Remedial and Special Education

Remedial and Special Education http://rse.sagepub.com/

The Effect of Parent Participation in Strategies to Improve the Homework Performance of Students Who Are At Risk Kevin Callahan, Joyce A. Rademacher and Bertina L. Hildreth Remedial and Special Education 1998 19: 131 DOI: 10.1177/074193259801900302 The online version of this article can be found at: http://rse.sagepub.com/content/19/3/131

Published by: Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Remedial and Special Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://rse.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://rse.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://rse.sagepub.com/content/19/3/131.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 1998 What is This?

Downloaded from rse.sagepub.com at UNIV NORTH TEXAS LIBRARY on July 18, 2012

The Effect of Parent Participation in Strategies to Improve the Homework Performance of Students Who Are At Risk KEVIN

A

B

S

T

R

A

C

C A L L A H A N ,

JOYCE

A.

R A D E M A C H E R ,

AND

BERTINA

L.

HILDRETH

T

T h e effect of teaching parents of at-risk students to facilitate a home-based self-management program to improve homework performance and academic achievement was investigated. The parents of 26 sixth- and seventh-grade students from two middle school programs for at-risk youth received training and implemented home-based self-management and reinforcement strategies. Results indicated that overall levels of homework completion and homework quality increased significantly for those students whose parents consistently implemented the 10-week homework program. Significant increases in mathematics achievement also occurred. These results suggest that the practice of homework may be an important element of academic programming for students at risk and students with disabilities and that parents may play a primary role in the homework process.

T

H E

P R A C T I C E

O F

H

O

M

E

W

O

R

K

E N J O Y S

W I D E -

spread, although far from unanimous, professional and public support. In addition to government reports touting homework as an important component of effective teaching and quality school programs (U.S. Department of Education, 1987; Utah State Office of Education, 1984), many teachers, administrators, parents, and even students place a high value on homework (Coulter, 1980; England & Flatley, 1985; Featherstone, 1985; Kuerston, 1984; LaConte, 1981; McDermott, Goldman, & Varenne, 1984). Despite the popular belief that homework has positive effects on students, however, the empirical research addressing the efficacy of homework has been described as

being "vague, uncertain, sometimes contradictory, and perhaps even thin" (England & Flatley, 1985, p. 21). Most notably, there is disagreement about the effect of homework on academic achievement and school performance (Epstein, Polloway, Foley, & Patton, 1993; Salend & Gajria, 1995). Whereas some researchers extol the benefits of homework for student outcomes (e.g., Anderson, Mead, & Sullivan, 1986; Bradshaw & Amundson, 1985; Foyle & Bailey, 1986; Natriello & McDill, 1986; Rosenberg, 1989; Walberg, Paschal, & Weinstein, 1985), others report homework's relative ineffectiveness in improving achievement and school performance variables (BentsHill et a l , 1988; Epstein, 1988; Rutherford, 1989). Although there has been a recent increase in literature addressing homework and students with disabilities, there is still relatively little research focusing on the effectiveness of homework for youth at risk and youth with disabilities. This lack of research attention exists despite the long-standing importance of homework for these students, whose typical educational deficits "are predictive of possible difficulties in successfully completing homework assignments" (Epstein et al., 1993, p. 41). Not surprisingly, lack of homework completion has been reported to be a major factor contributing to poor academic performance and school failure of youth at risk and youth with disabilities (Davis, 1984; England & Flatley, 1985; Gajria & Salend, 1995; Quackenbush & Gastineau, 1989; Salend & Schliff, 1989). In addition, failure to complete homework assignments is often among referral criteria for special school programs aimed at serving the growing numbers of children at risk of school failure within the United States (Bay & Bryan, 1992). REMEDIAL Volume


19, Number

AND

SPECIAL

3, May/June

1998,

EDUCATION Pages

131-141

Several important conclusions can be derived from the existing homework literature addressing school and family factors associated with successful homework performance (e.g., Epstein, 1988; McDermott et al., 1984; Natriello & McDill, 1986). For example, recent reviews of homework practices suggest that policies and procedures for students with mild disabilities should emphasize, among other factors, (a) homework assignments that have a reasonable chance of being completed correctly, in order to foster proficiency or maintenance of skills; (b) careful monitoring, and the use of a variety of reinforcement strategies, by teachers; and (c) parental involvement, especially to provide structure, conducive environments, and immediate rewards (Cooper & Nye, 1994; Salend & Gajria, 1995). Nevertheless, there appear to be at least two fundamental gaps in the homework knowledge base. First, there are crucial unanswered questions about the specific role parents may play in the homework process. According to McDermott et al. (1984), few studies [have] recognized the importance of examining the places in which homework is done, or what goes on between people as they work on it. With few exceptions educators have not thought to look into the home and the interactions between family members for learning about how homework is handled, (p. 38) Much of the literature addressing parent homework involvement is not empirically based and/or provides only general suggestions about what parents can do to improve homework performance (e.g., Anderson et al., 1986; Canter & Hausner, 1987; Clary, 1986; Landers, 1984; Sonna, 1990). A second area in need of investigation is the effectiveness of applying strategies and techniques that have been empirically demonstrated in other areas of education to the practice of homework. An example of such a strategy is selfmanagement, which generally consists of four groups of interventions: (a) self-recording, (b) self-evaluation, (c) selfreinforcement, and (d) self-instruction and goal setting (Nelson, Smith, Young, & Dodd, 1991; Smith, 1988). These strategies have been used successfully in the remediation of a variety of classroom-based problem behaviors and across diverse populations of students (e.g., Glomb & West, 1990; Maag, Reid, & DiGangi, 1993; Nelson et al., 1991; Smith, Young, Nelson, & West, 1992). More specifically, the efficacy of selfmanagement procedures on academic performance variables, including the completion of school assignments, has been favorably reported (McLaughlin, Krappman, & Welsh, 1985; Piersel, 1985; Reid & Harris, 1992; Rhode, Morgan, & Young, 1983; Smith et al., 1992). Although use of various selfmanagement strategies within homework programs has been documented in the literature (Bradshaw & Amundson, 1985; Hutton, 1983; Quackenbush & Gastineau, 1989; Struckoff, McLaughlin, & Bialozer, 1987; Trammel, Schloss, & Alper, 1994), no studies have investigated the effectiveness of homebased, parent-facilitated self-management programs that target REMEDIAL Volume

AND

SPECIAL

19, Number

3, May/June

specific homework skills. The present study was conducted over a 10-week period to investigate the effect of parents' facilitating a home-based program using self-management and reinforcement strategies to increase the homework and academic performance of their children at risk.

METHOD Participants Sixth- and seventh-grade middle school students enrolled in two programs for at-risk youth, and their parents, participated in this study. The programs from which the participants were selected were an ongoing class referred to as Achievement Plus and a one-year pilot program called Project REACH. All participants were initially referred to Achievement Plus and Project REACH because of academic and/or social-behavioral deficits. Specifically, students were referred to the Achievement Plus program on the basis of low teacher ratings in one or more of the following areas: adult relations, peer relations, classroom (academic) behavior, and compliance with school rules. The Project REACH students were referred to that program by the school counselor and teachers on the basis of a variety of risk factors for alcohol or other drug use, including poor social and academic skills. Students in the Achievement Plus program attended a specially modified block of three consecutive class periods taught by a general education teacher and a full-time classroom aide. The students received instruction in social studies, reading, English, and spelling within the Achievement Plus class. Project REACH was a federally funded program focusing on drug and alcohol use prevention. At the time of the study all students in the Project REACH program met with project staff each day during the school's 25-minute reading/ advisement period and participated in activities focusing primarily on substance abuse prevention, academic support, and social skills development. The parents of all 31 students enrolled in the Achievement Plus and Project REACH programs were mailed information about the homework program, including a consent form asking if they would be willing to participate in the study. Five parents chose not to be involved in the homework program. Thus, a total of 26 students and their families originally agreed to participate in the study. All participants except one were White (the remaining student was Hispanic) and came from lower-middle to middle class homes. Only six of the participants were girls. Almost half of the students (n = 12) lived in single-parent homes, including four families in which the father was the single parent. The mean chronological age of the participants at pretest was 12.4 years (range = 11.1-13.5). Preintervention grade-equivalent scores on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1985) in the areas of mathematics, reading, and spelling were (a) math, M = 6.1, range = 1.9-8.2; (b) reading, M = 6.9, range = 2.7-11.6; and (c) spelling, M = 6.6, range = 2.6-12.9.

EDUCATION 1998


Setting The study was conducted in both school- and home-based settings. School-based activities were implemented at a middle school containing grades six and seven only, which operated on a year-round school schedule. Students were assigned to one of four scheduled tracks (A-D) and attended school on an intermittent schedule throughout the entire calendar year (i.e., students attended school for about 9 weeks, followed by 3 weeks of no school, followed by 9 more weeks at school, and so on). Thus, only students from three of the tracks attended school at any given time. Student and parent training and data collection activities took place in the school media center. The media center contains a large centralized meeting area with adult-sized tables and chairs and access to all necessary audiovisual equipment. The home-based activities occurred in the subjects' homes, located throughout a rural agricultural area composed of several small communities surrounding a larger university town in the Intermountain West.

Dependent

Variables

Homework performance was defined as consisting of two components: (a) homework completion (i.e., the percentage of completed math assignments turned in) and (b) homework quality (i.e., the percentage of math problems completed correctly). The math homework assignments were designed by project staff to provide the students with multiple practice opportunities in a variety of mathematics skill areas, ranging from basic computation skills to more advanced concepts. Each homework assignment consisted of 25 problems divided into four parts. Parts A, B, and C were composed of seven problems each, addressing three different math skills. These skill areas were rotated on a daily basis to ensure multiple response opportunities in each skill area. Part D always consisted of four word problems. The computation skills selected were based on components of the school's sixth-grade math curriculum. Homework completion criteria included the following: (a) The assignment was returned to school the next day after it was assigned, and (b) at least half (13 or more) of the 25 problems on each math assignment were attempted by the student, as evidenced by the presence of an answer in the appropriate place on the homework sheet. To ensure that the student independently completed the homework, any necessary computations for solving a problem had to be shown on the homework sheet along with the answer. Upon daily review of each student's homework folder, the project staff member indicated whether the assignment for that day was completed by checking "yes" or "no" on the student's individual data sheet, enabling calculation of an overall percentage of assignments completed. Homework quality data were collected in the same manner as outlined above. For a math problem to be scored as correct, the student had to show all relevant work and compu-

tations and write the correct answer on the homework assignment sheet. The number of problems answered correctly was recorded on the student's data collection sheet. This number was converted to a percentage, which was then graphed on the student's individual homework performance graph. Procedure The primary intervention components of the homework program included (a) training parents and students to implement procedures involving components of self-management and (b) positive reinforcement. Parent Training. Two lV^-hour parent training sessions were held for each of three experimental groups on consecutive Tuesday and Thursday evenings at the middle school media center. The agenda for Session 1 included having the parents complete a homework attitudes questionnaire, followed by a 30-minute presentation reviewing general information related to homework. During the second half of Session 1, all homework program materials were handed out, and the procedures to be used in the study were explained in detail. Additionally, project staff conducted role-play demonstrations of the self-management procedures and use of the program materials. Session 2 included a brief review of program materials and procedures and brief presentations (15 minutes each) on the topics of parent participation and selfmanagement. Session 2 concluded with another staff demonstration of procedures and a practice session during which each parent role-played homework situations using the actual program materials, assuming the roles of both parent and child interchangeably. Student Training. On the Friday after the second parent training session, those students whose parents had just received training were pulled from their at-risk class to meet with a project staff member about the homework program. This meeting took place in the school media center and lasted approximately 45 minutes for each group. During this meeting, the students were given information about the program and instructions about how to carry out all program tasks and responsibilities. Student homework folders containing all necessary materials were handed out and reviewed, and the homework program's self-management procedures were explained and demonstrated. At the conclusion of the meeting, the students were reminded that the homework program would begin the following Monday. Homework Procedures. During baseline and intervention phases, each student received a math homework assignment 4 days per week (Monday-Thursday). For the Achievement Plus class, each Monday a project staff member placed the student homework folders, containing each student's individualized math assignment for that day, in a cabinet in the classroom, where the students picked up the folders and REMEDIAL

AND

Volume


SPECIAL

19, Number

EDUCATION

3, May/June

1998

took them home at the end of the day. The students were instructed to return their folders to the designated location each day upon first returning to the at-risk classroom. Tuesday through Friday, project staff went to the Achievement Plus classroom, collected the student homework folders, and took them to the media center to complete all data-collecting activities (i.e., verify homework completion, check homework accuracy, check the reliability of parent scoring, update graphs and data sheets, and put the next assignment into each student's homework folder). After the completion of these activities the folders were returned to the at-risk classrooms, where, again, the students would collect them prior to going home for the day. For the Project REACH students, a staff member collected the student homework folders each morning at the beginning of the class period, immediately scored the homework, and placed the next assignment in the students' folders during the 25-minute period. Then, at the end of the class period the students were given their homework folders to take with them. Self-Management. During the intervention phase, the parent-facilitated self-management procedures were implemented (including parent monitoring and checking of homework). In addition to their daily math assignment, the students began to receive a Student Checklist and Matching Sheet in their homework folders. All of the parent and student selfmanagement activities revolved around the daily "matching" procedures associated with this worksheet. These procedures incorporated various elements of empirically demonstrated self-management strategies: (a) self-monitoring (the student monitored and recorded homework start and end times, total time spent on homework, and whether or not homework was completed at the proper time, location, etc.); (b) selfrecording (the student recorded the number of correct and incorrect math problems); (c) self-reinforcement (the student determined and recorded the number of matching points earned for accuracy on the self-monitoring activities); and (d) selfinstruction and goal setting (the student evaluated his or her score and, on the basis of established criteria, determined whether to do an alternative form of the same assignment or move on to a new assignment based on previously established criteria). The intervention was implemented in the following manner: First, throughout each homework session, the student and parent individually recorded on their respective checklists and matching sheets the homework information that would later be needed for matching. This information included the time homework started and ended, the total time spent working on homework, and a "yes/no" determination of whether homework was done at the proper time and location, and with the proper materials. After the math homework assignment had been completed by the student, checked by the parent, and corrected by the student, the actual matching of these student and parent ratings occurred. When the student took his or her matching sheet to the parent, the parent transferred REMEDIAL Volume

AND

19, Number

SPECIAL 3, May/June

the ratings recorded earlier on the parent homework checklist to the student's matching sheet. Then, based on how accurately the parent and student ratings matched, 100, 200, or 300 "matching points" were earned. These points could be used for purchasing items from the student's individualized reinforcement menu. There were six items on which the parent and student could match; thus, a maximum of 1,800 matching points could be earned each day. In addition, parents could assign "bonus points" to their children. These points were awarded based on subjective parent ratings of how well the child performed various homework tasks. For example, parents could award 0, 100, 200, or 300 bonus points for the following activities: the overall manner in which the math assignment was completed, taking the completed and corrected assignment immediately to the parent, and completing the student checklist and matching sheet. A maximum of 1,500 bonus points could be earned each day, resulting in a total of 3,300 possible points that could be earned at home each day homework was assigned. The students had the option of cashing in their points as they were earned or saving them up for larger items. Positive Reinforcement. The homework program was designed so that students received positive reinforcement in both the home and school settings. During parent training, all parents were instructed to involve their child in the process of selecting appropriate reinforcers and to develop a reinforcement menu. Project staff ensured that each student had a reinforcement menu prior to the beginning of the homework intervention. At the conclusion of parent training, and for each of the following 2 months of intervention, the parents of each participant in the study received a check for $20.00 ($5.00 per week) to be used to purchase any reinforcers earned from the child's reinforcement menu. In addition to the reinforcers earned and delivered at home, students earned extra points in their at-risk class for completing their math homework assignments and turning in student and parent checklists. These points were awarded weekly by project staff, who inserted a point certificate into the students' homework folders. These points could then be used to purchase reinforcers from the existing class reinforcement menu (including such items as candy bars, sodas, pencils, pens, and folders). The amount of extra homework points that could be earned in the at-risk classes was relatively small. For example, the most extra homework points a student could earn each week was 10,000. In comparison, a student could normally earn about 150,000 points per week in the at-risk classes. Experimental

Design

The design was a multiple baseline across groups. For experimental design purposes, the 26 original student participants were initially separated into three experimental groups based on their year-round school track and at-risk class placement.

EDUCATION 1998


Specifically, all students in the Achievement Plus class on tracks B, C, and D were assigned to Group 1 (n = 11). Group 2(n = l) included all of the students in the Project REACH class, whereas the remaining A track Achievement Plus students were assigned to Group 3 (n = 8). Parent and student training was conducted by experimental group. The experiment was conducted over a 10-week period concluding with the end of the school year. Because each group of students was "off track" (i.e., not at school) for a three-week period at some point during the study, the total number of days of baseline and treatment data was affected. Baseline data were collected for all students in each group beginning on the first day of the study. The treatment was introduced in a staggered fashion across groups after the parents and students in each group completed training. Specifically, intervention was started following an 11-day baseline period for Group 1 and 18 days of baseline for Group 2. All students in Group 3 were off track during part of their 22-day baseline phase; thus, an average of only six days of data was collected during baseline for this group. Treatment ranged in length from 27 days (Group 3) to 37 days (Group 1). However, because of the year-round school schedule, as well as other factors, including absences and school holidays that occurred during the study, the overall mean number of days of treatment was only 18 (range = 12-25 days). Baseline. During this condition each student was given a Student Homework Folder containing only a math homework assignment. Parents and the at-risk teachers were asked to deal with the math homework assignments as they would any other homework assignment. In both the Achievement Plus and Project REACH classes, students typically received points for completing homework assignments and turning them in on time. Parent Participation/Self-Management. During intervention the parent-facilitated self-management (matching) procedures were in effect, including positive reinforcement of student performance.

Interobserver of Intervention

Reliability and

Verification

Procedures

The reliability of parent scoring of the math homework assignments was checked on a daily basis by project staff. Rechecking each problem on all assignments turned in made it possible to compute a point-by-point reliability comparison (Kazdin, 1982) of the accuracy of parent scoring on the assignments. Thus, a reliability coefficient was derived based upon the following formula: number of agreements divided by number of agreements plus disagreements. A math problem was scored as an agreement if the parent scored the problem correctly (according to the assignment answer keys), and as a disagreement if the parent scored it incorrectly (i.e., scored an incorrect answer as correct or marked a correct answer as incorrect).

Use of this method yielded an overall reliability coefficient of 0.94 on parent scoring of math assignments. A second reliability coefficient measuring how accurately the parent scored the student checklist and matching sheet was obtained, giving an indication of the accuracy of parent observations of student homework behaviors. Project staff derived an interobserver agreement coefficient from in-home observations of homework sessions. The coefficient was based on a point-by-point reliability formula, again using number of agreements divided by number of agreements plus disagreements (Kazdin, 1982). Comparisons were made between how each parent and project observers scored homework-related behaviors. An average of three home observations were conducted for every participant. The overall reliability coefficient for parent scoring on the student checklist and matching sheet was 0.91. Verification of treatment fidelity was conducted during the home visits. Project observers utilized an intervention checklist to evaluate parents and students on their implementation of the treatment during actual homework sessions. This checklist indicated whether each step of the intervention was correctly performed, including completing all necessary worksheets, checking assignments, and awarding matching and bonus points. Project staff were instructed to inform the parents about any inappropriate intervention procedures they observed taking place, as well as to verbally reinforce correct implementation of the intervention procedures by parents and students.

RESULTS Homework

Performance

Overall, both homework completion and homework quality increased significantly during intervention. The percentage of homework assignments completed increased for 20 of the 26 participants, with an average improvement of almost 110% over baseline levels (33.2% during base-line to 69.4% during intervention). The t test indicates that this is a statistically significant difference, f(25) = -4.37, p < .001. Homework quality also improved over baseline levels, with the mean scores for 22 of the 26 participants increasing over baseline levels. Overall, the students scored an average of 25.9% correct on the math homework assigned during baseline and a mean of 62.0% correct during intervention (an average increase of about 140%). Again, these results are statistically significant, t(25) = -5.34, p < .001. Table 1 presents the multiple baseline group means for homework completion and homework quality. Parent

Participation

During the implementation of the homework program, each student's individual data collection form was analyzed. These forms included daily information, including the math assignment number, date assigned, whether or not the assignment REMEDIAL

AND

Volume


SPECIAL

19, Number

EDUCATION

3, May/June

1998

was completed and returned the next school day, the number correct, and a space for general comments regarding student performance and parent participation. This analysis began to indicate that a single factor—the amount and quality of parent participation—was possibly most responsible for determining whether or not the program was having a positive effect on homework performance. Without exception, the students whose parents implemented the program strategies accurately and consistently appeared to be experiencing success on improving homework completion and quality. Those students whose parents did not follow through with program activities were not experiencing similar levels of success in the homework program. At the conclusion of the study, an attempt was made to more objectively quantify the effect of parent participation on student outcomes. An overall rating of each parent's level and quality of participation (expressed as a percentage of participation) was derived. An objective rating of participation was calculated for each parent or set of parents, based on their performance of the four required program activities deemed to be critical to student homework completion. These activities included the following: (a) The student checklist was completed and returned, (b) the student checklist was signed by the parent, (c ) the parent homework checklist was completed and returned, and (d) marks were made on the completed homework assignment indicating the parent scored the assignment. A daily percentage of parent participation, based on whether or not these four activities were conducted, was calculated by analyzing parent homework checklists, student checklist and matching sheets, and math homework assignments turned in during the intervention phases of the study. Project staff used parent participation worksheets in determining the daily percentage of parent participation. Each worksheet was checked by the principal investigator to ensure 100% accuracy on parent participation ratings. After participation percentages were obtained for each parent, analysis revealed three distinct groups of ratings. That is, participation percentages were clustered around levels of parent participation that were very high (i.e., 80% participation or better, n = 9), moderate (50-79% participation, n = 8), or very low (less than 4 5 % participation, n = 9). Figure 1 illustrates the effect of the different levels of parent participation on homework completion and quality, respectively.

Academic

Achievement

Figure 2 presents an overall comparison of results between pretest and posttest levels of academic achievement on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1985) in the areas of mathematics, reading, and spelling. In the area of mathematics, an overall mean grade equivalent score of 6.1 was obtained at pretest. The overall pretest mean in math increased to 6.8, reflecting an average grade equivalent score increase of 0.70 per student during the 10-week intervention. This difference is statistically significant, t(22) = -2.94, p = .008. In comparison, grade equivalent scores in reading actually decreased an average of 0.20 per student during the study, and spelling scores increased less than expected, at an average rate of only 0.10 per student.

Social

Validation

At the conclusion of the intervention, tape-recorded structured interviews were conducted with each student participant and his or her parents to determine their opinions about the program. Generally, students and parents rated the homework intervention very favorably. On a scale of 1 to 10, students rated the success of the program an average of 7.5 in helping them get their homework done, and the mean parent rating of program success was 8.2. Almost all of the parents reported that they would like to participate in the program if it were to be available the next year. Many of the parents said they would continue to use the strategies in the future. Similarly, most of the students said they would like to continue the program. (Unfortunately, it was not possible to conduct followup after the conclusion of the study.) More important, perhaps, parents and students both reported that the homework strategies had a positive impact on the students' overall academic performance and that the intervention strategies generalized to the homework completion of non-study assignments.

DISCUSSION This study investigated the effect of teaching parents of at-risk youth to facilitate home-based self-management strategies aimed at homework performance. Overall, homework

TABLE 1. Multiple Baseline G r o u p Means Homework completion

Homework quality

Baseline

Intervention

Baseline

Intervention

Group I (n =11)

29.2%

66.4%

24.0%

63.9%

Group II (n = 7)

30.2%

53.1%

25.7%

50.3%

Group III (n = 8)

41.3%

86.2%

36.5%

79.8%

REMEDIAL Volume

AND

SPECIAL

19, Number

3, May/June

EDUCATION 1998


completion and homework quality were significantly higher during the implementation of the parent-facilitated selfmanagement strategies than during the baseline conditions. In addition, mathematics achievement increased at a greater-thanexpected rate after implementation of the self-management and positive reinforcement strategies. These results extend earlier findings supporting the effectiveness of homework (Anderson et al., 1986; Bradshaw & Amundson, 1985; Foyle & Bailey, 1986), as well as the use of self-management strategies for academic tasks (McLaughlin et al., 1985; Piersel, 1985; Reid & Harris, 1992; Trammel et al., 1994). These results also suggest that parent participation, in conjunction with reinforcement strategies and appropriate instructional programming, may have a positive effect on factors associated with school success. More than 35 years ago there was a call for the development of sound experimental research to investigate homework's effects (Mulry, 1961). However, the research findings since that time in the area of homework efficacy have been contradictory. For example, Austin (1979) reviewed all studies on mathematics homework published between 1900 and 1977. Of the 29 achievement comparisons made in these studies, 16 demonstrated significant differences favoring homework groups and 13 showed no differences between students who were assigned homework and those who were not. Nevertheless, Austin concluded that "the comparison results tend to show that homework can significantly improve academic achievement in the area of mathematics" (p. 119). The results of this study support this conclusion. Two additional conclusions that can be drawn from the results of this study help to clarify the inherent disagreements in the homework literature. First, the study lends support to the assertion that parents play a significant primary role in the homework process (e.g., Hofmeister & Lubke, 1990; McDermott et al., 1984). This study clearly supports research concluding that student achievement and success are enhanced when parents are directly involved (e.g., provide monitoring and assistance) in the academic activities of their children (Broxie, 1988; Crawford, 1989; Lavely, 1992; VinogradBausell, Bausell, Proctor, & Chandler, 1986). At the same time, overwhelmingly positive results on postintervention interviews with the parent and student participants in this study are at odds with suggestions that the traditional practice of homework may be irrelevant, takes away from valuable family time, and often places unrealistic demands on parents (Otto, 1985; Samway, 1986). Nevertheless, Salend and Gajria (1995) appropriately warn that teachers should exercise caution when encouraging parents to work with their children on academic tasks to prevent potential problems regarding parent-child interactions and should provide training and interventions that lessen the possibility of these problems occurring. Second, the results of this study suggest that parentfacilitated self-management procedures may improve homework completion and accuracy for students at risk. This extends

HOMEWORK COMPLETION 100

i

HIGH MODERATE LOW PARENT PARTICIPATION

H O M E W O R K QUALITY 100

I

HIGH MODERATE LOW P A R E N T PARTICIPATION FIGURE 1.

Comparison of results of high, moderate, and low parent

participation groups on homework completion and quality.

into the home the finding of Young, West, Smith, and Morgan (1991) that comprehensive, systematic self-management strategies can improve academic performance in school settings. The rationales for teaching parents to facilitate a selfmanagement program in the home are essentially the same as those that support the use of these strategies by classroom teachers (Young et al.): First, if a child learns to manage his or her own social and academic behavior, less time and attention is ultimately needed from adult supervisors. Second, as they do with homework skills, adults place a high

REMEDIAL

AND

Volume


SPECIAL

19, Number

EDUCATION

3, May/June

1998

•

6.8

PRETEST POSTTEST

£6 6 O O CO

:6 4 < > LU LU Q

Remedial and Special Education

Remedial and Special Education

Suggest Documents