Introduction
This paper is about finding effective homework practices suited to the small primary school where I am head teacher. In it I discuss the outcomes and methods of a school-based inquiry in order to make judgements about their worth.
The paper continues a discussion begun in my previous inquiry (Heath, 2004) with which it might profitably be read.
This account may be of interest to primary school teachers wishing to review their own school's homework practices. In addition teachers, and others, undertaking small-scale practitioner-research may be interested in discussions relating to the inquiry's worth.
The inquiry
Outline of the inquiry
Motivation
When I began this study one 'minor issue' from my school's most recent external inspection remained outstanding; namely 'Ensure… that homework is consistently set in all classes, that its collation is systematic, and that its return to parents is informative' (Ofsted, 2003a: 21). That my prejudices inclined me to agree that this issue was truly a minor one did not prevent me from selecting it for investigation.
Behind my decision to undertake an inquiry lay the intention to understand at first hand what research had to offer in my particular situation. The expectation of learning larger lessons about methods, outcomes and particularly the worth of such an endeavour (about which I still harboured significant doubts) rendered the precise choice of subject matter unimportant. In fact I supposed that an unglamorous topic, such as homework, would serve this larger purpose well since, with no spurious prestige adhering to it by virtue of a novel or fashionable subject, a clearer view of the particular merits of the inquiry's execution seemed likely.
Therefore this paper incorporates explicit discussion of the value of the inquiry and is not restricted exclusively to its nominal content. Sections that are reflexive in this way are delimited by background shading.
Activities
I undertook this investigation at the same time as my methodological inquiry. Reading of literature proceeded along two paths; one concerned with the inquiry's conduct, the other with what was already known about homework, particularly in primary schools. The two paths remained largely distinct, though questions about the status of the knowledge created in the substantive studies I was reading served as a linking theme throughout.
Decisions about the focus of required improvements led to the conviction that this inquiry's major activity was to be consultation; with teachers, governors, pupils and pupils' parents. These consultations, variously conducted, were to be informal - I characterised them as 'conversations' - with the express intention of reaching understanding; firstly about what people wanted and then what we would do.
Several teachers' meetings were devoted to discussing existing homework practices, possible changes and then agreed improvements. Similar subjects were considered with the full governing body and with its curriculum committee. Older pupils discussed homework and helped to construct and complete a questionnaire, the findings of which they helped analyse in lessons (Appendix 2). Pupils' parents received a questionnaire about homework which, when analysed (Appendix 3), helped inform further discussions with teachers and governors. The questionnaire was trialled with two other schools, which provided feedback to refine its content, and also gave some interesting comparative data from contrasting locations. Two open meetings with parents took place where themes identified in questionnaire responses were discussed in greater detail. All parents were informed of the findings of the questionnaires and the discussions in a newsletter devoted to the subject (Appendix 5).
Revised homework practices are now summarised in guidance notes for teachers and communicated to parents in a series of age-specific booklets distributed at the beginning of the new school year (Appendix 6, 7).
What they say about homework
There is a wide, if largely inconclusive, literature about homework, though only a small portion of it relates to primary school practice. Cowan and Hallam's literature review 'What do we know about homework?' succinctly maps out the principal areas of interest. The authors offer a model of homework (Appendix 1) which accurately identifies the numerous factors at work, and goes some way to representing the complex interactions between them.
Cooper, in his literature review, suggests that 'homework probably involves the complex interaction of more influences than any other instructional device' (quoted in Sharp et al, 2001: 38). There are two important consequences of this for research. Firstly, because there are so many influences each one has separately enjoyed relatively little attention and the body of evidence on each factor is often small. Secondly, the labyrinthine relationships between factors, some of which are well beyond experimental control, make the ascription of causal links unsafe. Therefore many findings are inconclusive or merely suggestive.
Authors who find themselves unable to state findings with certainty may be tempted to offer suggestions that go beyond their evidence. Sharp says this of Cooper, for example (Sharp et al, 2001: 39). Whilst this is admissible, and from a practitioner's point of view instructive, it does mean that great care is needed when reading the literature; even more so when recommendations are encountered out of context. Little indeed can be said to have attained the status of established fact in this field.
Idle talk and scribble
Resorting to others' findings early in an inquiry is hazardous. Leaning too readily on the literature serves to prematurely close off our subject by defining the way we should, or even can, view it.
In his complex and ultimately illuminating analysis of being human the German philosopher Martin Heidegger offers insight into the inauthentic yet inevitable ways we all resort to the opinions of others. Or rather, he maintains, there is no distinction between what we have to say on a topic and what 'they' say about it. In our everyday ways of understanding we are rightly (if at first sight confusingly) counted amongst 'them' so closely do our opinions and theirs coincide. What 'they' say Heidegger calls 'idle talk' and what 'they' write he calls 'scribble'. Idle talk and scribble are how people pass on what they know in everyday, uncritical communications with each other. All language, by its very nature, distances us from a first-hand relationship with things; listening to someone speak about doing something is manifestly not the same as doing it. However when idle talk or scribble is accepted and passed on uncritically without regard to the subject of its claims it is even more the case that our understanding becomes uprooted and completely groundless. Unless we are careful to notice this groundlessness we will presume we have reached understanding and, inquiring no further, close off any possibility of going back to the foundation of what is being talked about. This uprooted way of being is our 'everyday and stubborn 'reality'.' (Heidegger, 1927: 159)
Unfortunately not resorting to the literature at the start of an inquiry is no way out. We cannot begin with a blank sheet of paper or a completely open mind. How we frame our questions, why they matter to us, which observations seem worth making… all these things and more are determined by our existing 'take' on things, which, says Heidegger, is no more authentically our own than is the literature.
So, with little expectation of finding an original or authentic view of homework - about which there is, no doubt, much idle talk spoken and much scribble written - I did at least resolve to be critical of what I read and seek to juxtapose my own first-hand observations with those of others…
As this paper is not another review I do not simply list others' findings. It would be severely misguided to treat the literature as a catalogue of context-free practices that, imported into a school, would bring improvements in their train. More imagination than that is required. Therefore I have sought to use others' understanding for my own ends by unashamedly concentrating on issues particular to my school (which I take to be the foundation of this inquiry) but in each case referring to existing research and other guidance to illuminate them.
I have used headings from Cowan and Hallam's model to organise the discussion.
Societal and cultural factors
Political pressures
The balanced restraint of most research accounts is in marked contrast to the assurance of statements from the Department of Education and Employment (DfEE):
'Research over a number of years in this and other countries has shown that homework can make an important contribution to pupils' progress at school. An OFSTED report published in 1995… confirmed that, 'many pupils and their parents saw work done at home as a valuable and essential part of school work…' In this country there is evidence that pupils in the highest achieving schools spend more time on learning activities at home than pupils in other schools' (DfEE, 1998: 3).
This publication makes clear that its authors, and the government department they represent, expect schools to set homework. Through this publication, and others, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) offers guidance which, given its powerful provenance, effectively declares an orthodox path even though it does not enjoy the force of statute.
The external inspection process is not neutral on this matter either. School inspectors must evaluate and report on: 'The extent to which teachers, where appropriate, use homework effectively to reinforce and extend what is learned in school.' (Ofsted, 2003b: 36) An inspection team would certainly feel it necessary to comment on school policy or practice that was markedly at variance with official advice.
Common sense now
This context is quite recent. Before 1998, when all English schools were required to draw up written statements of homework policy, there was little overt expectation that primary schools use homework, and practice varied greatly. Only a minority of such schools had policies - 25% according to one survey in the mid-1990's (Ofsted, 1995) - and it was not uncommon for children to be set little or no homework at all. This observation accords well with Cowan and Hallam's assertion that homework is more or less fashionable depending on a variety of social factors. They suggest that 'When there is concern to raise educational standards the amount of homework set by schools tends to increase' but subsequently decreases when negative consequences are perceived to overshadow supposed benefits. Their point is that 'Common sense changes from one generation to the next,' (Cowan and Hallam, 1999: 1) and all research on the subject can only be understood in its own historical setting. This inquiry takes place when the standards-agenda is still strong and common sense says that homework is a good thing.
As already noted, my school's last external inspection report recommended that certain features of its homework practice be improved. This exerted local pressure for change, mediated in the first place by governors' expectations and, later, by parents' wishes (when the matter was opened up for wider consultation).
Given that local imperative and national context both supported the need for change, action was inevitable.
Student characteristics
Age
Though the literature about homework sometimes draws scant distinction between the primary and secondary phases of education, teachers resisted the temptation either to overlook differences or treat secondary practice as normative. The young age of our pupils had implications for decisions about:
- The amount of homework set
- Pupils' expected levels of independence
- Failure to complete homework.
(To resolve the first two issues we agreed a progressive expectation that acknowledges not only the contrast in age between the primary and secondary phases but also within the primary years. This is discussed in later sections.)
Failure to complete homework: Local secondary pupils receive detention for not completing homework. Pupils are assumed to be mature enough to be held accountable for any failure to complete tasks. The result is a regime where very high compliance with expectations is the norm.
Whilst wanting to enjoy the same completion rate as their secondary colleagues, teachers, in discussion, were quick to recognise that similar arrangements were inappropriate for their primary pupils. Many younger children need parents to remind them to do homework and some tasks require adult involvement.
Encouragement and praise were strategies that proved instantly acceptable but there was overt unease at the prospect of adopting a system that identified those who failed to complete homework (a star chart displayed in the classroom for example). 'I wouldn't want to name-and-shame,' stated one teacher to a murmur of assent from colleagues, despite the claim that such a system 'did have an effect' in one teacher's previous school where this practice was adopted.
Such reticence might stem from motives such as:
- The desire not to belittle children
- Belief in intrinsic motivation, rather than external coercion
- An understanding that children's immaturity requires parents to share responsibility, and:
- An unwillingness to accept additional work when imposing sanctions (e.g. supervision during break time).
In their survey of primary and secondary schools MacBeath and Turner (1990: 53) asked 'Should failure to do homework be punished?' They reported marked differences in replies to this question and listed a range of possible practical responses including:
- Telling parents immediately
- Telling parents if there is repeated failure to complete homework
- Taking no action
- Completing homework in playtime.
These four options were included in parents' and pupils' questionnaires. 60% of parents who responded asked to be told if children repeatedly fail to complete homework tasks and a small majority of pupils agreed (Figure 1).
Figure 1: From the pupils' questionnaire
Click on thumbnail image to view chart
As this proposal addressed teachers' concerns, and promised to add only a small burden of extra work, it is now school policy.
Attitudes
MacBeath and Turner surveyed many pupils about their attitudes to homework. Their views were more equivocal than parents' and teachers' but largely positive nevertheless (Figure 2, below):
| The value of homework | ||||
| % of pupils (primary) | ||||
| Always | Usually | Sometimes | Never | |
| 'I enjoy homework' | 11 | 21 | 42 | 26 |
| 'I learn a lot from homework' | 23 | 30 | 39 | 8 |
Figure 2: From MacBeath and Turner (1990: 18)
Of course, the fact that several hundred Scottish pupils were positive about their homework in 1990 could hardly be used as the basis for decision-making in my school more than a decade later. Discussions with our pupils, plus a questionnaire partly designed by them, helped gauge their thoughts about present experience. Interestingly, a very similar pattern to that found by Macbeath and Turner was forthcoming (Figure 3). A broadly similar picture was seen in the results from the two primary schools that trialled the questionnaire.
Figure 3: From the children's questionnaire
Click on thumbnail image to view charts
These charts indicate that most children were accepting or welcoming of homework and even if they don't particularly enjoy it they still believe that it is worthwhile and that they learn by doing it. 'I don't particularly like homework but it's a good idea to help kids learn,' was one child's comment. Reading through the full collection of children's comments (Appendix 4) reinforces this positive view. Unsurprisingly, there are exceptions ('It's boring'; 'I hate it') but on the basis of this evidence teachers can assume the majority of pupils understand the worth of homework and they would be wise to capitalise on this.
The pupils' voice
If common sense says that homework is a good thing it's also saying more clearly than ever that children's views should be taken seriously. In a climate defined by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and, in the UK, the Children's Act (1989) and enthusiastically sustained by numerous local initiatives - not least by the fashion for school councils - the intention to give pupils a voice is almost universally applauded.
That this study benefited from pupils' participation is certain. The high level of motivation shown when helping to design the pupils' questionnaire ensured that it was completed intelligently by the oldest children, for example, and pupils undoubtedly gained by applying thinking skills in a meaningful context. Yet this utilitarian rationale for their involvement is not what proponents of 'pupils as researchers' really see as significant. Demetriou and Ruddock (NAHT, 2004: 34)) list the benefits as:
- 'developing a positive sense of self and agency
- developing inquiring minds and learning new skills
- developing social competence and new relationships
- being able to reflect on their own learning
- a chance to be active and creative.'
I would claim too much to say that this isolated study achieved these outcomes but if some children developed some of them, as I believe they did, then it will have been of worth. If these skills and attitudes are developed further in subsequent learning, as I believe they will be, then something significant will have been begun.
Criticism may be levelled at the extent of the pupils' involvement in this study. Clearly they were consulted but their influence was not great and they certainly didn't instigate the inquiry. This study is certainly not in the league of some children's work, for example the surprising ''Hey, I'm nine not six!' A small-scale investigation of looking younger than your age at school' (Carlini and Barry) where the child's distinctive voice is unmistakable.
Demetriou and Ruddock ask, not unreasonably, 'But is it research?' Since I harbour the same doubts about my own work I feel affinity with their conclusion. They suggest that the precise word used is of little moment and concede, as I do, that the less stringent title 'inquiry' might better describe the activity. They do, however, impose three requirements, namely that:
- 'the activity is handled with proper respect for the nature of evidence
- pupils think seriously about how 'findings' that indicate a diversity of views can lead to action
- young people's interest in and commitment to help make schooling better is recognised and respected.'
On these counts the pupils' participation in this study fared well and was certainly worthwhile.
Home factors
Involvement and interest of parents
Teachers' anecdotal evidence suggested that efforts in setting homework might not be amply repaid because parents, in practice, failed to support children working at home. Whilst acknowledging teachers' concerns it was essential to gather evidence to estimate how much support children did, in fact, enjoy.
Children's questionnaire responses showed that adults helped 39 children (out of the 47 surveyed) at least 'sometimes', though only 14 pupils agreed that they needed to be reminded to get homework done.
Parents' replies to their questionnaire painted a consistent picture of regular involvement. As might be expected, parents' degree of participation was smaller with older pupils but most saw their children's homework 'usually' or 'always', and helped and talked about it 'often' or 'very often' (Figure 4). The return rate for questionnaires was approximately 60%. Even accepting that the sample was skewed by the self-selection of more enthusiastic respondents, teachers could rest assured that a large proportion of children had good home support.
Figure 4: From the parents' questionnaire
Click on thumbnail image to view charts
Persuasion
Using questionnaires in this inquiry proved very interesting. With their veneer of objectivity it might be supposed that their purpose was to gather data to allow true statements to be made and conclusions to be drawn. This was not so. In practice they proved to be an instrument of persuasion. Three examples show this clearly.
Firstly: demonstrating to teachers the high level of enthusiasm for homework amongst the parent body and showing that many children were well supported at home was instrumental in tightening up our procedures. As teachers viewed the results of the parents' questionnaire a trace of scepticism certainly remained but this was now contextualised. Our anecdotes of children lacking support were not flatly contradicted but they were now balanced by evidence that they might not be representative. We could still believe our stories but we couldn't reasonably reject the imperative to effect improvements.
Secondly: by reporting our analysis of the survey to pupils' families via a newsletter (Appendix 5) we were able implicitly to make the case that:
- Parents views had been noted and acted on
- Most parents supported school practice
- The school had responded effectively to the inspectors' last 'minor issue'
- Home-school partnership was valued, and
- The school took homework seriously.
If parents were persuaded of these things then the standing of the school will have been raised in their estimation. All these points are significant but the last one particularly so: 'One theme which emerged from many parts of our research,' report Hughes and Greehough (2002: 41) 'was that homework had a 'symbolic value' over and above its actual day-to-day practice. It was seen as being a good thing in itself, and as being a sign of a good school.'
Lastly: partly on the basis of popular support it is now school policy to inform parents if their child repeatedly fails to complete homework. A few letters have been sent. If the recipients of these letters are amongst those who chose not to respond to the questionnaire and they do now act so that their children complete homework tasks then one group of parents (those who completed the questionnaire) will have persuaded another group (some of those who didn't) to 'mend their ways'. Though the anonymity of the survey makes this sequence of events conjectural, knowledge of the individuals involved means that it is plausible. If the conjecture is accurate then data gathered during the inquiry will, in time, help to bring about a shift in the culture of the school. This is not something I had envisaged seeing so obviously, but it is precisely what was hoped for: a little information promoting a positive change.
Nature of task
Amount of homework
During discussions one parent said, 'I'm not too worried exactly what the school's policy on homework is - I'm sure I'll be happy to support it - but I do want to know what's going on.' This desire for clarity was common, so in order to provide it teachers considered carefully how much homework to set and when to set it so that parents could receive a simple timetable enabling them to supervise their children.
The 'How much?' question raises the most researched issues of this whole subject, namely 'Is homework worthwhile?' and, if it is, 'What is the optimum amount?' Here, it would seem, are ideal questions for experimental study: a controllable variable - amount of homework set (perhaps none) - with a measurable outcome - level of pupils' attainment. And with such a precise question the prospect of an unequivocal answer.
Not so.
Witness the following summaries from Hallam and Cowan's literature review:
'Otto (1941, 1950): Research at elementary level shows little relationship between the amount of time spent in home study and pupil progress…
Goldstein (1960): The data for most studies shows that homework promotes higher academic achievement…
LaConte (1981): Homework for young children is not only inappropriate but may be counterproductive…
Keith (1986, 1987): Homework was viewed as highly effective.'
(Hallam and Cowan, 1998)
These examples notwithstanding, there is presently a consensus that setting some homework is better than setting none but it cannot be said to be proven in the primary years. There are two practical reasons to be hesitant.
Firstly, the assertion that homework is a good thing can so easily be disproved by particular experiences. No amount of research is going to convince the child who says of homework 'I hate it,' that he is wrong; and his teacher must entertain the thought that he might well be better off without it. In some classes children's experiences in general may be poor if their teacher regularly sets excessive or inappropriate tasks. Resorting to the research evidence to reaffirm that homework is worthwhile can never excuse specific examples of bad practice.
The second reason to be cautious relates to the experimental method by which the answer is sought. Cowan and Hallam make this clear when they begin their review with the proviso that: 'There are considerable methodological problems in undertaking research on the effects of homework' (Cowan and Hallam, 1999: 1) and then proceed to catalogue no fewer than five major obstacles, each with numerous practical ramifications, including, it must be said, difficulties in controlling the independent variable (amount of homework set) and measuring the dependent one (pupils' attainment).
So no definitive answer to the question of the optimum amount of homework is forthcoming. The best answer seems to be 'Something rather than nothing, but not too much.' In the absence of anything better it was expedient to accept and endorse the official advice from the DfES as the recommended amounts seemed to us in accord with common sense. This, of course, begs the question of the foundations of our common sense… the DfES's advice perhaps?
Hope in place of knowledge
However, the most cogent reason why no definitive answer can be expected is not a practical one.
For as long as I continue to wonder if the pragmatists are right or wrong I know I cannot count myself amongst their number but here, at least, in the world of human choices and actions they are surely on to something when they say that 'there is no one Way the World Is.' (Rorty 1999: 33). The notion that there is a right or wrong answer is simply wide of the mark. Rorty explains: 'We cannot regard truth as a goal of inquiry. The purpose of inquiry is to achieve agreement among human beings about what to do, to bring about consensus on the ends to be achieved and the means to be used to achieve those ends. Inquiry that does not achieve coordination of behaviour is not inquiry but simply wordplay.' (Rorty 1999: xxv)
On which basis this inquiry should be counted successful, if incomplete.
Appendices
These documents open in a new window. Close the browser window to return here. Some files are in pdf format and depending on your connection speed, may take a while to load.
1. Model
of homework (pdf)
2. Questionnaire
for children (pdf)
3. Questionnaire
for parents (pdf)
4. Children's
comments about homework
5. Parents'
survey analysis
6. Guidance
notes for parents: Reception Year & Year 1 (external site)
7. Guidance
notes for parents: Year 5 & Year 6 (external site)
8. Supporting information
References
Carlini, A. and Barry, E. 'Hey, I'm nine not six!' A small-scale investigation of looking younger than your age at school. [Online] Available at: http://childrens-research-centre.open.ac.uk/research-doc/What_it_s_like_Emma_Barry.doc (accessed October 10 2004)
Cowan, R. and Hallam, S. (1999) What do we know about homework? London: University of London, Institute of Education
Department for Education and Employment Standards and Effectiveness Unit (1998) Homework: Guidelines for Primary and Secondary Schools. London: DfEE
Hallam, S. and Cowan, R. (1998) Is homework important for increasing educational attainment? Paper given at the Annual Conference of the Education Section of the British Psychological Society, Exeter, September 1998. Unpublished
Heath, T. (2004) How can I conduct a worthwhile inquiry into effective homework in my primary school? [Online] Available at: http://website.lineone.net/~tmheath/Discussion_Notes/MethodsDraft.htm (accessed October 30 2004)
Heidegger, M. (1927) Sein und Zeit. Translated by Stambaugh, J. (1996) Being and Time. A Translation of Sein und Zeit. New York: State University of New York Press
Hughes, M. and Greenhough, P. (2002) Homework and its Contribution to Learning. Draft final report prepared for a seminar at the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), March 2002. Unpublished
MacBeath, J. and Turner, M. (1990) Learning out of School: Homework, Policy and Practice. Report of Research Study carried out at Jordanhill College. Glasgow: Jordanhill College
National Association of Head Teachers (2004) Primary Leadership Paper 11: Teaching as a Research Informed Profession. Haywards Heath: NAHT
Office for Standards in Education (1995) Homework in Primary and Secondary Schools. London: HMSO
Office for Standards in Education (2003a) Inspection Report: St. Nicholas CE (VC) Primary School, Bromham, Chippenham [Online] Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/126/126307.pdf (accessed October 30 2004) (Summary here)
Office for Standards in Education (2003b) Inspecting Schools: Framework for Inspecting Schools. London: HMI
Rorty, R. (1999) Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin
Sharp, C. et al (2001) Recent Research on Homework: An Annotated Bibliography [Online] Available at: http://www.nfer.org.uk/research/HResIND.asp (accessed October 30 2004)
