Group Question: How effective is Homework as a Learning Strategy?

Individual Question: What are the main factors that impact the efficacy of homework as a

learning strategy in schools in low SES areas?

Nine studies ranging from 2001 to 2011 that make comment on the relationship between

socio-economic status (SES) and the efficacy of homework as a learning strategy show that

there are various factors that impact homework’s efficacy in schools in low SES areas. For

the purposes of this paper, homework’s efficacy is measured by the completion and planning

of set homework tasks (Bempechat, Neier, Gillis, & Holloway, 2011, p. 251). The literature

identified four key factors related to the efficacy of homework as a learning strategy in

schools in low SES contexts; academic achievement, parental involvement, access to quality

resources and having a home life that is conducive to learning.

Academic achievement

All nine studies argued that because SES affects student performance, homework strategies in

schools in low SES contexts are in some way impacted. Milne and Plourde (2006) outline

that there is a positive correlation between SES and achievement in school, and Deluca and

Rosenbaum (2001) argue that this reality may shape a student’s perception of their reward.

Sirin (2005, p. 440) writes that achievement is a cumulative process. The results of national

tests reflect this. Perry and McConney (2010) argue that it is ‘well established in the research

literature that socioeconomically disadvantaged students and schools do less well on

standardized measures of academic achievement compared with their more advantaged

peers’. They suggest that this will bear an impact on the efficacy of homework strategies.

1
The socio-economic composition of the school ‘matters greatly’ in terms of students’

individual academic performance (Perry & McConney, 2010). Low SES students not only

have lower attainments but also obtain ‘less payoff’ for their efforts in comparison to students

from high SES contexts (Deluca & Rosenbaum, 2001, p. 369). Perry and McConney argue

that the relationship between SES and achievement is strong and positive; ‘on average, the

higher a student’s SES, the stronger his or her educational outcomes tend to be’ (Perry &

McConney, 2010). These writers predict that the efficacy of homework strategies in schools

in low SES contexts will reflect the relationship between SES and academic achievement.

Parental involvement

According to Smith’s case study, the quality of school connections between family, students

and teachers will predict academic success (Smith, 2006, p. 44). Parental involvement will

impact the efficacy of homework as a learning strategy. Howard, Dresser and Dunklee (2005)

argue that home-based involvement is closely linked to academic success. Homework is an

intentional parental involvement strategy: ‘an integration of home and school’ (Smith, 2006,

p. 44). Additionally, Hill and Taylor (2004, p. 161) write that ‘developing collaborations

between families and schools to promote academic success has a long-standing basis in

research and is the focus of numerous programs and policies’, where ‘parental involvement

remains an important predictor of school outcomes through adolescence’. Parental

involvement creates continuity between the home and school environment, establishing early

expectations for both the student and the home (Howard, Dresser & Dunklee, 2005). Students

receive messages about the importance of education via parental involvement which differs

between low and high SES contexts (Hill & Taylor, 2004, p. 162).

2
Milne and Plourde (2006, p. 189) outline that effective homework programs are predicted by

(1) positive relationships with parents and carers who (2) valued education and (3) could

provide assistance at home. Additionally, low SES parents’ feelings of connectedness and

worth resulted in their ‘increased involvement’: ‘it is generally through school-based

interactions that parents learn ways to help their children at home’ (Howard, Dresser &

Dunklee, 2005), thus making a case for the efficacy of homework programs beyond the

impact on the individual student. In their research, Hill and Taylor (2004, p. 163) pose this

important question: ‘When parents cannot become involved, how can schools compensate for

the loss of the benefits of involvement?’. The efficacy of homework strategies is therefore

impacted by the level of parental involvement, a factor considered by a number of writers.

Access to quality resources

Citing McNeil’s work (2000), Cunningham and Sanzo argue that research has identified a

direct relationship between family and school resources and student outcomes (Cunningham

& Sanzo, 2012, p. 66). Various papers highlighted the impact of access to quality resources to

the efficacy of homework as a learning strategy. Milne and Plourde saw that homework

completion was more likely in both high and low SES households if there were quality

learning resources such as books and writing materials available at home (Milne & Plourde,

2006, p. 189).

Access to quality teaching is also discussed in all nine studies. In Bempechat, Neier, Gillis

and Holloway’s research, they highlighted that teachers had lower expectations of students

from low SES contexts: ‘the chronic noncompliance of the lower achievers in this study

suggests that they need explicit instruction and consistent reinforcement on ways in which to

3
organize time, plan ahead, and seek help when needed’ (Bempechat, Neier, Gillis, &

Holloway, 2011, p. 272). Instead, their participants from low SES contexts reported to not

have ‘much assigned homework’ and reported ‘little or no consequences if they did not

complete their assigned tasks’:

In the face of these low teacher expectations, higher achievers maintained a

commitment to learning, and lower achievers were indifferent. Higher achievers were

engaged in their assigned tasks and expressed a desire to learn, whereas their lower

achieving peers were detached and avoidant. (Bempechat, Neier, Gillis, & Holloway,

2011, p. 251).

Quality teaching was highlighted as a major factor that made homework as a learning

strategy effective. Bempechat, Neier, Gillis and Holloway also point out that a teacher’s

effort in implementing homework strategies should be supplemented by parental support

(Bempechat, Neier, Gillis, & Holloway, 2011, p. 272).

Access to technology is another important resource as highlighted by Cunningham and

Sanzo: ‘technology is proven to benefit student achievement and poorer schools are unable to

offer its advantages to the very students who also have the least likelihood of having access

to it in their homes’ (Cunningham & Sanzo, 2012, p. 66). Technology therefore impacts a

student’s completion or non-completion and planning of homework. Sirin writes, ‘family

SES sets the stage for students’ academic performance both by directly providing resources at

home and by indirectly providing the social capital that is necessary to succeed in school’,

citing Coleman (1988) (Sirin, 2005, p. 438). Access to quality resources differentiates the

academic opportunities of students from high SES and low SES contexts.

A home life conducive to learning

4
Finally, Sirin outlined that family SES variables were ‘not as predictive of academic

achievement’ as neighbourhood SES factors which related to lower grades (Sirin, 2005, p.

441). In Milne and Plourde’s study, high achieving low SES students did not have ‘typical’

home environments. They write that students from low SES homes tend to live with more

siblings and with parents and carers who have more demands being placed on them (Milne &

Plourde, 2006, p. 190-191). The completion and planning of homework were seen to be

impacted by a student’s setting. Cunningham and Sanzo comment on the challenges of

prioritising homework over other daily responsibilities (Cunningham & Sanzo, 2012, p. 65).

When homework is a solitary rather than a social experience, homework’s efficacy is limited

(Bempechat, Neier, Gillis, & Holloway, 2011, p. 273).

The literature revealed a number of key areas to investigate in relating SES to the efficacy of

homework as a learning strategy, including a lower level of academic achievement, a

difference in parental involvement and access to both quality resources and a learning

orientated home. While these four factors are significant, more research needs to be

conducted in the current Australian context, and this will shape the following data collection

protocol.

5
Reference List

Bempechat, J., Li, J., Neier, S., Gillis, C., & Holloway, S. (2011). The homework experience:

Perceptions of low-income youth. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 250-278.

Cunningham, W., & Sanzo, T. (2002). Is high-stakes testing harming lower socioeconomic

status schools?. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 62-75.

Deluca, S., & Rosenbaum, J. (2001). Individual agency and the life course: Do low-SES

students get less long-term payoff for their school efforts?. Sociological Focus, 34(4),

357-376.

Hill, N., & Taylor, L. (2004). Parental school involvement and children's academic

achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current directions in psychological

science, 13(4), 161-164.

Howard, T., Dresser, S., & Dunklee, D. (Eds.). (2009). Poverty is not a learning disability:

Equalizing opportunities for low SES students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Milne, A., & Plourde, L. (2006). Factors of a low-SES household: What aids academic

achievement?. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 183-194.

Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the School Matter? An Examination of

Socioeconomic Status and Student Achievement Using PISA 2003. Teachers College

Record, 112(4), 1137-1162.

Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of

research. Review of educational research, 75(3), 417-453.

6
Smith, J. (2006). Parental involvement in education among low-income families: A case

study. School Community Journal, 16(1), 43.

7
Data Collection Protocol

Consent Form

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled How effective is Homework as a Learning Strategy? for the
class, ‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the
project, I am collecting information to help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

Through this semi-structured interview, I hope to ascertain what you deem to be the main
factors that impact the efficacy of homework as a learning strategy in schools in low SES
areas based on your personal experience and expertise. The research question is as follows:
What are the main factors that impact the efficacy of homework as a learning strategy in
schools in low SES areas?

By signing this form, I acknowledge that:

• I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher.
• The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to
me, and any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
• I consent to responding to the questions of this semi-structured interview.
• I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained
during this data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the
‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-
identified from the data.
• I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my
relationship with the researcher, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time

university student who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

8
Data Collection Method:

I have chosen the data collection method of a semi-structured interview with two teachers

who currently work in schools in low SES contexts who are directly involved in the

implementation of their school’s homework policy. Interviews will run for 20 – 30 minutes in

duration, but this time may be exceeded. A consent form along with a list of anticipated

questions will be emailed to the participating teacher one week prior to the arranged

interview.

The following ‘key levels of questioning’ framework is adapted from Stringer (1996) and

Spradley (1979) whose works are cited by Kervin, Vialle, Howard, Herrington, and Okely

(2016, p. 94).

Level of questioning List of suggested questions

Global 1. What is your current role within the school and how long have
you been in this role?
2. How do you understand homework as a learning strategy?
3. What is your current school-wide homework policy?
Visualisation 4. Can you describe the process of arriving at this policy?
Global 5. What do you think were/are the main challenges of
implementing your school-wide homework policy?
Prompting 6. Which of these challenges do you attribute to the school’s low
SES context?
Global 7. What is your process for evaluating the policy? How do you
measure how effective the policy is?
Visualisation 8. What do you imagine could improve the efficacy of
homework as a learning strategy in your school?

Notes will be taken during the interview by hand. Following this, the data will be coded and

analysed following Saldaña’s protocol (Saldaña, 2016) and an interview guide will be

formulated including the interviewees descriptions, the data obtained and critical reflections

as modelled by Efron and Ravid (2014, p. 105).

9
Justification

I have chosen the data collection method of two semi-structured interviews which is a

‘purposeful, deliberate, organized and systematic’ (Efron & Ravid, 2014, p. 85) strategy for

hearing from two expert teachers for whom this issue is relevant. Semi-structured interviews

provide the opportunity for the researcher and the participant to ‘co-construct’ the content of

the interview, creating an in-depth insight into the perspectives, beliefs and experiences of the

research participant (Efron & Ravid, 2014).

I used Kervin et al.’s ‘key levels of questioning’ because it honours the inquiry method of

research which my this particular question is geared towards (Kervin et al., 2016). Having

brainstormed the concepts related to the focus of my inquiry, I created a logical structure to

the questions which would guide the participant, and developed broad and focused open-

ended questions for each concept. This inquiry method established logic to the research

(Efron & Ravid, 2014). I kept interview questions clear, succinct and in a logical order to

respect the time of my research participants. I also used a combination of Patton’s (2002)

types of interview questions including background and demographic questions, knowledge

questions, experience questions, sensory questions and opinion questions to diversify my

approach and access well-rounded data.

My research protocol is effective because it clearly ‘links back’ and will provide answers to

my original research question (Baumfield, Hall, & Wall, 2012, p. 69; Kervin et al., 2016 p.

72). Efron and Ravid (2014, p. 85) write that the selection of data collection tools and

strategies derive from ‘the nature of our research questions, rather than theoretical

frameworks’, which in my case is qualitative; my question specifically asks why a

10
phenomenon is occurring (Baumfield, Hall, & Wall, 2012). The semi-structured interview

format lends itself to a research design that ‘focuses on a holistic view of the setting and its

participants’ (Kervin et al., 2016 p. 72), which is reflected in the use of my participants.

I have chosen to interview two participants to triangulate my data in order to validate my data

and ‘enhance’ my ‘opportunities for learning’ (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2014, p. 134).

Instead of doing research ‘to’ my interview participants, I aimed to do research ‘with them’

(Baumfield, Hall, & Wall, 2012, p. 60), fully disclosing my interest in the subject; I

personally wanted to gain insight into what two policy makers in two local schools in low

SES settings thought were the main factors that impact the efficacy of homework as a

learning strategy. Kemmis, McTaggart, and Rhonda Nixon (2013) argue that research

involves a ‘collective intention to make our practices, our understanding of our practices, and

the conditions under which we practice more rational and reasonable’. This indeed was the

objective of my research question and will determine the direction of this particular action

research project.

I plan to code my interview data using Saldaña’s protocol (Saldaña, 2016) because it offers a

logical method to codify, categorise and thematise my interview data for the purposes of

‘transcending the reality of the data’ (Saldaña, 2016, p. 11). My protocol is designed to yield

a valuable contribution to this important area of study.

11
Reference List

Baumfield, V., Hall, E., & Wall, K. (2013). Action Research in Education: Learning Through

Practitioner Enquiry (Second ed.). London, England: SAGE Publications.

Dana, N., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2014). The reflective educator's guide to classroom

research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner

inquiry (Third ed.).

Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2013). Action Research Planner: Doing Critical

Participatory Action Research.

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Howard, S., Herrington, J., & Okely, T. (2016). Research for

educators (2nd ed.).

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,

experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. [Third ed.].

12