________
10 6.42 0.08
9 5.67 0.67
8 5.50 0.25
7 4.17 1.33
6 3.67 0.42
5 3.50 0.50
4 3.25 0.17
3 3.08 0.00
2 2.92 0.58
1 1.91 0.83
_______________________________________________________________________________
N=12
Table 11
Homework Beliefs and Homework Practices: Item Means
______________________________________________________________________________
Variables
Homework Belief Homework Practice
Items Means Means
_______________________________________________________________________________
20 8.50 1.00
19 8.40 0.92
18 8.33 0.17
17 7.25 0.83
16 7.25 0.83
15 7.17 0.92
14 6.83 0.33
13 6.58 0.08
12 6.58 0.42
11 6.58 0.33
______________________________________________________________________________
N=12
Table 10 and Table 11 show that teachers assigned all belief items either a high, moderate, or low rating,
but these do not correspond with practice. For instance, items 10 through 20 (55% items) are rated high
for beliefs (6.42 to 8.50) and low for practice (0.08 to 1.00), but Item 7 is rated low for beliefs (4.17)
and high for practice (1.33).
81
These inconsistent results show that teacher beliefs do not vary with their homework practices, with
items given a high belief rating consistently given a high practice rating. The computed Pearson
correlation between belief means and practice means are given in Table 12.
Table 12
Beliefs and Homework Practices: Correlation Analysis
________________________________________________________________________________
Variables N Mean Two-tailed P-value Pearson r
________________________________________________________________________________
Homework Beliefs 20 5.67 0.59 1.00
Homework Practices 20 0.36 0.59 0.13
________________________________________________________________________________
Not significant at .05 level
Table 12 shows a computed Pearson correlation of r = 0.13. This correlation indicates a
positive linear relationship exist between beliefs and homework practices; however, this result was
not significant at a = .05 (r (20) = .13, p < .05). From this analysis, it is safe to say there is a
relationship between teacher homework beliefs and homework practices (Hypothesis Three), but it
is not significant for this sample. It may be that teachers who have high beliefs for a given
homework activity (e.g., workload) have a tendency to engage or not engage frequently in that
activity depending on situational constraints in their classrooms. But it is equally likely that
teachers are not reporting what they truly believe about the importance of these homework
activities. Interpretation of this effect is unclear. A scatter-plot of the relationship between belief and
practice item means is further illustrated below in Figure 6.
82
Figure 6: Homework beliefs and homework practices: Correlation analysis
Figure 6 shows that the distribution of homework item means, sloping from left to right on the
scatter-gram, supports the Pearson correlation coefficient (r=.13) in Table 9 that a positive linear
relationship exists between homework beliefs and homework practices. This means that, in general,
high levels of homework beliefs result in high homework practices from these middle school teachers;
however, the distant cluster of points shows that the relationship is weak (i.e., near zero) for this
sample. Based on the result, it is reasonable to say that the homework behaviors of this sample of middle
school teachers do not significantly depend on their homework beliefs; however, the explanation for this
relationship is unclear.
Thus far, the previous sections have established several major findings regarding homework
beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in ELD content areas. The first major finding is that
teachers rate high in their homework beliefs (question1), but their actual homework practices do not
(question2). Teachers report high belief results in terms of survey mean scores for the purpose and feedback
sub-scales, but do not consider workload a highly important homework strategy.
8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00
Homework Beliefs
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
R Sq Linear = 0.016
Homework Practices
83
The results also show that teachers practice all three homework activities on a low level. Another major
finding as shown by the chi-square analyses is the idea that more experienced teachers do not differ
significantly from less experienced teachers in their homework beliefs, but show significant differences in
homework practice (i.e., Hypothesis One and Hypothesis Two). The final finding is that there is no
significant relationship between homework beliefs and homework practices for teachers in this
sample (Hypothesis Three).
Now that teacher homework beliefs and practices have been defined, a solid foundation has been
set for addressing the broader question of how committed middle school teachers are to the practice of
structure-based homework when teaching ELD content. The next chapter will attempt to address this
question in three sections as follows: conclusions and findings, recommendation for practice, and
recommendation for research.
84
CHAPTER 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and Findings
This dissertation started by asking the broad question, “How committed are middle school teachers to
the practice of structure-based homework in English language development content areas?" From the results,
it has been possible to answer the following more specific questions in an effort to address the broader one. The
specific research questions with the answers from previous sections of Chapter Four are summarized below.
How do the teachers rate on homework beliefs and homework practices? Overall, the evidence
suggests that teachers rate “in the middle” in their homework beliefs, considering a majority of items (65%)
as highly important; still, these beliefs support only two of the three homework dimensions examined.
Purpose and feedback were rated important in terms of survey mean scores (6.00 and 7.11), but
workload was not considered important for belief (M=3.07). Again, teachers rated traditional methods (e.g.,
practice, review, check) higher than less traditional methods (e.g., create, get ready). Again, teachers varied
more in their beliefs regarding importance of workload, particularly with regards to practices such as
“assign after each class” and “set more than 8 questions.” While some teachers agreed or were neutral in
reporting the importance for these behaviors, others disagreed.
This perhaps suggests that teachers in the study were unsure about how much homework effort
was appropriate for teachers and students in ELD classes and consequently based their beliefs about
workload on their own personal convictions and philosophies. One explanation, framed in Wiesenthal,
Cooper, Greenblatt, and Marcus (1997), may be that the current homework policy is ill-defined and some
teachers are less able to develop a common understanding about what practices were appropriate for
managing workload. Still, the real cause for teacher disagreement about workload is unclear. Overall,
teachers were ‘in the middle’ (i.e., undecided) in their homework beliefs and did not consider high
workload important in EL content areas.
85
The homework literature on middle school teachers focused on the idea that more aggressive
instructional reforms that included increase homework was required to meet new “excellence” standards
(Gill & Schlossmann, 2003). Studies conducted using the Purdue Opinion Panel Survey (POPS) found that
teachers substantially increased workload involving practice-type homework in excess of 2 hours in middle
school grades. How do teachers in this current study rate on homework practice? Data reported here make
it clear that teachers practice homework on a low level. Evidence summarized from previous sections
supports this conclusion. First, no homework activity was highly practiced by teachers, as only a “low”
mean score was obtained for each homework activity on the observation protocol (workload=0.58;
purpose=0.45; feedback=0.75).
A common teacher comment was: “I don’t give as much homework as I used to.” It may be that
students’ lack of English proficiency and home support made it impractical for teachers to give more. More
purpose was not an important part of teacher homework practices (i.e., more than 80% items were rated “Infrequent”);
traditional tasks (e.g., “practice” and “consolidate skills”) received higher ratings than nontraditional tasks (e.g.,
create, get ready). Teachers also rated “low” on feedback. Checking was more highly implemented than
explanatory-type practices (e.g., “mark with comments” or “go over it’), even when teachers acknowledged these
methods to be highly important for beliefs. Second, teachers did not vary much in their homework
practices, even if managing workload represented a primary source of discrepancy.
Overall, these findings suggest that teachers practice homework on a low level. The inclination of
subjects in this sample was high consideration for most homework tasks as to beliefs but they scarcely
practice them in their classrooms. This finding was more reflective of homework practices when a trend of
“progressive education” prevailed in American schools (Gill & Schlossman, 2003). Teachers in the Gill and
Schlossman study argued that high homework load should be abolished from the school curriculum as it
constitutes a health hazard, deprives students of outdoor play, and is unhelpful for learning. That being the
case, the conclusion is that teachers rate “in the middle” (i.e., undecided) in their homework beliefs and low
in their homework practices while typically preferring traditional teaching methods
86
Is there a difference in teacher homework beliefs and homework practices based on experience
level? The use of the chi-square test to examine the differences in homework beliefs as related to teaching
experience found no significant difference (hypothesis 1). In other words, when proportions of “belief
responses” were compared, “more experience” subjects showed little difference from “less experience”
subjects on homework beliefs. Noticeable differences for more experienced subjects included higher agree
responses for workload (4.5% vs. 2.3%) and feedback (24.2% vs. 22.7%). Less experienced teachers
approved “purpose” more highly (24.2 vs. 21.9%). These findings appear to suggest that teaching
experience may not contribute much in determining these teachers’ homework beliefs in ELD classes. In
fact, regardless of experience level, teachers reported strong similarity in their beliefs in that they approve
the nontraditional methods: (a) practice, (b) review, and (c) check to set purpose and give feedback, but
disapproved of high workload requiring more than 40 minutes of homework. These results differed from
the Hendrick, Harmon, and Linerode (2004) study, which found that teachers’ self-reported beliefs about
social studies content instruction make no difference in actual practice, even if various researchers have
established a positive correlation between teacher beliefs and practices in a variety of academic content
areas.
As to the difference in the teachers’ homework practices based on experience level, the chi-square
analysis shows a significant difference in the middle school teachers’ homework practices based on
experience level (hypothesis 2). In fact, when proportions of “homework practices” were compared for the
“more experience” and “less experience” groups, x
2
(1) =6.68, p< 0.01. This result was significant at the
.05 level, with noticeable differences in practice observed for more experienced teachers on all three
homework activities: (a) workload (70% vs. 46.6%), (b) purpose (50% vs. 35.4%, and (c) feedback (66.6
vs. 52.3%). This might mean that workload, purpose, and feedback strategies are easier for more
experienced teachers to apply by virtue of more curriculum knowledge and skills, or that the classroom
context may encourage more application of these homework strategies. Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported
by the results. To reiterate, there was no difference in the subjects’ homework beliefs by experience level.
However, on homework practices, a significant difference was found, with less experienced teachers
producing a lower proportion of observed practices.
87
Is there a relationship between teacher homework beliefs and homework practices? No, the
relationship between homework beliefs and homework practice for teachers in this sample was not
significant when the observed sample correlation (r= 0.13) was compared with the tabled values of r
(+ 0.44). A positive linear relationship was established between homework belief means and
homework practice means from this correlation analysis; however, behaviors given high belief means
did not consistently produce high practice means on the observation protocol. For instance, teachers’
beliefs for workload activity seem to vary positively with practice, but their beliefs for purpose and
feedback activity did not. In fact, purpose and feedback rated high for belief but low for practice.
These inconsistent relationships support the weak sample correlation (r= 0.13) obtained from this
analysis, making it possible to conclude that, in general, there is no significant relationship between
homework beliefs and homework practices for teachers in this sample (hypothesis 3). Subjects highly
approve most homework tasks for belief but do not practice them frequently in their classes, with the
explanation for this trend being unclear.
To conclude, if substandard homework is apparent in the practice of less experienced middle school
teachers, “how committed are the middle school teachers to the practice of structure-based homework in
English language development content areas?” Not much. The teachers’ weaknesses far outnumber their
strengths on this evaluation, at a time when the Ames (1992b) theoretical framework required that teachers
optimize workload, purpose, and feedback on academic tasks to make them more effective. That being the case,
the conclusion is that the middle school teachers in this sample are not much committed to structure-based
homework when teaching EL content.
The major findings summarized from answers to the specific questions from the previous section
support this conclusion. Foremost, teachers were strong on rating high in their beliefs for most homework tasks.
In opposition, teachers were weak on five areas. First, they did not consider workload important, and second,
teachers practice all three homework activities on a low level. Rather than demonstrate approval of nontraditional
methods (e.g., create, get ready) supportive of the task-structure model, teachers reported (a) preference for
traditional methods (e.g., review, practice, check) for belief and practice, and (b) low rating for explanatory-type
feedback (e.g., mark with comments, go over it) on practice.
88
Third, strong discrepancies show in teacher beliefs about the value of workload (viz. amount, time, and
frequency of homework). Fourth, less experienced teachers performed lower on homework practice. Fifth,
teacher homework beliefs were inconsistent with practice, with subjects highly approving most homework tasks
for belief but not practicing them frequently in their classrooms. As a whole, teachers’ weaknesses far out-
numbered their strengths, which suggest they are not much committed to structure-based homework when
teaching EL content. Emphasis on low homework practice, preference for traditional methods, and discrepancies
over importance of workload (viz. time, frequency, and amount required) are areas of weakness where teacher
beliefs and practices regarding homework may need more critical examination in this ELD program.
As a final point, the study sought to answer the much broader question, “How committed are middle
school teachers to structure-based homework in the English language content areas?" Like all teachers,
middle school teachers in ELD classes need to assign homework with optimal workload, purpose, and feedback
to enhance its effectiveness. Data examined in this study did not show much commitment from teachers to the
structure-based standards outlined in the Ames (1992b) task-structure model, but to give one broad answer to
generalize for the homework beliefs and practices of all middle school teachers in EL content areas would
certainly require a research study with a sample too large for this dissertation.
Limitations
The results here need to be viewed with appropriate caution given the limitations present in this
study. First, sample size was small, limiting the evaluation to 12 volunteers who may have a bias in favor
of homework by virtue of their interest in participating. Second, the observations were designed to measure
only selected aspects of teacher homework practices. For logistical reasons at the site, the duration of
observations was shortened to 1 period per session (i.e., for 60 minutes of the 120 minutes block schedule).
Consequently, data relevant to this construct was not collected for the second half of each lesson observed
(i.e., period 2). This could create the problem of omitting a valuable part of the data if a teacher did not deal
with homework in period one when the observer was present but instead chose to do so in period two, thus
potentially diminishing construct validity and making it harder for the investigator to obtain an accurate
measure of homework practice using the present observation protocol.
89
A third potential problem was that some teachers had to be told the exact date and time of the
observations. This was necessary on occasions when class visits had to be postponed for emergencies
arising from teacher absences or student assessments. Announced visits could create the problem of
teachers making extra preparation, which perhaps distorted what was typically done for homework. The
results could differ if some participants made special homework preparation to accommodate the
investigator’s visit while others engaged in routine practices when prior knowledge of classroom visitations
were not given. This can have serious consequences because past research on this subject had found that
prior knowledge of work evaluation have, with varying degrees of consistency, been cited as predictors of
work performance (Clark & Estes, 2004). In particular, educators were generally found to display higher
levels of performance it they knew their knowledge and skills would be tested (Smith, Organ & Near,
1983). This may be true of three participants in this study.
Finally, there is always the possibility that when surveyed, the teachers did not report what they
truly believe about the importance of these homework behaviors for fear of incrimination. Thus
generalizing these results to other groups should, therefore, be tentative and informed by an adequate
knowledge of circumstances affecting the teachers under study.
Recommendation for Practice
There is proof that schools are cutting back on staff development (Green & Chetzoy, 1998) at a
time when this study indicates that teachers need to develop homework beliefs and practices more
compatible with structure-based standards. The strong evidence from the survey and observations is that
teachers have high homework beliefs for most tasks, but practice these on a low level. Discrepancies exist
between what teachers believe and actually do to manage workload, and despite reporting beliefs that they
approve most purpose and feedback practices for supporting homework in subject content, their homework
practices appear to reflect the traditional methods of review, practice, and check commonly found in
mainstream classes. Implications for practice and future research seem limitless.
A major implication for practice points to a need for the principal and ELD coordinator to carry
out staff development linked to homework for all the ELD teachers regardless of experience level, as
teachers in this sample did not differ significantly in their homework beliefs by experience level but in fact
practice all three homework activities on a low level.
90
A key ingredient of improving these in-service teachers’ instructional competence connected to homework
through staff development would be for the school leaders to use evidence gathered in this study to identify
the areas where teacher homework beliefs and practices need more critical examination and where policies
need to be developed to improve instructional standards. For a start, the current homework policy might be
reviewed to include more detailed teaching suggestions for helping teachers deal with deficient homework
practices as Wiesenthal, Cooper, Greenblatt, and Marcus (1997) found that “schools with a well-defined
homework policy had teachers who gave, collected, marked, returned, and believed in the usefulness of
those assignments significantly more frequently” (p.1) than schools without. A revised homework policy
should give teachers specific guidelines about how to manage homework load, as the primary source of
discrepancy in the homework beliefs and practices of teachers in this sample were issues regarding amount,
frequency, and time investment appropriate for homework in the ELD content areas. The school’s current
homework policy written in the Code of Academic and Behavioral Excellence (2000) is a broad statement
that provides no specific guidelines to the teachers about standards acceptable for supporting workload,
purpose, and feedback activities.
Moreover, teachers’ reliance on traditional methods (practice, review, and check) in delivery of
homework, as opposed to nontraditional practices (e.g., create, get ready etc) on the observation protocol is
definitely an area to target homework policy as the performance gap among this sample of middle school
teachers widens. Subsequently, the ELD coordinator might introduce a variety of homework strategies for
workload and purpose activities during the weekly staff meetings and deliberate about teacher beliefs and
practices regarding these strategies in relation to structure-based standards. Presenting a diverse array of
homework strategies for teachers to consider and select may give them more flexibility as they make the
instructional decisions necessary for integrating homework more fully in their respective content areas.
For pre-service ELD teachers, teacher preparation programs affiliated with the school district must
emphasize training to improve homework beliefs in ELD classes. The absence of homework training for
prospective ELD teachers makes initiatives to change teacher attitudes in incorporating structure-based
standards in homework highly desirable. The reported homework beliefs revealed that this sample of
teachers has convictions about what homework behaviors are essential and what behaviors are not.
91
Thomas and Pedersen (2003) suggest that faculty members initiate methods by helping beginning teachers
explore and question their entering beliefs and future intentions through course readings, class discussions,
and individual conferences. In the words of Goodman, "If students’ beliefs are challenged in a non-
threatening manner, most seemed willing to seriously consider alternative points of view" (in Thomas and
Pedersen, p. 130).
Faculty members may also need to provide a sound theoretical base for more desirable homework
beliefs about nontraditional practices (e.g., get ready for class, extend class work, or create something new)
as there were only isolated examples of teachers acknowledging the importance of these practices in
delivery of homework. Most teachers relied more on traditional methods (viz. practice, review, and check)
when giving homework, while those with less teaching experience practice homework less frequently.
Evidently, prospective teachers will need guidance as they draw on current theories of teaching and
incorporate these ideas more fully in the homework process. Simply asking teachers to re-evaluate their
personal homework beliefs, without providing sound research principles vis-à-vis the Ames (1992b) model
to take the place of undesirable beliefs may not be effective in changing teachers’ future homework attitudes
and behaviors.
Recommendation for Research
As middle schools grapple with substandard homework practices in ELD content areas, this evaluation
can also provide momentum for much required future research into homework beliefs and practices of
teachers working in ELD classes. The findings of this study hold several implications for future research.
First, as ground-breaking research, this dissertation recommends that more extensive investigation of
middle school teachers’ homework beliefs and practices be done by replicating this study with a larger
sample of subjects. A larger sample size would make it possible to generalize the findings to other groups
of middle school teachers in ELD programs.
Second, the findings call for application of more experimental analyses to examine reasons why the
middle school teachers’ beliefs are inconsistent with their observed practices, or why there is a difference in
the teachers’ homework practices by experience level.
92
Two questions that may be applied to future research describing middle school teachers’ homework beliefs
and practices in ELD content areas include: To what extent do middle school teachers who follow a well-
defined homework policy value and practice homework in ELD content areas? Do middle schools that follow
a well-defined homework policy have teachers who approve and give more homework in ELD content areas?
After all, Cooper, Robinson and Patall (2006) acknowledged that “there is much less to be gained from
carrying out ‘homework studies as usual’ than from new attempts to pinpoint estimates of causal
relationships” (p. 54). The point is, research explaining why teachers believe and do homework as they do
“remains a largely unmapped terrain” (Cooper et al., p. 54). Therefore studies that introduce homework as
an experimental intervention with randomly assigned subjects could be a new and rich source of
information. In addition, of course extending this analysis to teacher activities in the task-structure model
not covered in this investigation, including teachers’ homework choice, completion deadlines, and
incentives and using more unannounced class observations can perhaps go a long way in informing about
the middle school teacher’s role in the homework process.
Conclusion
Historically, “homework has been one of the most emotionally charged subjects in American
education” (Gill & Schlossman, 2003b, p. 9). Public opinions on homework have typically slipped into
contrasting viewpoints enduring for prolonged periods. Between 1900 and 1950, a campaign by
"progressive" educators opposing high homework load in American schools received significant support
among K-12 teachers, school leaders, and parents. Through the second half of the 20th century, homework
supporters have related their opinions of homework to the wider “political and ideological agendas, and
regularly derided contrary views as unfounded or even un-American” (Gill & Schlossman, p. 9).
As this ideological debate enters the 21st century, it is significant how narrowly focused on
students the homework issue has become in some public schools. Wiesenthal et al. (1997) perhaps framed it
best by observing that the homework problem has long turned into a "student-oriented” issue, but what
about teachers’ personal commitment to value and give homework?
What can be learned from this study is that there is an overwhelming lack of commitment to
homework in these ELD content area classes.
93
The strong evidence in this investigation is that the middle school teachers, regardless of experience level,
report strong approval of most surveyed homework practices. Still, there are several areas in which the
teachers' homework practices are lacking. The evidence suggests that teachers are ambivalent in their
homework beliefs and do not consider workload important. Their homework also shows evidence of low
practice, preference for traditional methods, and inconsistency with self-reported beliefs.
This profile of teacher strengths and weaknesses provides concrete evidence that these middle
school teachers are not much committed to structure-based strategies when giving homework to English learners.
These findings thus reinforce the need for curriculum and training to assist the teachers in developing more
desirable homework beliefs and practices.
94
Bibliography
Adams, T., & Hsu, J. (1998).Classroom assessment: Teachers’ conceptions and practices in
mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 1-10.
American Speech Language and Hearing Association. (2003).Writing treatment for severe
aphasia: Who benefits? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(5), 1038-60.
Ames, C. (1992). Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2002). Mother-child joint writing and storybook reading: Relations with literacy
among low SES kindergarteners. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48(2), 202-224.
Bailey, J. P. (1999). Quantifying library quality: A homework center report card. American Libraries,
30(8), 1-5.
Barillas, M. (2000). Literacy at home: Honoring parent voices through writing. The Reading Teacher,
54(3), 302-308.
Battle-Bailey, L. (2003). Training teachers to design interactive homework. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearing House on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Bennet, S. (2007). Stop homework. Retrieved on March 30th, 2007, from
http://stophomework.com/the-case-against-homework
Bempechat, J. (2004). The motivational benefits of homework: A social-cognitive perspective.
Theory into Practice, 43(3), 189-196.
Betts, J. (1996). The role of homework in improving school quality. Unpublished manuscript.
University of California at San Diego.
Black, S. (1997). Doing our homework on homework. Education Digest, 62(8), 36-39.
Bourke, S., & Fairburn, H.(1993). Measuring secondary school teachers’ views of homework.
Fremantle, WA: University of Newcastle.
Cesarone, B. (2004). Relationship among attitudes about homework, amount of homework
assigned and completed, and student achievement. Childhood Education, 4(2)1-14.
Clark, D. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Code of Academic and Behavioral Excellence (2000). U. S. Department of Education,
Long Beach, CA.
Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 3(1), 85-91.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among attitudes
About homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1) 70-83.
Cooper, H., Jackson, K., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. (2001). A model of homework's influence on the
performance evaluations of elementary school students. Journal of Experimental
Education, 69(1), 181-198.
95
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic?
achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003: Review of Educational Research,
76(1), 1-62.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard
Education Review, 56(1), 18-36.
De Jong, R., Westerhof, K., & Creemers, B. (2000). Homework and students math
achievement in junior high schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6,130-157.
Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (2003). The effect of item feedback on multiple-choice test
responses. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1).
Espino, C. M. (1999). Promoting language proficiency and academic achievement through
cooperation. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics.
Farrow, S., Tymms, P., & Henderson, B. (1999). Homework and attainment in primary schools.
British Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 323-341.
Gill, B. P., & Schlossman, S. L. (2003a). Parents and the politics of homework: Some
historical perspectives: Teachers College Record 105(5), 846-871.
Gill, B. P., & Schlossman, S. L (2003b). The American way of homework: Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(3), 319-337.
Gill, B. P., & Schlossman, S. L. (2004). Villain or savior? The American discourse on
homework: Theory into Practice, 43(3), 1-9.
Haag, K. T. Z., Diamond-Hallam, C., & Fine, J. G. (2002). On the trail of a phenomenon:
Casual learners. German Journal of Educational Psychology 16(2), 109-115.
Haag, L., & Mischo, C. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning.
Teaching Exceptional Children 36(6), 64-69.
Hedrick W. B., Harmon J. M., & Linerode P. M. (2004).Teachers' beliefs and practices of
vocabulary instruction with social studies textbooks in grades 4-8. Reading
Horizons, 45(2), 103-25.
Huffman, D., Lawrenz, F., & Palmer, E. (1999). Relationships between instruction and
achievement in Minnesota science and mathematics classes. Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement, 7(2), 1-17.
Keith, T., Diamond-Hallam, C., & Fine, J. (2004). Longitudinal effects of in-school and out
of school homework on high school grades. School Psychology Quarterly, 19(3),
187-211.
Kralovec, E. & Buell, J. (2001a). The end of homework. How homework disrupts families,
overburdens children and limits learning. Boston: Beacon Press
Kralovec, E. & Buell, J. (2001b). End homework now. Educational Leadership, 58, 1-12.
96
Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P., & Konold, K. B. (2004a). Longitudinal effects of in- school
and out-of-school homework on high school grades. Schoo Psychology Quarterly,
19(30), 187-9-42.
Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P., & Konold, K. B. (2004b). Using teacher feedback to enhance
student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 64-9.
Mc Iness, K. (2004). Analysis of contemporary educational issues: Homework in the
primary school curriculum. Professional Policy, Practice and Responsibility,
828, 1-5.
Marzano, R. J., Norford, J. S., Paynter, D. E., Pickering, D. J., & Gaddy, B. B. (2001). A
handbook for classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Morrell, P. D., Flick, L., & Wainwright, C. (2004). Reform teaching strategies used by
student teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(5) 1-12.
Ortiz, R. W., & Mc Carty, L. L. (1997). Daddy read to me: Fathers helping their young
children learn to read. Reading Horizons, 38(1), 108-115.
Packard A. L. & Holmes G. A. (2001). Collaboration of students and faculty creating a
website based for homework: American Education Research Association. Seattle,
WA.
Padak, N. (2002). Strategies that work. What does the evidence tell us? Research to practice.
Columbus: Ohio State Literacy Resource Center.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Paulu, N., & Darby, L. (1998). Helping your students with homework: A guide for teachers.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research Improvement.
Pezdek, K., Berry, T., & Renno, R. (2002). Children's mathematics achievement: The role of
parents’ perceptions and their involvement in homework. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 771-777.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Roehrig, G. H., & Kruse, R. A. (2005). The role of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in the
adoption of a reform-based curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8),
1-12.
Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. M., & Daley, K. E. (1998). Differential effects of
home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language.
Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 96-116.
97
Silvis, H. (2002). Take-home lessons beyond the bell: Extending opportunities for learning.
Northwest Education, 7(4), 1-33
.
Simplicio, J. S. C. (2005). Homework in the 21
st
century: The antiquated and ineffectual
implementation of a time honored educational strategy. Education, 126(1), 138-143.
Smith, C., Organ, D. W., & Near, P. J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Sullivan, M., & Sequeira, P. (1996). The impact of purposeful homework on learning.
Clearing House, 69, 346-348.
Swank, A. (1999). The effect of weekly math homework on fourth grade student math
performance. Knoxville, TN: Johnson Bible College.
Thomas, J. A., & Pedersen, J. E. (2003). Reforming elementary science teacher preparation:
What about extant teaching beliefs? School Science and Mathematics, 103(7), 1-13.
Uhlenberg, J., & Brown, K. M. (2002). Racial gaps in teachers’ perceptions of the
achievement gap. Education and Urban Society, 34(4), 493-530.
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family
involvement and science achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,
96(6), 323-317.
Villas-Boas, A. (1998).The effects of parental involvement in homework on student
achievement in Portugal and Luxembourg. Childhood Education, 74(6), 367-371.
Walberg, H., Paschal, R., & Weinstein, T. (1985). Homework’s powerful effects on learning.
Educational Leadership, 42, 76-79.
Wiesenthal, R., Cooper B. S., Greenblatt, R. & Marcus, S. (1997). Relating school policies
and staff attitudes to the homework behaviors of teachers: An empirical study.
Journal of Educational Administration, 35(4) 348.
Wiltse, E. M. (2002). Correlates of college students' use of instructors' comments. Journalism
and Mass Communication Educator, 57(2), 126-139.
98
Appendices
Appendix A
Observation Protocol
1. Date Observation Completed:_______________
2. Time Session Began/End:________/________AM/PM
When managing workload did the teacher: F IF N Notes
1 Assign homework after each class
2 Require more than 40 minutes to complete
3 Set more than 8 questions/exercises
4 Allow more than 20 min of class time
5 Give homework on weekends
I.
Workload
Summary
When setting purpose for homework did the
teacher direct students to:
F IF N
6 Practice what was taught
7 Review class material for tests
8 Get ready for next class
9 Finish something started
10 Extend class work (e.g. through extra
reading)
11 Create something new with what was taught
12 Involve parents.
13 Consolidate skills
II.
Purpose
Summary
When providing feedback on homework did the
teacher:
F IF N
14 Check if students do it
15 Mark it with comments, explaining errors
16 Collect it for review
17 Grade it
18 Let students correct it themselves
19 Go over it in class to check for correctness
20 Return it to students next 1 or 2 days
III.
Feedback
Summary
Note: F=Frequent; IF=Infrequent; N=Not Seen
99
Appendix B
Homework Practice: Item Ratings (Raw Scores)
_________________________________________________________________________
Items and Categories Teachers Raw Scores
A B C D E F G H I J K L
_________________________________________________________________________
I. Workload
Assign each class 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 1
Require more than 40 min. 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 1
Set more than 8 questions 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 0
Allow more than 20 min 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Give on weekends 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
II. Purpose
Practice what was taught 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 0
Review class material 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Get ready for next class 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Finish something started 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Extend class work 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Create something new 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Involve parents 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0
Consolidate skills 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
III. Feedback
Check if students do it 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0
Collect it for review 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1
Mark it with comments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Grade it 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Let students correct it 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 1
Go over it in class 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 1
Return it next 1 or 2 days 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
_________________________________________________________________________
Note: Based on a 3-point scale; 2= Frequent; 0=Not Seen
100
Appendix C
Homework Survey
Note: DS=Disagree Strongly; AS= Agree Strongly
Directions: Please circle the one number from 1 for Disagree Strongly (DS) to 9 for Agree
Strongly (AS) that comes closest to reflecting your belief about the importance of each
homework practice in ELD content classes. There are no right answers so respond
thoughtfully but quickly.
Part I When managing work load ... Circle one number for each line
1 Assigned homework after each class DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
2 Required more than 40 minutes to
complete
DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
3 Set more than 8 questions/exercises DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
4 Allowed more than 20 min of class time DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
5 Give homework on weekends DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
Part II When setting purpose for homework…… Circle one number for each line
6 Practice what was taught DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
7 Review class material for tests DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
8 Get ready for next class DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
9 Finish something started DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
10 Extend class work (e.g. through extra
reading)
DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
11 Create something new with what was
taught
DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
12 Involve parents. DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
13 Consolidate skills DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
Part III When providing feedback on
homework……
Circle one number for each line
14 Check if students do it DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
15 Mark it with comments, explaining errors DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
16 Collect it for review DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
17 Grade it DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
18 Let students correct it themselves DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
19 Go over it in class to check for
correctness
DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
20 Return it to students next 1 or 2 days DS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : AS
Part IV Personal Information Circle one number for each line
21 What academic subject did you teach for
these observations?
1. English
2. Math
3. Social studies
4. Science
22 What grade level did you teach for these
observations?
1. Six 3. Eight
2. Seven 4. Nine
23 How many years have you taught? 1. One-Five years
2. Six-Ten years
3. Eleven-Sixteen years
4. Sixteen-Twenty One years
5.Twenty-Two or More years
101
Appendix D
Homework Beliefs: Item Ratings (Raw Scores)
__________________________________________________________________________
Items and Categories Teachers Raw Scores
A B C D E F G H I J K L
__________________________________________________________________________
I. Workload
Assign each class 9 6 1 0 0 9 1 3 7 9 2 3
Require more than 40 min 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 2 2
Set more than 8 questions 0 5 1 1 3 4 9 1 6 0 2 3
Allow more than 20 min 2 4 5 5 1 1 9 1 4 1 3 3
On weekends 0 3 3 5 0 9 5 3 2 1 1 5
III. Purpose
Practice what was taught 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 8 7
Review class material 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 7 7
Get ready for next class 7 7 9 1 6 5 5 4 4 9 2 7
Finish something started 8 7 9 7 7 5 9 7 7 1 5 7
Extend class work 7 7 9 9 8 5 9 2 7 9 3 7
Create something new 7 6 4 1 2 3 5 0 7 1 1 7
Involve parents 5 6 2 1 1 1 5 1 5 9 3 3
Consolidate skills 8 7 5 1 8 5 9 7 7 1 3 7
III. Feedback
Check if students do it 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 6
Collect it for review 9 8 5 9 8 5 5 9 8 9 6 6
Mark it with comments 9 5 4 9 5 7 5 8 8 9 6 4
Grade it 9 5 4 5 8 2 9 8 8 5 8 8
Let students correct it 9 6 9 6 5 9 7 9 8 9 4 6
Go over it in class 9 7 9 8 8 9 9 8 4 0 7 8
Return it next 1 or 2 days 9 3 5 7 8 7 5 7 5 5 8 8
__________________________________________________________________________
Note: Based on a 9-point Likert scale; 9= Agree strong; 1=Disagree strongly
102
Appendix E
IRB Approval
From: Scott Maul
To: Alex Pierre
CC: Lisa Galvan
The IRB Administrator assigned to study # UP-06-00266 , "Teachers’ Homework
Perceptions and Practices " has sent the following correspondence. The
correspondence will also appear in the history log.
Dear Mr. Pierre,
Your study has been approved and I am finalizing the approval notice. The IRB
has made some revisions to information sheet and parental notification. We
recommend that you use these revised documents if it is acceptable to you. An
explanation follows and the "marked" documents are attached here for your records.
Explanations of Contingency Review 4. Section 29.1.1. Informed consent. Upon
review this study qualifies for exemption under category 1. This project is being
conducted in an established educational setting involving normal education practices.
Since the study meets the criteria for exemption the study is exempt from 45 CFR 46
consent requirements. However, it is recommended that the PI use an information
sheet developed from the UPIRB Template to provide teachers and EL Program
Leader. A signed consent form is not necessary. The current Consent Form for the
teachers does not follow the UPIRB template. A UPIRB template for an Information
Sheet (Anonymous) for this study is attached. Response 4. The PI has prepared an
appropriate information sheet. The staff has reviewed and revised the IS. A marked
copy is attached.
5. Section 29.1.1. Students will be present in the classroom during the observation but
the observation is of the teachers and there will not be any interaction amongst the PI
and students. If the investigator is not interacting with the children and is focusing on
the teacher, then parental permission may not be necessary; however it is highly
recommended as a courtesy (and may be required by your site) to either seek the
parental permission or at least inform the parents that a research project will be
undertaken and present information on how the observations will be conducted.
Response 5. The PI has prepared an appropriate information letter for the parents. The
staff has reviewed the letter and made one significant revision in regards to the
statement “Moreover, data from the project will be kept strictly confidential in
accordance with university and IRB policy and teachers’ will have the option to
change their mind about participating at any time”. The staff has removed “university
and IRB policy” because 1) The parents might wonder what is the IRB? And 2) The
policies are really best practice and may not be spelled out in a university policy
book. A marked copy of the parent letter or information flier is attached. Thank you
for your responses and please looks for the certification notice shortly.
Sincerely,
Scott Maul
Program Specialist
213-821-5272
103
Appendix F
IBR Certification Notice (a)
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099
Review of Research Involving Human Subjects
C E R T I F I C A T I O N N O T I C E
Date: Fri Sep 29 17:03:13 2006
Principal Investigator: Alex Pierre
Faculty Advisor: Eugenia Mora-Flores
Co-Investigators
Project Title: Comparison of Teachers’ Perceptions of Homework Design and
Instructional Practices for Six Grade English Language Learners (Teachers’
Homework Perceptions and Practices ) USC UPIRB #UP-06-00266
The University Park Institutional Review Board has reviewed the information you
submitted pertaining to the above proposal and has:
___Approved Study
___Approved the Designated Review
X Claim of Exemption Certified
___Approved continuation
___Approved amendment
X Certified under the review by the UPIRB Director -exemption: - 45 CFR
46.101 (b) (1)
(Certified by Chair with or without conditions on 9/26/2006)
All review contingencies have been met.
Note that the UPIRB has made minor revisions to the Information Sheet and/or
recruitment documents. Your study is exempt from the regulations under 45 CFR
46; however, the UPIRB recommends that you use the revised documents when
recruiting or enrolling potential subjects. The recruitment document(s) and/or
Information Sheet will not be stamped by the UPIRB, and can be accessed under the
“Documents” tab in the study workspace in iStar. Note the “marked” version of the
revised document was attached in a separate correspondence for your records. Please
use this as a template for future revisions.
Please note: This Claim of Exemption Certification Notice is valid for the life of the
study. If there are changes to the study, an amendment to the original Claim of
Exemption must be submitted to the UPIRB for review and certification.
104
Appendix G
IBR Certification Notice (b)
NOTE: The IRB must review all advertisements and/or recruiting materials. Serious
adverse events, amendments and/or changes in the protocol must be submitted to the
UPIRB for approval. Changes may not be implemented until you have received the
Board’s approval. Exception: changes involving subjects’ safety may be implemented
prior to notification to the UPIRB. Please be advised that, per federal regulations, the
IRB will be monitoring adherence to approved research protocols. The oversight
process does not end with approval of a proposal. We appreciate your understanding of
our collaborative efforts to maintain the integrity of our human subjects’ research
approval processes and procedures to ensure continuous quality improvement and
academic excellence at USC.
Principles To Be Followed By Principal Investigators: As the Principal Investigator,
you have ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the study, the ethical performance
of the project, the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects, and strict
adherence to any stipulations imposed by the USC UPIRB. You must abide by the
following principles when conducting your research:
1. Perform the project by qualified personnel according to the approved
protocol.
2. Do not implement changes in the approved protocol or consent form without
prior USC UPIRB approval (except in a life-threatening emergency, if
necessary to safeguard the well-being of human subjects).
3. If written consent is required, obtain the legally effective written informed
consent from human subjects or their legally responsible representative using
only the currently approved USC-UPIRB stamped consent form.
4. Promptly report all undesirable and unintended, although not necessarily
unexpected adverse reactions or events, that are the result of therapy or other
intervention, within five working days of occurrence. All fatal or life-
threatening events or events requiring hospitalization must be reported to the
USC UPIRB in writing within 48 hours after discovery.
5. No subjects may be identified, contacted, recruited, or enrolled until the
University finalizes the contract with the sponsor.
Kristin J. Allen, M.P.H., CIP, UPIRB Director
105
Appendix H
Information Sheet for Teachers (a)
University of Southern California
EdD PROGRAM, ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
COMPARISON OF MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION OF
HOMEWORK DESIGN AND INSTRUCTED PRACTICES FOR ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Completion and return of the survey or participation in the classroom observations
will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Alex Pierre, MEd and
Eugenia Mora Flores, EdD, from the Doctor of Education Program at Rossier School
of Education, University of Southern California. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study for three reasons. First is, your school’s English language
program have achieved among the highest pass rates on the 2004-2005 CELDT
middle school writing assessment. Second is, you presently assign homework in one
or more core academic subjects: English language arts, science, social studies, or
math. Third is, you will be in a full-time teaching position in an English learners (EL)
class at least one year by the start of this study. A total of 12 subjects will be selected
to participate in this research during the 2006 fall semester from a population of
middle school EL teachers. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more
about effects of EL teachers’ perceptions of homework design on their instructed
practices. This mixed-method study is intended to contribute to the knowledge base
by informing school leaders about areas where EL teachers’ homework practices need
more critical examination. Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to
the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in two classroom observations and complete one
take-home survey. Observations will be done in your classroom during two different
lessons delivered during October and November 2006; each will last between 40 and
45 minutes. During the observations, I will be sitting a little apart from you and the
students and will take notes about what I see and hear during my time in the class.
Surveys will be given to each teacher individually at the end of the second
observation. Surveys will consist of 20 short likert-type items, requiring
approximately 10 minutes completing. The list of questions ask about teachers’
beliefs about structure in homework (viz. load, purpose, and feedback) and responses
are rated on a scale from 1=Disagree Strongly to 9=Agree Strongly. Surveys may be
taken home and completed at your convenience.
106
Appendix I
Information Sheet for Teachers (b)
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some
discomfort at completing the survey, being observed, or you may be
inconvenienced from taking time out of your day to complete the survey. Data
from the two class observations and survey report will not be used for
performance evaluation. Information will not be given to your principal or
supervisor, but will be kept in strict confidence by the investigator.
Although your participation is extremely important for this project, it is entirely
voluntary. Any survey questions that make you feel uncomfortable may be
skipped and you can change your mind about proceeding with the classroom
observations at any time
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
However, this evaluation may indicate areas of weakness and strength where
school leaders can target professional development to better remediate and prepare
EL teachers for successfully meeting homework needs of El students
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study that can be
identified with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify
you will not be collected during this research study. Only members of the research
team will have access to the data associated with this study. The data including
surveys scores and transcribed field notes from the classroom observations will be
organized in tables and stored as Microsoft word files on a password protected
lap-top computer in the investigator’s office. Information collected will be
competently confidential and may only be released to three members of the
dissertation committee as part of the research guidance process: Dr. Eugenia
Mora-Flores (dissertation chair), Dr. Gisela Ragusa (committee member), and Dr.
Tatiana Melguizo (committee member). The information will be furnished in the
form of average scores, organized in graphs and tables for feedback on statistical
analysis of the data.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed. However, to prevent access by unauthorized personnel, the survey
data and observation records will be coded alphabetically using letters A through
L to identify teachers with the information provided. The data will be stored on a
password protected lap-top computer in a locked home office to which only the
principal investigator will have access. Following the data analysis, the
information will be stored for three years and will be destroyed at the close of fall
semester 2009.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences,
there will be no information that will be included that may reveal your identity
since no identifiers are being collected from you. As a participant in the research
project you will have the right to review and edit the surveys and observation data
for accuracy and to make sure your identity is shielded or disguised to maintain
the privacy of participation.
107
Appendix J
Information Sheet for Teachers (c)
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may also withdraw you from this research if circumstances
arise which warrant doing so. If appropriate, participation may be terminated by the
investigator without regard to the subject’s consent in circumstances where her or
she is either unable or purposefully fails to keep scheduled appointments for
classroom observations, since the timing of classroom visitations can potentially
alter the quality of observation data.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Alex Pierre
EdD Program
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038
Phone: (714) 7836357
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Homework research in academic content areas has typically focused on student commitment, but what about teacher commitment? In particular, how committed are middle school teachers to homework in ELD content areas? This research examined the homework beliefs and practices of 12 middle school teachers assigned to ELD grades 6, 7, and 8 to determine the extent of their commitment to three structure-based strategies adapted from the Ames (1992b) task-structure model: workload, purpose, and feedback. For each teacher, two 60-minute observations were conducted to rate and describe the frequency of 20 homework behaviors used for performing these strategies. A cross-sectional, Likert-scale survey was given at the end of the second observation to rate teacher beliefs about the importance of the same 20 homework behaviors.The study concluded that the teachers lacked commitment to practicing the strategies for homework in that their areas of weakness far outnumber their strengths. Regardless of experience level, teachers reported strong approval of most homework behaviors. Still, there were several areas where teachers' homework was lacking: (a) ambivalence in homework beliefs, (b) not considering workload important, (c) low application of homework strategies, (c) preference for traditional and non-explanatory type methods, (d) discrepancies over value of workload, (e) lower frequency practice among less experienced teachers, and (f) inconsistencybetween beliefs and practices. These findings reinforced the need for curriculum and training to assist teachers in developing more desirable beliefs and practices when implementing structure-based strategies for homework in ELD content areas.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners
PDF
Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor
PDF
School connectedness and teacher reflective practices
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools
PDF
English-learner representation in special education: impact of pre-referral interventions and assessment practices
PDF
Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy
PDF
School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school
PDF
Critical features for teaching the five-paragraph essay to middle school Chinese speaking English learners
PDF
An analysis of the selection and training of guiding teachers in an urban teacher education program
PDF
Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study
PDF
Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model
PDF
4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching
PDF
The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners
PDF
The effects of a series of after school family writing workshops on students' writing achievement and attitudes
PDF
Developing an educational framework to guide the design of faith-based adult small group video curriculum programs
PDF
Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice
PDF
Policies and promising practices to combat bullying in secondary schools
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
The knowledge, skills, motivation and organizational factors that teachers need to support African American boys in public preschool: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Pierre, Alex
(author)
Core Title
Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/03/2009
Defense Date
03/26/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
homework beliefs and practices,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Advisor
Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee chair
), Ragusa, Gisele (
committee member
)
Creator Email
efaxemal@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m525
Unique identifier
UC1167301
Identifier
etd-Pierre-20070703 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-500354 (legacy record id),usctheses-m525 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Pierre-20070703.pdf
Dmrecord
500354
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Pierre, Alex
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
homework beliefs and practices