Homework

This article was downloaded by: [Stockholm University Library] On: 13 November 2013, At: 05:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from Sweden a

Max Strandberg a Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Published online: 11 Nov 2013. To cite this article: Max Strandberg (2013) Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from Sweden, Educational Research, 55:4, 325-346, DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2013.844936 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844936

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Educational Research, 2013 Vol. 55, No. 4, 325–346, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844936

Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from Sweden Max Strandberg*

Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 05:04 13 November 2013

Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden (Received 5 September 2012; final version received 22 April 2013) Background: The growing interest among researchers concerning how to use assessment to enhance students’ learning as well as to improve instruction provided the impetus for this review of teachers’ assessment activities related to homework. Purpose and method: The purpose was to bring together and critically examine the evidence in a way that illuminates research findings firstly on homework related to formative assessment, and secondly to relate research findings on homework to teachers’ classroom work to formative assessment, and finally to complement existing international research by examining findings from Sweden. International peerreviewed articles as well as doctoral theses, reviewed anthologies, encyclopaedias, international reports, and handbooks were used. Findings and conclusions: Findings show a gap in the research field of homework, especially in relation to formative assessment. Various research findings point to the importance of exploring the quality of homework. Research on how to assign and assess homework must consider the problems and conflicts that homework causes students, parents and teachers. Research is also needed to illuminate issues related to conditions for equity in relation to homework and feedback. Keywords: homework; formative assessment; quality of homework; Sweden; equity and homework

Introduction Teachers, at all levels, are constantly assigning and correcting homework. Activities related to homework are part of a teacher’s daily work. The place of homework is rarely questioned as it belongs to school history and school tradition. Homework ‘is a widespread educational activity across cultures, ages and ability levels’ (Warton 2001). When teachers assign homework, parents or other adults are also implicitly involved, since their assistance is expected by teachers and by society. The growing interest among researchers about how to use assessment (Sadler 1989; Black and Wiliam 1998; Gipps 1999; Hattie and Timperley 2007) to enhance students’ learning as well as to improve instruction provides context for this review on the assessment of homework. Assessment has long traditions in China and Europe in general, as well as in Sweden in particular. The most common historical roots identified are attributed to Chinese dynasties more than two thousand years ago (Black and Wiliam 1998; Gipps 1999). The motive for assessment has primarily been selection. This was the case, for *Email. [email protected] © 2013 NFER


326

M. Strandberg

instance, in relation to written tests on the Confucian classics, assigned in China for selection into the prestigious civil service. These early examinations were developed in Northern Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, first in Prussia and later in France and England, in order to select candidates for government (Gipps 1999). Furthermore, the implementation during the sixteenth century, by Jesuits in Europe, of grades has been interpreted as a motivational alternative to punishment (Carlgren 2002). However, according to Aas (2006, 184), pedagogical considerations seemed to have come second to administrative considerations (e.g. the distribution of students). These early examples of assessment practices have been acknowledged internationally. In Sweden, assessment was already in use before public schooling was introduced. From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, every home was visited once a year by the local priest, who assessed each family member’s knowledge in Christianity, and later also their reading skills, at a catechetical meeting (Johansson 1983, 102; Resnick and Resnick 1977). The priest made notes on each family member’s reading skills in the parish examination records (Johansson 2003). A special kind of oral interrogation practice with fixed questions and answers was established. Reading ability subsequently increased and a breakthrough in mass literacy took place, according to the examination records, in the decades before and after 1700. Lexa (an old spelling for the Swedish word for homework) is mentioned in the church records as early as 1561 (Lundahl 2006, 134) and was related to these yearly examinations. Homework (lexa), which, according to Lundahl had the same meaning as it has today, began in an ecclesiastical context, assessed by the priest. When elementary schools were established in Sweden in 1842, the teachers took over from the priests1 with assessment and grading (Adelmann 2002, 30; Forsberg and Lindberg 2010, 23). The teachers ‘inherited’ the priests’ method of checking the students’ knowledge and of asking questions that had a single correct answer. Those who could not answer were punished. Assigning and checking homework was, even as elementary school was being implemented, a part of the teacher’s everyday work. Homework is generally defined as schoolwork done outside the school without assistance from teachers2 (Cooper 1992; Hellsten 2000; Cooper and Valentine 2001; Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001; Hughes and Greenhough 2004; Westlund 2007). Bembenutty (2011a) refers to a partly modified definition made by Cooper of homework as ‘tasks assigned to students by schoolteachers that are meant to be carried out during noninstructional time’ (2011, 185). Homework is thus a multifaceted interaction between home and school in which different actors are involved (Westlund 2004, 31). Although homework is defined as schoolwork done outside of the school environment, homework existed in Sweden even before elementary schools were established. As indicated above, all Swedes were expected to prepare for yearly examinations at catechetical meetings, initially by rote learning of prayers, the Ten Commandments and other specific parts from the Bible. Later, they were expected to practise reading these same texts aloud and were then also assessed on their reading. As these catechetical meetings assumed that parents taught their children and servants, it can be claimed that homework was assigned and assessed in these early oral examinations. The purpose of the review is to bring together and critically examine the evidence in a way that illuminates research findings firstly on homework related to formative assessment; secondly to relate research findings on homework to teachers’ classroom work with formative assessment and finally, to complement existing international research by examining findings from Swedish research. The multiple research

Educational Research

327

contributions on the relationship between homework time and achievement have been excluded at this stage, as they are not connected directly to formative assessment. This is inspired by two often cited homework researchers who raise questions: … about teachers’ roles in using homework as an instructional tool, including whether and how well they introduce assignments and follow up assignments with discussions, marks and related quiz or test questions. Research on these topics would open the ‘black box’ of homework and should make research on homework more useful in policy and practice. (Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001, 191)


Method The following types of material have been included in this review: international peerreviewed articles, doctoral theses, reviewed anthologies, encyclopaedias, international reports and handbooks, all of which have been published in English. For the review of Swedish research, theses, journal articles and reports have been used, together with knowledge the author has accumulated concerning homework and assessment. The primary focus of this review is on homework, and formative assessment is relevant for the review only when it is related to homework. The EBSCO-host3 (EBSCO) database was used to find full text articles on homework and assessment from between 1989 and 2011. The choice of the year 1989 as the point of departure is based on two key publications: Sadler’s (1989) article on formative assessment and Cooper’s (1989) paper on homework. Initial literature reviewing started in 2010, with homework used as a title search term, assessment in abstract, practice in all text, teacher in all text and parents in all text. Homework was the primary search term, with assessment as the second. Practice, in combination with teacher, was used in order to find research about how, why and in what way teachers assign homework, and also to find research on homework that had an instructional purpose and connections to teachers’ classroom practice. The term Parents was used to find research on parental involvement in homework. Later, in the spring of 2012, the same searches were repeated to update the previous search and to find newly published articles. To review what was written about homework in assessment literature, the order of the two first search terms, homework and assessment, was switched to assessment in title, homework in abstract, which resulted in articles about assessment that mentioned homework in some way. The last search took place in June 2012, with homework as the title search term and assessment as abstract, and the results from between January 1989 and December 2011 amounted to 20 articles. About half of these concerned learning disabilities or high school teaching, which have not been included in this review, as these have a different focus. Retrospectively, a snowball-effect resulted in more texts than an advanced search on EBSCO would have yielded. However, EBSCO has been of considerable help in finding texts that have been referenced in journal articles, theses, reviewed books, reports and magazines. Encyclopaedias (Ziegler 1992; Cooper 1992; Simmons 1922) provided an overview of the research field and information about trends in research on homework, while a handbook (Deslandes 2009) provided a perspective on recent research on different aspects of homework in the western world. Journals (Educational Psychologist 36/3, Theory into Practice 43/9, Journal of Advanced Academics 22/2) published special editions about homework, which provided a broader perspective on research in the field of


328

M. Strandberg

homework. Reports (OECD 1997, 2011a, 2011b; The State of Queensland 2004; Vallberg Roth 2010) also provided an overview, as well as also an impression of the kind of knowledge about homework and assessment the various authorities had wanted. When reading the literature, new references were found, which in turn lead to the discovery of new literature. This part of the search strategy could best be described as a ‘snowball’ effect: each article resulted in more articles but also to a denser core of recurring homework researchers. The same references were found recurring in various articles, reports, theses, encyclopaedias and handbooks. Articles that were not found in the EBSCO search were found in references within articles, handbooks and reports. The same pattern was evident in Swedish research: certain authors were repeatedly referenced in most of the literature. Furthermore, once a report or a magazine was read, the authors’ names were searched on EBSCO in order to investigate their publication histories. By reading journal articles, reports and anthology chapters and at the same time searching on EBSCO, a general picture of the field began to emerge more clearly. Several articles were research reviews (Cooper 1989; Cooper, Robinson and Patall 2006; Hellsten 1997; Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001; Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2001; Warton 2001) on different aspects of homework, which provided an impression of earlier research. The discovery of the same references recurring in several reference lists wove a web of research on different aspects of homework. The references lists in journal articles, reports, handbooks and anthologies became a complement to the EBSCO searches. For Swedish research, National Library Systems (Libris) (http://libris.kb.se) and Academic publications at Swedish universities (Swepub) (http://www.swepub.se) databases were used to find reports and theses, while Artikelsök (http://corp.btj.se/?id=836) was used for articles. A review of Swedish research on assessment (Forsberg and Lindberg 2010) was also used. In addition, the author’s previous work in the field of research on homework (Strandberg and Lindberg 2012) as well as the author’s knowledge of the Swedish research field were utilised. Finally, the articles found on EBSCO were searched internally for the terms: assessment, feedback and homework, to gain a first impression of whether the article was of interest and whether it should or should not be included. Literature that mentioned some of the words briefly, without relating to or discussing them more specifically, was excluded. The author then read the abstracts and summaries and examined the lists of references. In order to get an overview of articles the focus, methods and the theme of each article in a document were then summarised. The steps outlined in Figure 1 were taken to organise the data, in total 58 texts including 42 peer-reviewed articles, 11 reviewed book chapters, one thesis, two reports, one magazine article and one academic paper. As a first step, in order to organise the findings, Van Voorhis’ (2004) distinction between instructional (n=28), communicative (n=24) and political (n=11) homework motives and functions was used. Articles concerning assessment in combination with homework were sorted into a column.

Figure 1.

Columns used to classify journal articles, theses, reports.


329


More than half of the empirically based articles (34) were studies structured according to a quantitative (e.g. large-scale or quasi-experimental) research design. Four studies used a comparative research design. Ten studies were based on qualitative data (e.g. case studies, interview studies) and nine articles were reviews of homework research. Several of the empirical articles also included a research review, the results of which also contributed to this review. The following background section starts with a brief summary of homework research and ends with an introduction to formative assessment. The research for this review is mainly related to USA and other Western countries as well as Sweden. Homework research In order to contextualise the research questions in this paper, the following section starts with a retrospective overview of homework research. Historically, issues related to homework are described by Cooper4 (1992, 1063) who portrays the perspectives of the last hundred years in the USA concerning connections between societal changes and homework and the impact of how public attitudes emerge. At the beginning of the last century, the brain was viewed as a muscle that could be strengthened through mental practice. Educational theories suggested that homework could be an important means of disciplining children’s minds (Cooper and Valentine 2001, 145), which meant that homework was viewed favourably (Cooper 1992, 1063). In the USA during the 1940s, the emphasis in education shifted from rote learning (drill) to problem solving, and homework fell out of favour, as it was closely associated with the repetition of material. At the start of the space age (in the late 1950s), the US people became concerned that education lacked rigour and left children unprepared for complex technologies (ibid.). More homework was proposed as one of the solutions to this problem. The Coleman Report (1966) in the USA pointed at a strong relation between school achievement and family economic and educational backgrounds. During the 1960s, parents and educators became concerned that homework was undermining social experience and out-door recreation (Cooper 1992, 1063). But when the A Nation at Risk report (US Department of Education 1983) was published, homework had returned to favour. The push for more homework continued until the end of the twentieth century, when parents who were concerned about too much stress on their children led the backlash against homework. These historical notes show the kinds of issues related to homework that have long been studied and discussed. When reviewing research on homework, there is the clear impression that American scholars dominate homework research. Research from the USA by Cooper and Valentine (2001, 145) came to the following conclusions. Homework is an important part of most school-aged children’s daily routine; not all teachers assign homework and not all students do homework, but most educators believe that homework can be an important supplement to school activities. Meanwhile, public attitudes toward homework have been more closely tied to a broader prevailing social philosophy and to national and international economic trends than they have to the research on homework’s effectiveness (Cooper and Valentine 2001, 45). Homework is sometimes perceived as a negative for both students and parents, causing conflicts at home and at school. The effect on learning is also brought into question, with trends in homework debate and in research on homework in which ‘Certain decades favour homework or just as actively discount it’ (Ziegler 1992, 603). When homework has been popular, researchers have emphasised its efficacy, whereas, in times less friendly to homework, the same empirical

330

M. Strandberg

results have been interpreted quite differently (Ziegler 1992; Cooper 1989; Cooper and Valentine 2001). However, research trends in the rest of the Western world may show similar patterns as in the USA.


Linking homework to formative assessment The central idea in formative assessment is a focus on learning (Black et al. 2004), which involves a focus on teachers’ instruction. The following quote from Sadler (1989) shows the potential for formative assessment, which also has relevance for homework. Formative assessment is concerned with how judgments about the quality of student responses (performances, pieces, or works) can be used to shape and improve the student’s competence. […] Broadly speaking, feedback provides for two main audiences, the teacher and the student. Teachers use feedback to make programmatic decisions with respect to readiness, diagnosis and remediation. Students use it to monitor the strengths and weaknesses of their performances, so that aspects associated with success or high quality can be recognized and reinforced, and unsatisfactory aspects modified or improved (120–121).

The distribution of publications over decades in the articles found on EBSCO shows a dramatic growth in research on formative assessment since the middle of the 1990s. On EBSCO, a search for formative assessment in article abstracts gets one hit in 1995,5 10 hits in 2002 and 55 hits in 2011. Between 1995 and 2011 the number of articles with homework in the title increase nearly 10-fold, while the number of articles with assessment in the title increased by more than 170 times. The lack of research attention paid to the assessment of homework is evident, as ‘homework+assessment’ 1995–2011 in all text on EBSCO resulted in only three hits. The growing international interest in formative assessment started when Black and Wiliam (1998) suggested in a research review that formative assessment was an effective method to enhance learning and instruction.6 Sadler (1989) had earlier shown that feedback is a key element in formative assessment, usually defined in terms of information about how successfully something has been or is being done. In a review of 2000 journals, Hattie and Timperley (2007, 81) reported that feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement but this impact could be either positive or negative. ‘Feedback has no effect in a vacuum: to be powerful in its effect, there must be a learning context to which feedback is addressed’ (2007, 82). Feedback should address the following questions (Black and Wiliam 2009; Hattie and Timperley 2007): Where is the learner going, how is (s)he doing, and what is needed for achieving the intended goals? Students’ engagement in their learning is enhanced by constructive feedback, which illuminates the knowledge expressed in the goals in relation to students’ actual knowledge (Black and Wiliam 2009; Hattie and Timperley 2007). The aim of feedback is to reduce the gap between the level of knowledge and the goal. Reviews and research on feedback conclude that it is a powerful tool that contributes to students’ learning. The process of formative assessment was, according to Brookhart (2003, 7), cyclical, as it is supposed to never end, but to develop learning and instruction continuously. According to the Swedish researcher Björklund Boistrup (2010),7 assessment is a concept with broad boundaries. She mentions six aspects of teachers’ explicit and implicit assessment activities in mathematics at elementary school: (1) during ongoing work sessions/processes, (2) at the end of working sessions/processes, (3) processes


331


related to diagnoses and tests, (4) summaries in various kinds of assessment forms, (5) A basis for three-part (teacher–parent–student) development conferences, (6) summaries in grades. However, Björklund Boistrup did not include teachers’ assessment and follow-up on homework as a part of teachers’ assessment activities. It is not clear whether they left out assessment of homework or if they claim that feedback on homework is included either in ‘during on-going work’ or in ‘development conferences between parents, students and teachers’. This underlines the need to include research on teachers’ classroom work with the formative assessment of homework. Connections between homework and assessment This first part of the report of the results of the review is based on studies where assessment in relation to homework is explicitly mentioned. One characteristic for quantitative research on homework is that results often are weak and even contradictory. The body of evidence is seldom large or homogeneous enough to draw any conclusions. Furthermore, there is a lack of research on the quality of assignments, as well as on the connection between subject and homework assignment (Liang 2010; Österlind 2001). Some findings seem to be clear – these are related to students’ achievement. Cooper, Robinson and Patall (2006) showed positive results for assigning homework to older students but this was not clear enough for younger students. Moreover, there was no strong evidence that increased time on homework increases students’ achievement (Cooper 1989; Warton 2001; Liang 2010; Trautwein et al. 2006). Giving more homework to students does not necessarily result in better achievement. Parental assistance seemed to have a positive impact for younger and older students but not to students in the middle range of school years (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008, 1039). In order to progress this further, I have looked for differences and similarities between the studies that explicitly mention assessment of homework. The articles were divided into three categories; firstly studies that have to do with teachers’ response and the use of assessment of homework, secondly research that is related to the quality of teachers’ feedback on homework, and thirdly studies that concern teacher attitudes and ‘cultural scripts’ (Goddard and Wierzbicka 2005; Lea 2004; Stigler and Hiebert 1999) in assessment of homework. Teachers’ response and use of assessment on homework Teachers’ response to homework assignments in class could, according to Cooper (1989, 142), vary in four ways:8 firstly, teachers can demonstrate how the assignment could have been more accurately completed either in class or individually; secondly, teachers can assign a grade to the assignment by a letter or a number that can be used as a part of a student’s performance evaluation; thirdly, teachers can provide either verbal or written praise or criticism with the purpose of rewarding correct responses or punishing incorrect ones, and fourthly, teachers can provide nonverbal incentives such as candy or early dismissal. However, according to Cooper, the results were weak. In a review of nine studies comparing research on the effects of types on instructional feedback and follow-up, Cooper did not find two studies that replicated an identical comparison of the strategies above (ibid.). Multiple feedback for explaining all homework problems is more efficacious than simply explaining the problems requested by students. In the 13 articles that Cooper (1989, 146) reviewed, evaluative feedback was ranked higher than shorter comments like ‘excellent’ or ‘you must do better next time’.


332

M. Strandberg

Furthermore, Cooper found that incentives together with verbal praise ‘increased the completion or accuracy of homework by disadvantaged children, which may enhance school performance’ (1989, 148). The research on feedback strategies revealed little basic data for choosing one strategy over another (Cooper 1989, 148). Nevertheless, monitoring of homework assignments is important as it acknowledges students’ effort (Boivie 1843, 378; Cooper 1989; Columba 2001, 373; Lekholm Klapp and Cliffordson 2008, 182). Teachers use homework assignments to collect information about students’ understanding and plan subsequent lessons (Bang et al. 2009). Thus homework is used as a tool for planning instruction and assessing whether or not instruction has been successful. Another similar purpose is the use of homework to collect information to identify individual students’ understanding and learning problems (Cooper 1999). In both cases, homework assignment was used as a tool for collecting information about students’ understanding and knowledge development. If homework assessment is compared with other assessment methods, it is nevertheless the least important method. In a study on third and fifth grade teachers’ classroom assessment of students’ achievements, Martinez, Stecher, and Borko (2009) asked teachers how important a number of factors were in evaluating the children in their classes. The importance for student assessment was as follows: (1) The individual child’s achievement relative to the rest of the class, (2) the individual child’s achievement relative to local and state standards, (3) individual improvement over past performance, (4) effort, (5) class participation, (6) classroom behaviour and conduct, and (70 completion of homework participation (2009, 86). Compared with six other evaluation methods, homework completion received the lowest rank. Nevertheless, teachers who valued completion of homework and worksheets obtained more information on student performance than those who did not (Martinez, Stecher, and Borko 2009, 98), which means that their judgments on student performance were improved by the additional information they had. It is suggested that an illustration of good practice may be found on the NCCA9 website. This recommends teachers to base assessment ‘upon the criteria for success in the particular task set’, not to set out too many criteria and to consider whether always giving marks or grades helps students to learn more effectively, as the giving of marks and grades can be counter-productive (Vatterott 2011). According to Vatterott (2011), grading homework did not make students focus on the learning objectives.

Quality of teachers’ feedback on homework Corrected and returned homework may have a negative effect insofar as it may create an atmosphere in which assessment is perceived as judgment instead of information for improvement (Brookhart 2001, 329). Assessment of homework, according to a report by Brookhart (2001) that followed 3000 students between grades 7 and 10 for four years, could not be separated from the classroom assessment environment as homework is a part of teachers’ practice. It is not simply a question of giving feedback to students but also a matter of the quality and usefulness of feedback: ‘Students’ perceptions of both the quality of feedback and their own competence as learners depend, in part, on useful feedback’ (Brookhart 2001, 323). It is in the classroom environment and practice that homework is assigned and therefore it cannot be separated from teachers’ instruction practice. In a comparative study of PISA results from Canada, USA and Finland, Liang (2010) suggests an emphasis on


333


homework that is more closely connected to instruction instead of increasing the amount of homework. Teachers’ feedback and control of homework completion influence students’ efforts in doing homework as well as the content and the design of assignments, which also affects students’ management of homework (Xu 2009). In a study of 1895 students from 111 secondary classes in the USA, Xu (2009) discusses students’ affective attitudes to homework and what impact these attitudes had on management of homework. According to Xu, an affective attitude towards homework at the student and class level had a positive effect on homework management (2009, 123).10 Research on teachers’ attitudes and ‘cultural scripts’ that may impinge upon (influence) assessment and homework design is reported in the next section.

Attitudes and scripts in feedback Sending assignments from school does not ‘necessarily generate intended learning outcomes, particularly if different groups of parents are involved’ (Hughes and Greenhough 2004, 87). In a case study, Hughes and Greenhough (2004), discuss the contribution that teachers’ attitudes make to student learning. Two students with different results who were assigned the same homework in Maths were compared. Hughes and Greenhough (2004) showed that there were a number of variables that made a positive contribution to one of the students but not to the other (2004, 89). Feedback on homework assignment had an impact on students’ learning, but so did the school context, the classroom context, the home context, and the peer-group context as well as nature of the task (Hughes and Greenhough 2004; Xu 2009). In this study, feedback was seen as an integrated part of teacher instruction. Feedback was an element in the learning process, although the places where homework was done and the attitudes to the homework assignments influence the learning process as well. Thus learning outcomes [author’s italics] are seen as being generated primarily through an interaction between the attitudes to the task, student engagement with the task, and feedback on the task. (Hughes and Greenhough 2004, 88)

Not only attitudes, but also teachers’ feedback is mediated by preconceptions and assumptions, as well as by cultural scripts (Goddard and Wierzbicka 2005; Lea 2004; Stigler and Hiebert 1999), defined as ‘mental models that guide behaviour’ (Stigler and Hiebert 1999, 87). Such scripts tend to be widely shared and hard to see (p. 85). Strandberg and Lindberg (2012) found in a study about categories of feedback that teachers’ ‘cultural scripts’ could present an obstacle, which did not advance the students’ learning. To sum up: attitudes and ‘cultural scripts’ influence teachers’ feedback of homework. The research on homework that explicitly mentions assessment deals with teachers’ responses to homework, how teachers use homework to ensure that the class and individual students are following instructions. The quality of homework and teachers’ attitudes to feedback on homework are two other subjects for research on homework and assessment. Findings that in some way are connected to teachers’ opportunities to use formative assessment are presented in the following section.

334

M. Strandberg


Implicit relations between assessment and homework This section addresses the research on homework, which has implicit connections to teachers’ classroom work with formative assessment. Homework, at least in Sweden (Lundahl 2006) and the USA (Kralovec 2007), has long since belonged to teachers’ classroom practice. Educational research that concerns instruction, learning or parental cooperation may thereby have connections to homework practice and is therefore interesting in relation to assessment of homework. In order to present the findings meaningfully, articles and reports that contained the same topic have been sorted under three headings. Homework: purposes and functions Researchers have categorised several motives for assigning homework (Hellsten 1997; Cooper and Valentine 2001; Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001; Van Voorhis 2004). When Van Voorhis (2004) asked hundreds of educators why they assigned homework11 Van Voorhis found: Most teachers assign homework for one of the following 10 purposes: practice, preparation, participation, personal development, parent-teacher communication, parent–child relation, peer interaction, policy, public relations and punishment. (2004, 207)

Not only are there different motives for assigning homework, homework’s function also varies between stages of schooling, for instance between elementary school and senior high school (Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001; Van Voorhis 2004). Young students may complete homework to avoid getting into trouble or to please parents and teachers (Warton 2001, Xu and Yuan 2003). It is not until students approached middle-school age that they began to understand that homework could serve intrinsic values (Warton 2001, Brock et al. 2007). Warton (2001) claimed that homework research has focused on adults’ perspectives and understanding of homework and not on students’ perspectives and understanding (Warton 2001, 155). At the elementary level, homework tends to focus on issues such as helping students to learn to manage their time and develop good study habits rather than on academic content, which is the primary focus of homework at the high school level (Brock et al. 2007). Few studies address students’ perspectives on homework in relation to assessment (Warton 2001; Xu and Yuan 2003). However, two perceptions expressed by students in Wilson and Rhodes (2010) have a connection to formative assessment and homework: firstly, if teachers do not grade the homework and return it quickly, the students report feeling like they have wasted their time in that activity (Wilson and Rhodes 2010, 352), and secondly, students prefer that the teacher shows how the homework has an impact on current subject matter and connects homework assignments to current lessons (ibid.). In an interview study, Xu and Yuan (2003) found that students preferred homework that has a clear point: Acknowledging that some assignments were interesting, many students frequently also noted that other assignments were frequently boring, or considered too easy or too hard, or involved too much writing, or were not relevant to their life context. (2003, 38)

The students in Xu’s (2007) study completed more assignments if they liked the topic. Furthermore, homework may have both a short- and a long-term purpose. Short-term



335

positive effects of homework (Cooper 1989) have to do with learning of a specific subject while long-term positive effects have more to do with fostering good study habits, independence and responsibly taking and developing positive attitudes to studying (Österlind 2001). Students considered homework interesting if it was connected to a certain topic or skill relevant to their lives or if they understood the purposes of the specific exercise (Cooper 1989; Xu 2007, 2009). Researchers such as Columba (2001), Vatterott (2011), Van Voorhis (2011) have claimed that if homework should be a useful tool it must be coordinated with instructional objectives (Columba 2001, 373). In a survey of 10th-graders in a major city in China, Hong, Wan, and Peng (2011) found that Chinese teachers rated students’ homework behaviours more favourably than the students themselves did. Hong, Wan, and Peng (2011, 304) claim that this discrepancy between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of student homework behaviours is problematic in regard to teachers’ efforts to improve homework performance. Another discrepancy, which is mentioned in Van Voorhis (2011, 223) occurs when teachers underestimate how often families are involved in homework. These discrepancies between students’, parents’ and teachers’ notions about how much time is spent on homework may, according to Van Voorhis (2011), lead to communication problems between home and school. Misunderstandings between home and school can be attributed to teachers’ expectations of how much time should be spent on homework and how much time parents and student actually spend on homework. Homework as a self-disciplining technology Homework is traditionally a symbol with a strong structural element in schooldays and in students’ everyday life (Ljunggren 1993; Westlund 2007). Homework is a part of a disciplining process that every student comes across in the process of developing their own sense of responsibility (Österlind 2001). To plan schoolwork every week is a common duty for pupils in Swedish schools and they mention homework often in their weekly plans (Vallberg Roth 2010; Österlind 2001). In an interview study with 44 Swedish students, Österlind (2001) found that homework is accepted as part of the everyday routine, and is positive for some students but a frustration for others. One hundred and twenty-nine pupils aged 13–15 years (Westlund 2007) wrote essays on the theme ‘Write about when time matters to you’. Westlund found that a great amount of their spare time was used for planning and doing homework. The pupils clearly advocate that objectives to be achieved are very important to them – they feel responsible for achieving their objectives and for planning their own ‘learning-paths’.

When students take on more of the responsibility for homework and planning their schoolwork, school turns out to become more of a social arena (Vallberg Roth and Månsson 2008). Those who prefer to have fun in school have to do a lot of schoolwork at home (Westlund 2007). In the two schools that Westlund studied, homework was included as part of a self-disciplining steering technology where flexible work hours were equated with increased control and reduced constraint. Task-oriented and performance-oriented pupils must, according to Westlund (2007), be prepared to make choices and tick off given school tasks all through the week, including at weekends. Pupils who do not fulfil the demands were called ‘wanderers’ (Ståhle 2006, 90); they moved


336

M. Strandberg

around, lacking self-discipline and purposefulness. According to the teachers described in Westlund (2007, 794) ‘A competent pupil takes great responsibility and does not count upon being ‘served’’. Self-regulated assignments put frames on what students could choose to work with during the day. In a self-regulated school practice (Eriksson 2011), the teacher is supposed to be on hand for students if they have questions. Teachers instruct students with documents that could be found in the local curricula or on the school’s homepage. When the communication between students and teachers is done primarily through logbooks, the risk of invalid assessment is greater than when students and teachers communicate verbally. The students may do their homework and other instructions whenever they want, which means that students may misunderstand instructions without the teacher being aware of it. Among Scandinavian researchers, such as Österlind (2001), Stålhe (2006), Eriksson (2011), Westlund (2007) and Klette (2011), there is criticism of self-regulating teaching practices for contributing to the creation of problem sets for special-needs students. Westlund (2007) found that the focus on developing self-regulating skills resulted in a more indistinct difference between work and leisure time for students. The students felt that too many tasks, alongside the fact that they could choose when, in what order and where they completed the tasks, produced feelings of stress (Westlund 2007). An example of less critical research is found in a two reviews on self-regulated learning by Ramdass and Zimmerman (2011) and by Bembenutty (2011b), who both emphasise positive relations between homework activities, responsibility for learning and self-efficacy (2011b, 194). Students became self-regulated by setting goals, selecting and using strategies and monitoring performance, which Rampdass and Zimmerman (2011) and Bembenutty (2011b) claim support their learning. Assigned homework should, according to Xu and Yuan (2003), be connected to teachers’ instruction in order to develop self-regulating abilities – otherwise students do not feel motivated to take responsibility for homework. Parental involvement About half of the articles found on EBSCO concerned research on cooperation between home and school regarding homework. No research studies were found on EBSCO, in handbooks or in reports that explicitly concerned assessment of homework connected to parental involvement. Homework, according Van Voorhis (2004), has a communicative function, as it engages students, teachers and parents, who according to their roles have different motives and wishes (Warton 2001; Westlund 2007; Brock et al. 2007) in relation to homework. When the Coleman Report was published in 1966, researchers suggested that schools should educate parents in order to enhance learning outcomes and school productivity (De Carvalho 2009, 61). It was posited that the less well-educated parents should contribute to the learning of students that had learning difficulties. This suggestion, according to De Carvalho, was due to neo-liberal educational policies. The targets for the parental education policy were low income and disadvantaged families and ‘atrisk’ students. Training parents to be involved in homework had three positive results: firstly higher rates of homework completion, secondly fewer problems with homework and finally the possibility of improved academic performance among elementary school children (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008). According to Xu (2009), parents’ support with homework structure is important for students’ completion of homework. Boys in middle and high school need and can, according to Xu (2005), benefit from family



337

involvement. Low-achieving students get more time when parents are assisting them, and more homework is returned back to teachers (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008, 1039). Elementary and high school students benefit from parental involvement. A metaanalysis of 22 samples from 20 studies correlating parent involvement and achievement revealed ‘[p]ositive associations for elementary school and high school students but a negative association for middle school students’ (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008, 1039). However, ‘across all designs the overall effect of parental involvement was small and not often significant’ (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008, 1087). A process-oriented parental cooperation seems, according to Walker et al. (2009), to increase students’ motivation. Parent-student interactions during homework are important ‘as they offer access to a range of attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, skills and behaviours that facilitate learning’ (Walker et al. 2009, 32). However, homework can create tensions between parents and children (Forsberg 2007; Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008; Symeou 2009) as questions could be raised as to whether homework is positive or negative at all (Solomon, Warin, and Lewis 2002). The Department for Education and Employment (DFEE) in England underscored the complex factors of cooperation between parents, teachers and children. However, policies such as the DFEE Homework guidelines and the introduction of homeschool contracts do not take account of the complex factors mediating the three-way relationship between schools, parents and their children. (Solomon, Warin, and Lewis 2002, 620)

Parents are ‘investing considerable time and emotional effort into supporting a homework agenda that is not their own, which they have little power to influence’ (Solomon, Warin, and Lewis 2002, 620). In a study of 16 Swedish middle-class families, Forsberg (2007, 209) showed that parents do not call into question whether or not they have to assist their children (2007, 219). Homework could equally be understood as an assignment given to parents: Although there is no explicit Swedish homework policy, through parental involvement in homework as institutionalized practice, there is still an implicit homework policy, where parents are supposed to be involved and children are supposed to let their parents be involved. (Forsberg 2007, 221)

If homework creates tensions at home, this will in some way impose itself on teachers’ follow-up and feedback. If homework content or homework demands are characterised by middle class values, students and parents from other socio-economic classes may have difficulty in taking advantage of teachers’ assessment and feedback. The next section concerns equity in the assessment of homework. Issues of equity The number of schools that are multilingual, multiethnic and diverse is increasing, as a result of international migration. Social discrimination is not an issue that exists only outside school: Equity in formative assessment becomes an issue (among many), when teachers and students belong to different ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. An example of insufficient equity in formative assessment is provided by the two students


338

M. Strandberg

in Hughes and Greenhough (2004), mentioned earlier, who not were given equal feedback from the teacher as s/he misunderstood their ambitions and subject interest. Bang (2011) found in a US study of 192 English language learners aged 10–11 that negative comments from teachers led to diminished academic self-esteem (Gipps and Murphy 1994). Uncompleted homework produced frustration (Bang 2011). Every single homework assignment that the immigrant students struggled to understand expanded the knowledge gap between them and their non-immigrant schoolmates (ibid.). In an interview study of 273 immigrant students and 57 teachers, Bang et al. (2009) found that teachers valued classroom behaviour and homework completion more highly than course understanding when they were grading. English skills seemed (Bang et al. 2009, 20) to overshadow teacher perceptions of other academic skills in determining immigrant students’ grades and language proficiency was assessed rather than course understanding. Teachers may limit the learning of boys, students of different ethnic backgrounds or girls if they are not conscious of their cultural scripts. An example of this can be found in a study by Murphy and Ivinson (2005) where they show how teachers’ notions about good writing in fact limited boys’ writing. Ethnocentrism in feedback was found in a study by Strandberg and Lindberg (2012), when the teacher ignored one student who wanted to talk about his mother’s fear of being thrown out of the country in a classroom discussion and when the teacher in her comments forgot that students originated from Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East rather than Sweden. In these two studies, gender and ethnicity were the basis for bias. However, social class or religion could just as well provide the basis for bias, as they are other factors that may unconsciously influence teachers’ feedback. Teachers underestimate immigrant students’ understanding (Bang et al. 2009) and sometimes give higher or inappropriate grades than they should have. Expectations have to do with people’s underlying – even unacknowledged – concepts and assumptions about abilities and skills (Gipps and Murphy 1994, 5). Students learn how to perceive their own abilities, and if expectations are low, it is easy simply to fulfil those expectations, bringing down self-esteem. Equity in relation to assessment is a question of attitudes towards members of socio-economically under-privileged minorities (Gipps and Murphy 1994). According to the research of Bang et al. (2009), homework completion and capability in English rather than course understanding had an important role in teachers’ grading. Epstein and Van Voorhis (2001) found that students in privileged schools got more homework than did students in low-ability classes: … some teachers may assign students in low-ability classes less homework or less interesting assignments than students in honors or advanced classes, or convey low expectations that slower students will do the work. (Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001, 184)

Dettmers, Trautwein and Lûdtke (2009, 398) found that teachers may assign more homework in schools attended by students from privileged families or with higher than average school achievement. Students attending schools with frequent or lengthy homework assignments outperformed students with fewer or shorter homework assignments (Dettmers, Trautwein and Lûdtke 2009; OECD 2011b). Disadvantaged students who succeed in school spent more time studying than their average disadvantaged low-achiever (OECD 2011a).



339

In interviews with students in two low-income schools, Bempechat et al. (2011) found that many students lacked a quiet working environment and someone to help. The teachers assigned little and/or low quality homework, which Bempechat et al. suggest decreased students’ motivation to complete homework. High- and low-achieving students need to believe that homework is meaningful, that teachers value their endeavour and monitor their completion (Bempechat et al. 2011, 251). The young people interviewed had little assigned homework and had little or no consequences if they did not complete assigned tasks. The students relied on friends or family members when they needed help. Homework was a largely solitary activity, which according to Bempechat et al. (2011) is associated with a negative effect. They suggest that teachers should ‘capitalize on the fact that homework is essentially a social experience’ and integrate other ‘spheres of influence’, such as peers, family members and workplace colleagues (Bempechat et al. 2011, 273). In conclusion, the previous section has displayed four factors that have implications on teachers’ assessment of homework: first, the multiple motives for and functions of homework; second, homework and students self-disciplining; third, complications around teachers cooperation with parents; and finally, questions regarding equity in assessment. Before we present final conclusions, the following section discusses what Swedish research on homework connected to assessment could add to international research. Swedish research on homework connected to assessment Although Swedish research has already been referred to above in relation to categorisation, the focus here is on the relation between Swedish and international research. The 10 studies found from between 199312 and 2012 are all relatively small qualitative studies. The Swedish research field connections between homework and assessment have similarities to research elsewhere in the Western world: no study with an explicit focus on assessment of homework was found, but there were several with connections to teachers’ classroom work with homework and assessment. The complement to international research is mainly in terms of questions and topics related to students’ perspectives on homework, and to how homework influences relations between parents and children and power relations between students, parents and teachers. Four of six studies that focus explicitly on homework were based on either student interviews, weekly plans and essays or a combination of these, to analyse experiences and perceptions of homework (Österlind 2001; Leo and Pettersson 2005; Westlund 2007; Gu and Kristoffersson 2010). Ljunggren (1993) and Hellsten (2000) contributed to the field with their reviews of hidden assumptions about homework. Among Swedish homework research there has consequently been, in comparison with other Western research, a high interest in student and parent experiences and views about homework. Warton’s (2001) research is equivalent to this. Homework was a source of conflicts between parents and children, according to Forsberg (2007), who studied family life in middle-class families. The influence of homework assignments on relations between parents, teachers and students is studied by Leo and Pettersson (2005). According to Hellsten (2000) and Leo and Pettersson (2005) the practice of homework is in many ways an unregulated and non-reflective practice that is not mentioned in curricula. Glasman (2009) and Kryger and Ravn (2009) drew the same conclusions in France and in Denmark, respectively, where homework is also neither mentioned in any curricula nor deeply challenged. Österlind (2001) and Forsberg (2007) both found that homework was a duty that parents had to accept and that it was hard for them to ‘take up another subject position


340

M. Strandberg

than that of a ‘responsible parent’ who helps the child with homework or controls what it is done’ (Forsberg 2007, 209). In the middle-class families that Forsberg (2007) observed, homework is the everyday work that causes most conflicts. Österlind (2001) claimed that homework contributes to social misallocation, as parents had different prerequisites for homework support. Bouakaz and Persson (2007), who focused on influence and homework assistance in families from minority backgrounds, showed that parents had difficulties in understanding how to help their children in the way that teachers desired. Homework appeared as an important matter in students’ weekly plans (Vallberg Roth and Månsson 2008) as in many ways it organised their out-of-school time (Westlund 2004). According to Vallberg Roth and Månsson (2008, 59), homework was included in elementary teachers’ use of portfolios, individual education plans, oral presentations, laboratory reports, logbooks, dramatisations and as the foundations for assessment. In a survey of Swedish research on assessment, Forsberg and Lindberg (2010) connected the history of homework with the priests’ assessments at catechetical meetings before public schools were established. They claimed that assessment of homework is a special form of oral assessment practice that has not been given adequate attention in research of assessment. The majority of schools in Sweden are to some extent multilingual,13 which influences cooperation between school and home in different ways. Homework can be used as a way to develop cooperation between home and school (Van Voorhis 2009; Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001) especially when there are wide gaps between cultures and languages. In Strandberg and Lindberg’s case study (2012), the purpose of homework in multiethnic and multilingual classes was to develop learning about and for cultural diversity, but also to develop cooperation between home and school. Seven different categories of feedback were found in the teachers’ feedback when student were discussing an interactive (Van Voorhis 2001) homework assignment in civics. This particular topic put high demands on teacher feedback, as the teacher could not predict what the students would say in classroom discussion. The students interviewed their parents or other adults about fear in their country of origin and in Sweden. During the discussion, when the students presented answers, the teacher gave feedback that in six of seven cases made learning about cultural diversity possible. The teacher’s cultural scripts became visible when he or she did not permit talking about the fear of being expelled from the country. Parents in Sweden are expected to assist their children with homework. As a result of a tax reform (2007) parents are offered deductions if they hire homework consultants. The number of companies which offer homework assistance is increasing, which may be interpreted as a kind of shadow education14 system that seems to be an alternative for parents with few children and high income. Another tendency is that parents with immigration backgrounds send their children to supplementary schools (Bouakaz and Persson 2007) to compensate the perceived lack of education. Particularly in Sweden, students since the 1990s have been given responsibility for planning and doing schoolwork. Accountability for reaching goals is transferred from teachers to students, as it is their responsibility to learn. This effort to increase students’ responsibility for homework may stand in opposition to teachers’ opportunities to work individually as well as collectively with formative assessment. In schools and classes that favour a teaching practice that focuses on students’ individual responsibility, teachers do not have the same opportunity to lead and distribute work in class (Eriksson


341


2011). Students might find that feedback limits their responsibility; however, this may not be the case for all (Österlind 2001), as students with different perspectives, habitus (Bourdieu 1991) and attitudes respond differently to the call for self-responsibility. Conclusions Although homework and assessment have long-established connections and rely on old school traditions, there is little research on assessment of homework and what there is lacks consistency. Since schools were established, teachers have, in different ways, assessed student learning and behaviour. Review of the literature suggests that homework is a part of school activity and teachers classroom practice, even if this has sometimes been questioned. There is research, which is explicitly and implicitly connected to assessment and to teachers’ classroom work, but there are no studies that explicitly focus on formative assessment and homework. However, signs of an emerging interest in the relation between formative assessment and homework can be found (e.g. Strandberg and Lindberg 2012). Different research findings, described above, point to the importance of exploring the quality of homework. This paper has critically examined earlier research on homework, explicitly and implicitly related to formative assessment, teachers’ classroom work and displayed connections between homework quality and feedback. It has also described problems and conflicts that homework can cause students, teachers and parents, and how these should be considered in research on how to assign and assess homework. Finally, this review has, through Swedish research, discussed questions about teachers’ opportunity to assess homework when students take more responsibility for homework and studies. Further research Findings show a gap in the research field of homework, especially in relation to formative assessment. Collaborative research between teachers and educational researchers could be a way of focusing both the quality of homework in relation to the intended learning goals, and for exploring both feedback and other aspects of formative assessment as tools for enhancing students’ learning and teachers’ instruction. Research findings suggest that teachers’ ‘scripts’ influence feedback, that notions about gender and ethnicity impinge upon meaningful feedback and that students in under-privileged schools get less complex and less volume of homework than students in privileged schools. Further work is needed in order to illuminate issues related to conditions for equity in relation to homework and feedback. From a Swedish perspective, more research is needed into how to develop teachers’ formative assessment practices without discouraging students from taking more responsibility for homework. Notes 1.

The sacristan was often responsible for teaching the members of the parish the Bible and how to read. 2. From a student perspective, homework can be regarded as something that takes time that would otherwise be spent with family and friends (Xu 2007; Westlund 2004).

342 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.


8. 9.

10. 11. 12.

13.

14.

M. Strandberg Elton B. Stevens COmpany, http://wwwabbriviations.com/EBSCO. EBSCOhost is a search service, which gives access to a number of different databases. Full-text articles, citations and media options vary per database. EBSCO covers 8500 journals and 3900 reviewed titles. The American homework researcher Harris Cooper is the single most frequently citied of all homework researchers. Between January and December 1995. Interestingly, Black and Wiliam (1998, 37) mention research about the quality of feedback in a study with 500 Venezuelan students involving 18 mathematics teachers. The researchers trained the teachers to improve written feedback in response to homework. Cf. Löfgren and Lindberg (2010) mention in a comparative study that teachers assess homework but do not discuss it. Harris Cooper mentions feedback in the chapter ‘Home and community factors and classroom follow-up’ in his often-referenced research review Homework (1989). Cooper’s references are mainly to research in the USA. NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) is an Irish organisation formed on a statutory basis that supports teachers and schools. ‘The mission is to advise the Minister for Education and Skills on curriculum and assessment for early childhood education to the end of second level’. http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-primary_Education/Junior_Cycle/Assessment_for_Learning_AfL_/Homework/ The impression is that the teachers studied by Xu (2009) seemed to be more focused on how to achieve completion of homework than on what students learn and could learn better from homework. He found that teachers hesitated to answer the question of why they assign homework, because they are rarely asked to identify their reasons for particular homework assignments. The searches for current Swedish research started in 1993, the year when Ljunggren published Undervisning som kommunikation: om läxor och offentliga samtal i skolan [Instruction as communication: Homework and public dialogue in school] in Utbildning och demokrati [Education and Democracy]. According to statistics from Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education] 2011, at 15 October 2011, more than half of all compulsory schools have students that are entitled to study their mother tongue as a separate subject. The number of students that are multilingual is probably higher, since not all students want to have extra lessons or can prove they speak another language than Swedish every day at home. Shadow Education is, according to A comparison of Hong Kong and United States schools, defined as ‘activities outside of school that mimic (shadow) activities performed in school. For example, activities such as crams school, private tutoring (for profit), and test prep services.’ (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/finalli.356/shadow_education)

References Aas, G. H. 2006. Likhet uten solidaritet? Idéhistoriske studier av karakterer i utdanning og Meritokrati [Equality without solidarity? Studies from the vantage point of history of ideas on uses of marking systems in education, and of meritocracy]. Institutionen för idéhistoria och vetenskapsteori: Göteborgs universitet/University of Gothenburg. Adelmann, K. 2002. Att lyssna till röster. Ett vidgat lyssnandebegrepp i ett didaktiskt perspektiv. [Listening to Voices. An extended notion of listening in an educational perspective]. Lund University Bang, J. H., C. Sua’rez-Orozco, J. Pakes, and E. O’Connor. 2009. “The importance of homework in determining immigrant students’ grades in schools in the USA context.” Educational Research 51 (1): 25. Bang, H. J. 2011. “Newcomer immigrant students’ perspectives on what affects their homework experiences.” The Journal of Educational Research 104 (6): 408–19. Bempechat, J., J. Li, S. M. Neier, C. A. Gillis, and S. D. Holloway. 2011. “The homework experience: Perceptions of low-income youth.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 250–78. Bembenutty, H. 2011a. The last word: An interview with Harris Cooper. Research policies, tips, and current perspectives on homework. Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 342–51. Bembenutty, H. 2011b. “Meaningful and maladaptive homework practices: The role of self-efficacy and self-regulation.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (3): 448–73.



343

Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. “Assessment and classroom learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 5 (1): 7–73. Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshal, and D. Wiliam. 2004. “Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom.” The Phi Delta Kappan 86 (1): 8–21. Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2009. “Developing the theory of formative assessment in Educational Assessment.” Evaluation and Accountability 21 (1): 5–31. Björklund Boistrup, L. 2010. Assessment discourses in mathematics classrooms: A multimodal social semiotic study. Doctoral thesis: Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University. Boivie, P. G. 1843. Pedagogik [58] Betänkande om Student-examen [Pedagogy report on Swedish A-level examination]. In Frey: tidskrift för vetenskap och konst [Journal of Science and Art] 1841–1850, 3, no. 58: 378. Bouakaz, L., and S. Persson. 2007. “What hinders and what motivates parents’ engagement in school?” International Journal about parents in Education 1: 97–107. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Kultur och kritik [Culture and critic]. Uddevalla: Daidalos. Brock, C. H., D. Lapp, J. Flood, D. Fisher, and K. T. Han. 2007. “Does Homework Matter? An Investigation of Teacher Perceptions About Homework Practices for Children From Nondominant Backgrounds.” Urban Education 42 (2): 348–372. Brookhart, S. M. 2001. “Effects of the classroom assessment environment on mathematics and science achievement.” Journal of Educational Research 90 (6): 323–30. Brookhart, S. M. 2003. “Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 22 (4): 6–11. Carlgren, I. 2002. Det nya betygssystemets tankefigurer och tänkbara användningar [The figures of taught in the new Swedish assessment system, and possible ways of using them]. I Att döma eller bedöma Tio artiklar om bedömning och betygssättning. [To judge or to assess. Ten articles about assessment and grading]. Stockholm: Skolverket, Liber. Columba, L. 2001. “Daily classroom assessment.” Education 122 (2): 372–4. Cooper, H. 1989. Home and community factors and classroom follow-up. Homework Research on Teaching Monograph Series. New York: Longman. Cooper, H. 1992. “Homework.” In Encyclopaedia of education. 2nd ed, edited by J. Guthrie. New York: Macmillan. Cooper, H. 1999. Homework research and policy: A review of the literature. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement 2, no. 2: 1–9. University of Minnesota, USA. http:// www.hisparks.com/MathHelpers/Homework_Research_and_Policy.pdf Cooper, H., and J. C. Valentine. 2001. “Using research to answer practical questions about homework.” Educational Psychologist 36 (3): 143–53. Cooper, H., J. C. Robinson, and E. A. Patall. 2006. “Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003.” Review of Educational Research 76: 1–62. De Carvalho, M. E. 2009. “Homework, gender and family–school relations.” In International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family–school–community partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge. Deslandes, R. (ed.). 2009. International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family– school–community partnerships. London: Routledge. Dettmers, S., U. Trautwein, and O. Lûdtke. 2009. “The relationship between homework time and achievement in not universal: From multilevel analyses in 40 countries.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 20 (4): 375–405. Eriksson, I. 2011. Skriftspråkliga redskap i självreglerande undervisningspraktiker [Literacy related tools in self-regulated teaching–practices]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Epstein, J. L., and F. L. Van Voorhis. 2001. “More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework.” Educational Psychologist 36 (3): 181–93. Forsberg, L. 2007. “Homework as serious family business: power and subjectivity in negotiations about school assignments in Swedish families.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (2): 209–222. Forsberg, E., and V. Lindberg. 2010. Svensk forskning om bedömning – En kartläggning [Swedish research on assessment – A survey]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Gipps, C. 1999. “Socio-cultural aspects to assessment.” Educational Review of Research 24: 355– 392.


344

M. Strandberg

Gipps, C., and P. Murphy. 1994. “Chapter 1: Defining equity.” In A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equity, edited by C. Gipps and P. Murphy. Buckingham: Open University Press. Glasman, D. 2009. “Parents and Children’s Homework in France.” In International perspectives on student outcomes and Homework Family – School – Community Partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. Routledge: London. Goddard, C., and A. Wierzbicka. 2005. “Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for?” Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (2): 153–66. Gu, L., and M. Kristoffersson. 2010. “‘Hemma blir som skola’ Elevperspektiv på hemläxor 8 [‘Home becomes school’ students’ perspectives on homework].” Locus 4 (10): 50–65. Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The power of feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81–112. Hellsten, J.-O. 1997. “Läxor är inget att orda om Läxan som fenomen i aktuell pedagogisk litteratur [Homework is nothing to talk about: homework as phenomena in contemporary pedagogical literature].” Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige 2 (3): 205–20. Hellsten, J.-O. 2000. Skolan som barnarbete och utvecklingsprojekt: en studie av hur grundskoleelevers arbetsmiljö skapas-förändras-förblir som den är [School as child labour and development work: a study of how student’s work environment in compulsory school is created–changes–remains the same]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Hong, E., M. Wan, and Y. Peng. 2011. “Discrepancies between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of homework.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 280–308. Hoover Dempsey, K. V., A. C. Battiato, J. M. T. Walker, R. P. Reed, J. M. Dejong, and K. P. Jones. 2001. “Parental Involvement in Homework in.” Educational Psychologist 36 (3): 195–209. Hughes, M., and P. Greenhough. 2004. “Learning from homework: A case study in learning to read critically.” In Teaching and learning, edited by L. Poulson and M. Wallace. London: Sage. Johansson, E. 1983. Kyrkoböckerna berättar [The Parish Examination Records Reports]. Stockholm: Liber Förlag. Johansson, E. 2003. “Church records – Part I: From orality to reading tradition. Church records – Part II: Baptism, teaching to observe, and the demographic data base (DDB) opening reflections.” Interchange 34 (2–3): 137–51. Klette, K. 2010. ‘Recipes for Busy Kitchens’: Arbetsplaner som lärande verktyg. [‘Recipes for Busy Kitchens’: self-regulated learning as tools for learning]. In Uppdrag undervisning – kunskap och lärande [Mission instruction – knowledge and learning], ed. I. Eriksson, V. Lindberg and E. Österlind, 27–146. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Kralovec, E. 2007. “A brief history of homework.” Encounter 20 (4): 4–5. Kryger, N., and B. Ravn. 2010. “Homework in Denmark.” In International perspectives on students outcomes and homework family– school–community–partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge. Lea, V. 2004. “The reflective cultural portfolio: Identifying public cultural scripts in the private voices of white student teachers.” Journal of Teacher Education 55 (2): 116–27. Lekholm Klapp, A., and C. Cliffordson. 2008. “Discrepancies between school grades and test scores at individual and school level: Effects of gender and family background.” Educational Research and Evaluation 14 (2): 181–99. Leo, U., and D. Pettersson. 2005. Läxor – en oreglerad bedömningspraktik. [Homework – an unregulated assessment practice]. Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy 2005: 1. Uppsala. Liang, X. 2010. “Assessment use, self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: comparative analysis of PISA 2003 data of Finland, Canada and the USA.” Evaluation & Research in Education 23 (3): 213–29. Ljunggren, C. 1993. “Undervisning som kommunikation: om läxor och offentliga samtal i skolan [Instruction as communication: Homework and public dialogue in school].” Utbildning och demokrati 2 (1): 9–21. Lundahl, C. 2006. Viljan att veta vad andra vet Kunskapsbedömning i tidigmodern, modern och senmodern skola [The wish to know what others know. Knowledge assessment in pre-modern, modern and late-modern education]. Doctoral thesis. Arbetsliv i omvandling 2006:8 Arbetslivsinstitutet, Stockholm.



345

Löfgren R. and V. Lindberg. 2010. Bedömningshandlingar i två klassrum Likartat kemiinnehåll men skilda inramningar [Assessment actions in two classrooms. Similar chemistry content with different settings]. Skip rapport 9. Stockholm. Martinez, J. F., B. Stecher, and H. Borko. 2009. “Classroom assessment practices, teacher judgments, and student achievement. Mathematics; evidence from the ECLS.” Educational Assessment 14 (2): 78–102. Murphy, P., and G. Ivinson. 2005. “Gender, assessment and students’ literacy learning: Implications for formative assessment.” Teacher Development 9 (2): 185–99. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 1997. Parents as partners in Schooling Center for Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publications. Child Education 74 (6): 342–46. OECD. 2011a. Against the odds: Disadvantaged students who succeed in school. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264090873-en OECD. 2011b. Quality time for students learning in and out of school. In Learning in and out of school. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087057-en Österlind, E. 2001. Elevers förhållningssätt till läxor En uppföljningsstudie [Students’ approach to homework. A follow up study]. Rapport 2001:1. Dalarna: University College/Högskolan Dalarna. Patall, A. E., H. Cooper, and J. C. Robinson. 2008. “Parent involvement in homework: A research synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 78: 1039–101. Rampdass, D., and B. Zimmerman. 2011. “Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 194–218. Resnick, L., and B. Resnick. 1977. “The nature of literacy: An historical exploration.” Harvard Education Review 47: 370–85. Sadler, D. R. 1989. “Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.” Instructional Science 18: 119–44. Simmons, C. 1922. Homework. In The encyclopaedia and dictionary of education 2 (4), ed. F. Watson. Bristol: Thoemmes Press (reprinted 2003). Solomon, Y., J. Warin, and C. Lewis. 2002. “Helping with homework? Homework as a site of tension for parents and teenagers.” British Educational Research Journal 28 (4): 603–22. Stigler, J. W., and J. Hiebert. 1999. The teaching gap. Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press. Strandberg, M., and V. Lindberg. 2012. “Feedback in a multiethnic classroom discussion. A case study.” Journal of Intercultural Education 23 (2): 75–88. Ståhle, Y. 2006. Pedagogiken i tiden. Om framväxten av nya undervisningsformer under tidigt 2000-tal exemplet Kunskapsskolan [On the development of new teaching methods during the early 2000’s. A case study of Kunskapsskolan]. Doctoral thesis, Studies in educational sciences 84. Stockholm: HLS förlag. Symeou, L. 2009. “Mind the gap! Greek-Cypriot parents and their children’s homework.” In International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family–school–community partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge. The State of Queensland, Department of Education and the Arts. 2004. Homework literature review summary of key research findings. http://education.qld.gov.au/review/pdfs/homeworktext-for-web.pdf Trautwein, U., O. Lüdtke, I. Schnyder, and A. Niggli. 2006. “Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model.” Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (2): 438–56. US Department of Education. 1983. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf Vallberg Roth, A.-C. 2010. ‘Stödja och styra: Om bedömning av yngre barn’ [Supporting and regulating: On assessment of younger children]. In Perspektiv på barndom och barns lärande. En kunskapsöversikt om lärande i förskolan och grundskolans tidigare år [Perspectives on childhood and children’s learning. A review of learning in pre- and primary school], ed. Skolverket (Swedish National Agency of Education). Stockholm: Fritzes.


346

M. Strandberg

Vallberg Roth, A.-C., and A. Månsson. 2008. Individuella utvecklingsplaner som uttryck för reglerad barndom Likriktning med variation [Individual plans as an expression for regulated childhood. Uniformity with variation]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 13 (2): 81–102. Van Voorhis, F. L. 2001. Teachers’ use of interactive homework and its effect in family involvement and science achievement of middle grade students. Paper presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, 10–14 April. Van Voorhis, F. L. 2004. “Reflecting on the homework ritual: Assignments and designs.” Theory into Practice 43 (3): 205–12. Van Voorhis, F. L. 2009. “Does family involvement in homework make a difference? Investigating the longitudinal effects on math and language art interventions.” In International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family–school–community partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. Routledge: London. Van Voorhis, F. L. 2011. “Costs and benefits of family involvement in homework.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 220–49. Walker, J., K. Hoover-Dempsey, C. L. Ice, and M. Whitaker. 2009. “Parental involvement supports better student learning.” In International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family–school–community partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge. Warton, P. W. 2001. “The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students.” Educational Psychologist 36 (3): 155–65. Vatterott, C. 2011. “Making homework central to learning. If grading homework sends the wrong signal about its purpose, what can teachers do instead?” Educational Leadership 69: 360–4. Westlund, I. 2004. Läxberättelser: läxor som tid och uppgift [Homework stories: homework as time and assignment]. Doctoral thesis: Department of Behavioural Sciences, Linköping University. Westlund, I. 2007. “Reconstructed task orientation and local time governance in compulsory schools: The Swedish case.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (6): 783–96. Wilson, J., and J. Rhodes. 2010. “Students perspectives on homework.” Education 131 (2): 351–358. Xu, J., and R. Yuan. 2003. “Doing homework: Listening to students’, parents’ and teachers’ voices in one urban middle school community.” The School Community Journal 13 (2): 25–44. Xu, J. 2005. “Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high school students.” The Journal of Educational Research 99 (1): 46–55. Xu, J. 2007. “Middle-school homework management: More than just gender and family involvement.” Educational Psychology 27 (2): 173–89. Xu, J. 2009. Homework management reported by secondary school students. A multilevel analysis. In International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family–school– community partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge. Ziegler, S. 1992. Homework. In Encyclopaedia of educational research, 6th ed., edited by M. C. Alkin. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International.

Digital references http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Junior_Cycle/Assessment_for_Learning_AfL_/Homework/ http://www.skatteverket.se/download/18.b7f2d0103e5e9ecb08000100/folkboforingens_historia.html http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf

Homework

Homework

Suggest Documents

Homework

HOMEWORK

HOMEWORK

PDF Homework Helpers: Chemistry (Homework Helpers (Career ...

HOLIDAY HOMEWORK HOLIDAY HOMEWORK 2015 - 16 CLASS ...

PDF Homework Helpers: Chemistry (Homework Helpers (Career ...

Homework # 7 Short homework (“Mastering Physics” assignment)

[PDF] Homework Helpers: Chemistry (Homework Helpers (Career ...

Homework 10

Homework 7

Homework Solution

Homework Skills

Homework#3

Homework #3

Homework Assignments

Homework Problems

Homework 7

Homework

Homework Policy

Homework Article

Homework #2

Homework #10

HOMEWORK - familyschool

Homework 11