SCIENCE TEACHERS' VOICE ON HOMEWORK

IDA KUKLIANSKY, ITAI SHOSBERGER and HAIM ESHACH

SCIENCE TEACHERS’ VOICE ON HOMEWORK: BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, AND BEHAVIORS Received: 26 September 2013; Accepted: 29 April 2014

ABSTRACT. Homework (HW) is an integral part of the learning process. Currently, there is renewed interest and controversy about its effectiveness. The present study explores the voices of the science teachers on this matter. Adopting the view that reporting both teachers’ views and actual classroom practices is necessary for obtaining a more complete view of the phenomena, the present study addressed teachers’ views relating to the cognitive, affective, and pedagogical aspects of HW, their in-class practices and behaviors related to HW, and if the views and practices differ. The research was conducted in 3 stages: (a) teachers’ (n = 25) behaviors were examined based on classroom observations of 3 – 5 consecutive lessons, (b) these teachers were interviewed about their beliefs about and attitudes toward HW, and (c) the data from both the observations and interviews were processed into categories and subcategories. The findings revealed a wide range of teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors and that teachers hold both positive and negative views simultaneously. In addition, the views for some categories expressed in the interviews concurred with the teacher’s actual classroom behavior; for other categories, disagreements were identified. This research broadens the contemporary horizons regarding HW and may contribute to those who wish to work with teachers making HW more effective. KEY WORDS: behaviors, beliefs, homework, middle-school science teachers, teachers’ attitudes

INTRODUCTION Homework (HW), defined as tasks assigned to students by schoolteachers meant to be carried out during noninstructional time, is an integral part of the learning process in many schools. Science teachers are constantly looking for ways to address the crowded curriculum and overloaded instructional time schedule. They, therefore, look for activities and tasks that could be done outside of the normal class time. Dettmers et al. (2011) suggested that there is a renewed controversy about the positive and negative effects of HW. Although the effectiveness of HW has been challenged (Bennett & Kalish, 2006), it continues, grows, and expands as a cornerstone of students’ academic life (Bembenutty, 2011). Bonham, Deardorff & Beichner (2003) suggested that HW is one of the most important components of introductory physics instruction at the college International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2014 # Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

IDA KUKLIANSKY, ITAI SHOSBERGER AND HAIM ESHACH

level, which could influence student learning and success. Despite its perceived importance, an inspection of leading science education journals reveals a lack of research concerning school science HW in recent years. For instance, in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, only one article was found after 2000 that was related to HW in college-level introductory physics instruction (i.e. Bonham et al., 2003); in Science Education, only one article related to high school science instruction from 1985 (i.e. Tamir, 1985); and in the International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, three articles related to high school mathematics instruction were found (i.e. An & Wu, 2012; Kaur, 2011; Zhu & Leung, 2012). The present study aims to partially fill this void by broadening our understanding of what middle-school science teachers know about, their attitudes toward and beliefs about, and their classroom practices involving HW.

BACKGROUND One critic points to a major deficit in teachers’ knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of HW (Dettmers et al., 2011); earlier, the MetLife survey (Markow, Kim & Liebman, 2007) found that about 20 % of American teachers do not believe in the importance of HW. We provide a brief summary on beliefs and attitudes in general, the importance of examining them concerning educational issues, and a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of HW as foundation for this study. Beliefs and Attitudes Alghamdi & Al-Salouli (2013) suggested that (a) the definitions of and differences between attitudes and beliefs are somewhat fuzzy and (b) the mechanism(s) that connect attitudes, beliefs, decisions, and actions are not well understood. Beliefs, a cognitive stance, are identified with an individual’s personal knowledge and result from the conclusions that an individual draws from experience (Lavonen, Jauhiainen, Koponen & Kurki-Suonio, 2004). Bryan (2012, p. 479) stated, “Beliefs are far more influential than knowledge in discerning how individuals frame and organize tasks and problems and are stronger predictors of behavior.” Beliefs form attitudes and mental conceptions that depict favorable or unfavorable feelings toward an object (Pajares, 1992). Jones & Carter (2007, p. 1067) stated, “Virtually every aspect of teaching is influenced

SCIENCE TEACHERS’ VOICE ON HOMEWORK

by the complex web of attitudes and beliefs that teachers hold.” As teachers’ attitudes and beliefs guide their decisions and actions in classrooms, it is important to study them (Ogan-Bekiroglu & Akkoç, 2009; Bryan, 2012). Wiesenthal, Cooper, Greenblatt & Marcus (1997) argued that teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about HW may influence their classroom behavior. More recently, Kaur (2011) found that all of the three mathematics teachers in her study gave HW and that the type of HW was in line with their beliefs about HW. Wallace & Kang (2004) argued that the way teachers act should not be perceived as an isolated, independent entity but rather as one aspect of a holistic system. They claimed that researching teacher actions as well as cognitive-based beliefs and affective-based attitudes may help in understanding the complexities of a system played out in a specific context. We agree that, in order to gain a thorough understanding of science teachers’ instructional decisions, one must investigate teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to each other (Eshach, Dor-Ziderman & Yefroimsky, 2013). Our review of the literature indicated that such a study concerning HW has not yet been reported; this research aims at addressing this need. Advantages and Disadvantages of Homework The advantages of HW can be divided into three aspects: cognitive, pedagogical, and affective. Cognitive advantages include improving students’ achievements (Cooper, Robinson & Patall, 2006), narrowing the achievement gap between high- and low-achieving students (Keith, 1982), exercising the skills students learn in classrooms (Brock, Lapp, Flood, Fisher & Keonghee, 2007; Cooper, 2007), expressing their creativity (Corno, 2000), developing self-regulation skills such as time management and responsibility for learning (Bembenutty, 2011), and establishing good learning habits and dealing with difficulties (Brock et al., 2007; Cooper et al., 2006). Pedagogical advantages include its use to evaluate students’ knowledge and acquired skills (National Education Association, 2008), follow student progress and determine their achievements, encourage student participation in class (Brock et al., 2007), extend the school day without much economic investment (Bluestein, 2012), easing time constraints on teaching the material in the curriculum (Thomas, 1992), introducing new material to students (Shellard & Turner, 2004), providing students opportunities to learn and actually use data sources (Milbourne & Haury, 1999), and addressing policy and expectations of school boards, parents, and government ministries of education (Brock et al., 2007). Affective advantages, which are no less


important than the cognitive or pedagogical advantages, include developing students’ independence, inculcating a positive attitude toward school (Brock et al., 2007; Cooper et al., 2006), and taking responsibility and developing selfdiscipline and self-confidence (Corno, 2000; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001). Furthermore, students regard HW mainly as a social goal and the cognitive goals are less important to them (Warton, 2001). The disadvantages of HW can be divided into three aspects: affective, social, and pedagogical. Affective disadvantages include a workload burden that causes students to lose interest in school and causes physical and mental fatigue, and a lack of suitable tasks for the students can cause frustration that may lead to development of negative emotions and attitudes toward the school (Kralovec & Buell, 2001). Social disadvantages include the extra school tasks that can interfere with leisure activities, mainly social ones, such as activities in the community, and sports (Cooper et al., 2006; Coutts, 2004; Kralovec & Buell, 2001). Cooper & Valentine (2001) pointed out that HW is the number one cause of stress and friction between the school and the home. It is not surprising, therefore, that students tend to avoid doing HW (Patall, Cooper & Allen, 2010) and that young students do their HW mainly due to external motives, such as fear of punishment and a desire to please their parents and teachers (Warton, 2001). Another disadvantage is that it is a major factor in increasing social gaps between rich and poor students (Cooper et al., 2006; Thomas, 1992). There are also studies that show that HW encourages cheating and copying (Kralovec & Buell, 2001; Thomas, 1992). Pedagogical disadvantages include the lack guidance and instruction from teachers, students and teachers not aware of mistakes made while performing the assigned tasks thereby practicing errors, and take-home tasks an unreliable tool to assess the true knowledge and comprehension of the student (Kralovec & Buell, 2001). Design This study used interview and classroom observation protocols to document middle-school science teachers’ beliefs about, attitudes toward, and uses of HW. Specifically, we address the following research questions (RQ): 1. What are middle-school science teachers’ views about the cognitive, affective, and pedagogical aspects of HW as expressed in interviews? 2. What are middle-school science teachers’ classroom practices and behaviors related to HW?


3. What ways are middle-school science teachers’ views expressed in the interviews similar or different from these teachers’ practices detected in classroom observations? METHODS Exploration of the links between teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and behavior was conducted in three stages. First, teachers’ behavior was examined based on observations of teachers in standard classrooms. Second, the same teachers whose classrooms were observed in the first stage were interviewed regarding their attitude toward HW. The observations were conducted before the interviews to keep the teachers unaware of the research topic, thus avoiding influence on the teachers’ behavior and attitude toward HW in terms of frequency, quantity, and quality. Third, the data from the observations and interviews were analyzed to establish evidence-based claims about the RQ. Participants Middle-school science teachers in Israel were recruited and selected using a two-step procedure. First, letters were sent to ~100 middle-school principals around the country. The letter asked the principals’ permission to observe five science lessons of one of their science teachers and then interview the teacher; the letter explained that the purpose of the research could not be revealed at the beginning of the study since exposure to the research topic could impact the results. However, it was promised that the research aims and methods (a) were not harmful, (b) had been vetted by the research ethics panel at the sponsoring university, and (c) would be fully disclosed at the end of the study. In addition, full confidentiality was promised. Sixty principals responded positively with the name of a possible teacher to observe and interview; we then selected 25 teachers from different parts of the country. As most of the science teachers in Israel are females, the majority of the teachers in our study were females (n = 21). All the schools served middle socioeconomic status families and students. Classroom Observations In order to view the teachers’ responses/behaviors in light of previous class proceedings (Eshach et al., 2013), each teacher was observed for three to five consecutive science lessons, resulting in 83 total observations. The


observations focused on the behavior of the teacher toward anything having to do with HW during the lesson, for example, referencing HW from previous lessons (e.g. the way it was checked, the time spent checking it, using it to identify and discuss common errors or misconceptions, and developing new lesson focus on the basis of what students did, etc.) and giving HW-type consideration regarding its purpose (e.g. drill and practice, challenging exercises, preparing for the next lesson, etc.). Teacher Interviews The use of interviews is very suitable in order to ascertain views; it allow respondents to use their own words and examples without being forced to choose between predetermined options (Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar & Duschl, 2003; Schwartz, Lederman & Crawford, 2004). The semistructured framework and interview questions were determined as follows: (a) a class of 22 in-service teachers studying for a master’s degree in science education were asked to free write their ideas regarding HW, followed by a whole-group discussion regarding the ideas they expressed; (b) based on the previous step and after reading the literature about HW, each author, separately, wrote a series of possible interview questions; and (c) the authors then met to discuss their questions and identify a set of preliminary questions. These questions were submitted to an expert review panel (three experienced science teachers and two science education professors) to explore the construct/face validity. More specifically, they were asked to answer the questions, critique the questions’ content and their clarity, comment on how the phrasing of the questions could be improved, and determine whether more questions were needed. The experts and the authors then met to discuss the comments and suggestions. Some questions were modified or removed and others were added to produce a set of questions that were agreed upon by all discussants as the final version of the interview protocol. As the interview was open ended, the interviewer asked supplemental questions or changed the order of questions according to the teacher’s responses. The interview questions dealt with the rationale behind assigning HW (e.g. What in your opinion is the role of HW? There are teachers who do not give HW; what do you think of these teachers?), the advantages and disadvantages of HW (e.g. What are the advantages and disadvantages of HW?), the types of HW given (e.g. What kind of HW do you give to your students? Please provide some examples.), and what they think of their students’ attitudes toward HW (e.g. What do you think


that students think of HW? Do students believe that HW assignments are important? Why? What do students feel toward HW? Why?). The interviewers were nonjudgmental throughout the process and sought to understand the teachers’ way of thinking about HW (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Each interview was conducted individually and lasted about 45 min; the interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data Analysis The multistep data analysis consisted of developing categories inductively from the interview transcriptions and classroom observations or by looking at the salience of various occurrences (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). During construction of the categories, there was a constant recursion between an inductive and deductive process in order to understand the emerging themes, and attention was given to identifying confirming and disconfirming evidence pertaining to the themes (Luft et al., 2011). In order to formulate a tentative understanding, all the authors separately read and reread both the interview and classroom observation transcripts. The authors met and repeatedly reread the data to disconfirm or verify the tentative understandings; initial categories were revised as a result of several rounds of discussion. Only categories that were agreed upon by all of the authors were included in the final list. Triangulation occurred during the analysis process with the involvement of several researchers and data from interviews and observations collected over time that contributed to the validity of the conclusions (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The category-coding process consisted of identifying keywords, phrase, or sentences that reflected each category either by the use of the exact phrase or through corresponding phrases (Eshach & Schwartz, 2006). For example, “doing HW develops students’ thinking” or “students who do HW, especially those challenging problems, must use their creativity, and therefore their creativity is even further developed” would be considered consistent with the thinking and creativity subcategory; “HW develops smartness” would also be considered part of this category as smartness is associated with thinking. FINDINGS The results are organized and reported for each RQ. Some results are divided into trends within the larger categories.


RQ 1. What are Middle-school Science Teachers’ Views About the Cognitive, Affective, and Pedagogical Aspects of HW as Expressed in Interviews? Figure 1 provides a taxonomy of categories and subcategories that emerged from the analysis of the interviews and the percentage of teachers that expressed them. For example, the subcategory thinking and creativity was expressed by 13 teachers, which means that about 50 % of them believed that doing HW develops thinking and creativity processes. The same teacher may have expressed one or more categories and subcategories; thus, the sum of the percentages could be greater than 100 %. Two main categories emerged from the analysis: HW as a tool whose purpose is to serve the teacher and HW as a tool whose purpose is to serve the student. It is important to note that all of the teachers expressed opinions on both of these categories; therefore, no teacher viewed HW as solely a tool beneficial for the students’ or a teacher’s needs. Some teachers expressed multiple attitudes and beliefs in both categories; about 70 % of the teachers’ statements regarded HW as serving the needs of the students and 30 % as a tool for the teacher. Attitudes toward H.W.

Tool for Teacher 100%

Tool for Student 100%

Unsuitable Tool 60%

Suitable Tool 95%

Assessment Tool Affective Tool 75%

For the Student 85 %

General – Improving Knowledge and General Skills

For Teaching 10 % Lesson Structure 65% “To get on the same page” 20% Giving H.W. Based on Level 15% Punishment 10% Fulfilling Social Norms 30%

Cognitive Tool 100%

External Element 90% Emotional Viewpoint 75% Not part of the Culture 25% Placating Social Norms 30%

Creating Motivation 30%

Self Teaching 65%

Taking Responsibility 45%

Thinking and Creativity 50%

Self Coping and Improving Confidence 40 %

General Enrichment 15%

Content – Improving Knowledge and Skills in the field studied

Practice 100%

Improving Comprehension 75% Preparation for New Material 25%

Using Sources 15%

Fig. 1. Categories and subcategories of attitudes toward HW emerged from the interviews (% represents the percentage of teachers who expressed this category)


Another important point worth mentioning is the fact that many teachers expressed both positive and negative beliefs about or attitudes toward HW. HW as a Tool for the Teacher. The HW as tool for teacher category (Fig. 1) was divided into six subcategories, with the assessment tool subcategory further divided into assessment for students and assessment for teachers. Assessment tool for students results indicated that teachers use HW mainly to evaluate the students (85 % of teachers). The interviews indicated that teachers believed that “whoever doesn’t do their HW consistently; their grade will be negatively affected.” A few teachers pointed out that they used HW assignments to raise student grades: “Sometimes I give bonus assignments … whoever does this assignment will receive five points extra on the examination.” Assessment tool for teachers results (10 %) indicated the use of HW to evaluate their teaching process: “Occasionally I take notebooks home and go over HW, this helps me know what I explained correctly and what I didn’t, [and] on what points I need to go back on and give special emphasis.” The lesson structure subcategory results (65 %) indicate that HW was an important part of the lesson since in many cases the beginning of class is dedicated to checking HW and the end of class is dedicated to monitoring assigned HW: “When I plan lessons, I always leave 10 minutes at the beginning in order to go over questions from the HW.” Additional time is sometimes dedicated at the end of the lesson to initiate and monitor HW: “If I manage to go over the material as I planned, I let the students begin to solve the HW; that way I can see how they are working and what’s hard for them.” The to get on the same page results (20 %) indicated that teachers also use HW as a tool to minimize the variation in the students: “It’s obvious that at the end of the lesson there are students who understood better and students who understood less. One of the goals of HW is that at the next lesson everyone will be more or less at the same starting point.” Giving HW based on level (15 %) was another approach amongst these teachers, meaning giving differentiated HW where each student is given the appropriate amount and level of complexity suitable for their needs and abilities: “If a student is really struggling, I give him different HW than the rest of the class.” and “I have a group of … very good students. I give them different assignments, a little more challenging than the HW I give to the rest of the class.” A small number of these teachers gave HW as punishment (10 %): “More than once, when most students didn’t do their HW, I decided to give a short quiz, as punishment.” The last


subcategory deals with fulfilling social norms (15 %) of the school or local community: “There is an unofficial demand in the teachers’ lounge that HW should be given.” and “Parents demand children be given HW.” HW as a Tool for the Student. HW as a tool for the student category is divided into two subcategories: suitable (95 %) and unsuitable (60 %) tool. Attitudes that described HW as a suitable tool for students were grouped into either the cognitive or affective domain. Of the teachers who regarded HW as a suitable tool for students, all expressed views belonging to the cognitive domain and 75 % expressed views belonging to the affective domain. Cognitive domain includes views that are related to the content and to developing general skills. The three content-related views, their percentage support, and representative comments follow. HW allows practicing the material learned (100 %): “The goal of the HW, first and foremost is practice.” HW improves comprehension of instructional material (75 %): “If I give an exercise that is identical to the one I gave in class, most students solve it with relative ease; in order for them to succeed in solving exercises that are also a bit different, they need to understand and not just memorize and repeat, and in order to understand they need to do the HW, there is no other way.” HW enables exposure to and preparation for new material (25 %): “I want students to arrive in class after they have already acquired some idea about the subject.” Views that are related to general cognitive skills include all of the skills and knowledge not directly related to the lesson content but rather to the development of general skills that are required for learning. The four general-related views, their percentage support, and representative comments follow. HW contributes to self-teaching or the development of independent (self-directed, self-initiated, and self-managed learners) students (65 %): “At home, students encounter new difficulties, even if they think they understood everything in class. Dealing with difficulties, beyond contributing to the study of the subject, teaches the child how to learn. This is a general skill that is even more important than the study of physics itself.” Developing the thinking process and creativity of students (50 %): “I gave the students an assignment to think at home how the DNA determines the types of amino acids that will be integrated in the composition of protein. The idea is to think in the same way that researchers think and understand why they got the Nobel Prize. This is not an HW that requires drill and practice. It develops the way they think and also their creativity.” HW enables enrichment of students’ general knowledge (15 %): “Students need to present a biology subject in pairs in


front of the class for general enrichment.” HW contributes to students’ knowledge of using information sources (15 %): “Opening an encyclopedia and summarizing a particular subject, the student learns how to look for information and summarize it.” Many teachers (75 %) pointed out the possibility embodied in HW of it being a tool influencing the affective aspect of students and in this way contributing to the learning process. The three views, their percentage support, and representative comments follow. Creating motivation (30 %): “After doing HW, suddenly he has motivation, he listens in class, participates.” Taking responsibility (45 %): “If a student doesn’t do their HW and comes to me before class and tells me I didn’t do HW, I know that the student is taking responsibility for not doing the HW, and thus it is a lesson that is no less important than the HW itself.” Coping independently and improving self-confidence (40 %): “A student who succeeds in doing something that at first seemed to him to be almost impossible gains confidence and the feeling of capability serves him not only in the specific subject but in general.” The views of teachers about HW being an unsuitable tool were divided into four subcategories. The four views, their percentage support, and representative comments follow. HW is done by an external element (90 %): “Students copy HW; it is clear and obvious.” and “I know that a lot of my students have private teachers who do HW for them.” HW may have a negative influence from an emotional point of view (75 %): “It has happened to me that parents come to me for a talk and only then did I understand how much stress and anxiety they develop when in one week several different teachers call and tell them that their kid doesn’t function and doesn’t do HW. Sometimes it is better just not to give any HW.” It seems that HW creates frustration even among the teachers. “Why give HW? I give HW, nobody does them, I get upset, a bad atmosphere is created in class, and this happens over and over. Isn’t it better to avoid this cycle in the first place?” HW is not part of the culture of the modern world (25 %): “Today students aren’t interested in HW; they get home and glue themselves to the computer, to Facebook.” and “HW is hard work and in the world of today what isn’t instantaneous, doesn’t count.” The fact that HW is not part of today’s societal expectation is usually accompanied with sorrow, as can be seen from an interview with a school principal who is also a biology teacher. At the beginning of the interview, the principal declared that HW is “very important!!!” Later, he pointed out that as a teacher he does not give HW. When asked about the contradiction, he replied, “I connect to the general atmosphere here that we don’t give HW.” Placating social norms (30 %): Teachers referred to


the fact that there are some students who only do HW to placate their parents. Not doing HW, according to the teachers, sometimes also stems from the wish of students to fulfill social norms in class “whoever does HW is called a nerd.” RQ 2. What are middle-school science teachers’ classroom practices and behaviors related to HW? Figure 2 provides a taxonomy of the three categories and their subcategories that emerged from the classroom observations of these middle-school science teachers: HW for the next lesson, comments about HW, and checking HW. We present numerical pairs in each subcategory: the percentage of lessons (of the 83 lessons) where each subcategory was observed, and the number of teachers who expressed this subcategory at least one or more times. Checking HW. A large majority of teachers checked HW at least once, while a minority of teachers did not assign or consider the HW. About half of the lessons began with checking HW with the purpose of ascertaining if the students did the HW by asking “Who did their HW?” Teacher behavior during class

HW for the next lesson

Giving HW 71%

Comments about HW

Checking HW

Not giving HW 29% Not referring to previous HW 40% 15

Giving HW as preparation for new material 2% 2

Giving positive comments for doing HW 1% 1

Challenge exercises 7% 5

Punishment 3% 2

Giving time to start and do HW 2% 2

Giving negative comments for not doing HW 8% 4

Giving HW as practice 60% 22

Linking HW and the exam 10% 5

Partial solutions on the blackboard 33% 19

Referring to information sources 2% 2

Linking HW to an external factor/copying 2% 1

Full solutions on the blackboard 6% 3

Question – who did their HW? 43% 22 Checking HW in the notebooks 7% 2

Fig. 2. Categories and subcategories emerged from the observations (% represents the percentage of observed lessons where it appears; the numbers represent how many teachers expressed the subcategory at least once)


(43 %) or by checking their notebooks (7 %) by passing amongst them to inspect the notebooks. About 40 % of the lessons began without any reference to HW. This was due to either a lack of reference by the teacher or that HW was not given in the previous lesson. About 39 % of the lessons included solving exercises out of the HW on the blackboard, usually after checking whether students did their HW. In some cases (6 %), the teachers solved all of the HW on the blackboard; in two cases, the whole lesson was dedicated to that. Students who did not do their HW were written up in the teacher’s log (day book). One teacher’s policy was to send a letter to the student’s parents after three times of being written up in the log for not doing HW. Another teacher’s policy was to give the offending student a big project that had to be presented in the next lesson. The reasons students provided for not doing HW were diverse: “I tried but wasn’t able to solve the exercises.” and “All of the teachers load us up with HW, we don’t have time.” Comments about HW. Checking HW and solving them completely or partially were sometimes accompanied with comments regarding doing them, their meaning, their importance, and related issues. Comments by six teachers mostly related to students who did not do the HW: “If you don’t work at home, you don’t belong in class.” and “Questions from the HW will be in the exam.” Only one case was observed where a positive comment was heard in relation to a student who did her HW: “Well done for solving all of the questions.” HW for the Next Lesson. The end of the lessons had most teachers (n = 22) assigning HW in about 70 % of the lessons. However, seven teachers gave HW that involved a few problems the teacher had begun to solve but did not have time in class to complete. Usually the content of the HW given included exercises that practiced or applied what was studied in class: “The way to solve the HW is like the way we solved in class.” A few lessons (7 %) by five teachers involved unusual HW that included challenge exercises or special tasks to be done at home (e.g. analyzing results of an experiment, measuring pH, exercises different from those solved in the class); in one case, the teacher promised to give a bonus for students who would solve the challenge exercise. Two lessons by two teachers involved HW that included advance preparation for new material by reading the relevant pages in the textbook. In two cases


involving two teachers, students were given the option of starting to solve the HW in class. RQ 3. What ways are middle-school science teachers’ views expressed in the interviews similar or different from these teachers’ practices detected in classroom observations? Assigning HW. All the teachers interviewed (N = 25) expressed the view that HW is an important tool for the students, but only 22 teachers assigned HW to their students. The three teachers who expressed mainly negative views (since all teachers expressed both positive and negative views simultaneously, in this case we refer to teachers who strongly emphasized the drawbacks of HW) did not give HW to their students or gave HW that included only completion of a few exercises not completed in class due to time limitation. Furthermore, all teachers behaved in a consistent manner across lessons observed aligned with their majority beliefs about and attitudes toward HW. For example, Teacher G was observed in five lessons; in all of the lessons, HW was not given or checked. Teacher H gave HW for the five lessons observed that was identical and included exercises from the textbook that were practice of the material learned in class; each lesson started with the question “Who didn’t do their HW?”; right afterward, the teacher solved the problematic exercises from the HW on the board. In the five lessons observed, Teacher B gave HW in each and every lesson consisting of exercises from the textbook as practice and repetition of the material learned during class; however, in no lesson was she observed checking or solving the HW even when students asked her to do so. Further evidence of systematic behavior toward HW is a teacher’s policy regarding HW; for example, asking who didn’t do their HW, checking the notebooks at the beginning of class, sending a letter home to parents after three times of not doing HW, giving a grade of zero in the teacher’s log for not doing HW, or sending students to the library to solve the HW. It was observed that the students are aware of their teacher’s policies. HW as Improving Knowledge and Skills in the Field Studied vs. General Cognitive Skills. All teachers expressed the view that HW is important since it allows students to practice what was learnt in class. Indeed, most of the HW included drill and practice exercises. Contrary to what teachers said in the interviews regarding general cognitive skills (skills and knowledge that are not directly related to the content of what the teacher is teaching but rather to the development of general skills that are required


for learning), only three teachers assigned HW where these skills were involved. These teachers gave HW that included searching for information on the Internet (two cases) or provided the students with exercises that were beyond the level of those given in class, which were defined as challenge exercises. Even here, claims about this trend need to be reserved because in all of the cases the challenge exercises were optional and not a compulsory part of the HW. In the interviews, two of these three teachers referred to the potential that HW has in developing general cognitive skills that go beyond deepening and practicing the content studied. The HW assigned by the other 22 teachers was absent of any reference to these skills. These results reveal a gap between what these teachers said in their interview as to the contribution of HW for developing general cognitive skills and their actual behavior in class. Assigning HW Differentially. A claim made in the interviews by 15 % of the teachers is that HW should be given differentially because of the heterogeneity that exists in their class. However, there were no observed cases that the HW was differentiated. Rather, HW given was uniform and identical for the entire class. HW Addressing Affective Objectives. A large majority of the teachers (75 %) expressed views in the interviews regarding the affective influence of HW (creating motivation, taking responsibility, improving confidence, etc.), but it was hardly ever observed as direct and explicit expression in the lessons. Teachers did not tell their students they need to take responsibility and do their HW or discuss with them the influence that HW might have on improving their self-confidence. There was also no apparent effort to engage students’ negative feelings regarding HW (e.g. tension and anxiety) mentioned during the interviews. On the contrary, during the observations at times teachers expressed comments about HW that might have created further pressure on the students (e.g. doing HW relates to success and grades or giving punishment for not doing HW). HW as a Pedagogic Tool for the Teacher. This category deals with the influence and contribution of HW to the teaching process (i.e. lesson structure, getting everyone on the same level, assessment tool for the student and for the teaching process, assigning HW based on students’ levels, punishment, and fulfilling social norms). However, there is some difference between the interviews and the observations in this context. A majority of the teachers (65 %) pointed out in their interview that they take HW into consideration when planning their lessons; the observations


indicated that 22 teachers included HW as an integral part of their lessons. However, some teachers who assigned HW did not regard HW as part of the lesson structure but rather gave HW, consisting of few problems that they did not have time to complete in class, as an instructional time extension. Quality of Checking HW. While 85 % of the teachers said in the interviews that HW makes up a portion of the student’s final grade, the quality of the HW was not checked. In cases where the HW was checked, the best case was a quick glance at the students’ notebooks. This means that the contribution of HW to the evaluation of students is based only on the frequency that it is done and not on the quality. Furthermore, no cases were observed in which doing HW granted a rise in the grade, meaning that teachers mostly consider not doing HW rather than doing it.

DISCUSSION The present study aimed at examining middle-school science teachers’ attitudes concerning HW did not find a strong connection between teachers’ attitudes/beliefs and their classroom behaviors. Acknowledging the idea that the way teachers act should not be perceived as a separate entity but rather as one aspect of their belief system as a whole, we used a research approach that would document the attitude/belief–practice system and conducted both interviews and observations, which allowed us to get a broad picture on teachers’ attitudes and practices concerning HW. Such a research approach concerning HW was not described in previous literature, but it enabled us to deepen our understanding on teachers’ views concerning HW, the way they behave in relation to HW, and the gap between the two. The categories that emerged from the interviews do not express what one might expect from science teachers as they do not reflect unique characteristics of science. Teachers did not explicitly refer to HW as being a good opportunity for students to practice and develop science abilities and practices (e.g. reading, creating graphs and tables, translating one representation to another, or connecting between the representations and the scientific phenomena). Rather than using such language, teachers expressed general ideas concerning their beliefs about and attitudes toward HW (e.g. it contributes to the development of thinking and creativity processes or to practice the skills they learned in class). These middle-school teachers used language that is not unique to science


education but applies to education in general. This limited view of HW was also manifested in the HW tasks they gave, which usually included exercises that required simple manipulation of formulas learnt in class and plugging data into them. When students were required to refer to graphs, tables, experiments or demonstrations, it was only to explain what was done in class. However, the results of this study show that all teachers hold both positive and negative views simultaneously. The relationships between teachers’ views concerning HW and their actual classroom practices were somewhat mixed. Some categories were aligned between the views expressed in the interviews and the teachers’ actual behavior in the class; for other categories, there seemed to be a misalignment. For instance, while most of the teachers held more positive than negative attitudes and, indeed, gave HW to their students, those teachers with more negative attitudes tended not to give HW. It seems that each teacher has an agenda on whether HW should or should not be given. The result that most of the teachers held more positive than negative attitudes concurs with other research indicating that, despite the fact that the effectiveness of HW has been challenged, it continues to be an important educational supplement used by most teachers to enhance the experience of their students. The result that not all the teachers in our study gave HW to their students is also supported by other research (Patall et al., 2010). In addition, those teachers who gave HW also considered it an integral part of their lessons’ structure; they have a policy regarding the way they check HW and the way they act in cases where students did not complete their HW. This kind of idiosyncratic policy, we believe, provides students with confidence and decreases stress, anxiety, and fear. It seems that there is also coherency between the views concerning the importance of HW and giving HW. All the teachers who expressed ideas about the content category (i.e. improving knowledge and skills in the field studied) and those who gave HW (i.e. mainly drill and practice) also expressed in their interviews that one objective of HW was to reinforce content. This result confirms another study where most teachers (not science teachers as in our case) endorsed drill and practice as a major objective of assigning HW (Trautwein, Schnyder, Niggli, Neumann & Lüdtke, 2009); also, it was found that there is a gap between the declared views of the teachers and their actual behavior regarding HW as an affective tool, a pedagogic tool, and a general cognitive tool. A possible explanation for this gap is the difficulty in corresponding reality with the optimal conditions of the views (Gawronski, 2007). Indeed, reality might challenge teachers to act in a manner different from


their stated preferences. They believe that HW has benefits for their students, but they feel that it does not fit into the students’ world and, thus, behave in a way that does not completely concur with their views. Schwartzwald (2000) differentiated between attitudes that develop in a person over time after deep consideration and are related to the culture and environment and attitudes that are a product of learning and experimenting. In the present case, the attitudes toward HW that emerged from teachers’ professional education sometimes clashed with the attitudes that emerged from their experience working with today’s youth. From a methodological perspective, the existence of this gap strengthens the claim that research concerning attitudes needs to use tools that give an understanding of both the stated views of teachers via interviews and the behaviors of teachers via observations. We believe that the use of these two data collection techniques enabled a deeper understanding of the teachers’ attitudes toward HW. Xu (2010) suggested that HW should (a) include interesting assignments with tasks that encourage the use of technology, (b) give feedback to the students about the HW, (c) be more involved in teaching students how to plan their time, and (d) leave time for leisure activity after school. Teachers in this study did not give HW that aligned with these suggestions. On the contrary, an examination of the present results in light of these recommendations shows that the HW given was mainly at a level of drill and practice, did not seem to provide a challenge, and did not require the use of any technological tools. Furthermore, checking HW focused mostly on whether it was done or not done; the quality of the HW was not checked, and no explicit feedback or corrective suggestions were given. This runs counter to the assumption that collecting and grading HW would be associated with positive outcomes (Reynolds & Walberg, 1991). However, teachers should be careful not to over-control and grade HW in a way that will reduce students’ effort (Trautwein et al., 2009). No involvement of teachers in helping students plan their time or explicit teaching regarding HW was observed. Explicit teaching refers to teaching that focuses on explicit awareness (mediated by verbal interactions) of types of cognitive procedures (i.e. strategies) being used in specific instances (Zohar & Ben-David, 2008). We believe that teachers should discuss with students the different explicit aspects of HW such as its importance, how to plan time and effort, and provide meaningful feedback to them. Indeed, one possible reason that students avoid doing their HW is the fact that they are not aware of its importance (Bennett & Kalish, 2006). Furthermore, teachers can discuss with students the kind of assignments that interest them. It was not apparent


from the interviews or the observations that any coordination between teachers of different disciplines existed in order to reduce or distribute the workloads on students. This was despite the fact that several teachers commented that free time was a cardinal issue for the students; although teachers were quite aware of this problem, they tended to ignore it. The literature also mentions the importance of making the HW compatible with the needs and abilities of the student (Cooper & Valentine, 2001). The results of the research show that, even though the teachers partially declared that they give HW differentially sometimes, their practice showed that the HW was given uniformly to the entire class. The need to differentiate instruction in science continues to be a topic of interest (Tobin & Tippett, 2014). Science teachers should also be aware of how HW can promote the special needs of science learning and not just link between HW and general learning as reflected in the categories that emerged in this research. This means that teachers should encourage students through HW to develop required skills, for example, in understanding and reading different representations and translating between them. Using HW in this manner might help teachers to strengthen the link between HW and learning of science. We, therefore, suggest further research to develop and evaluate an intervention program aimed at enriching science teachers’ perspectives on HW. A recent and interesting innovation—the “flipped classroom”—might be useful in a traditional school. What is considered as HW in traditional classrooms becomes the major learning focus of the flipped classroom, where students gather initial information largely outside of class by reading, watching recorded lectures, or listening to podcasts; while in class, students solve HW problems with their teachers’ supervision or peers’ help and apply what they learn elsewhere to new contexts. The immediacy of teaching in this way enables students’ misconceptions to be corrected and avoid learned errors well before they emerge on a midterm or final examination. The result, according to a growing body of research, is more learning (Berrett, 2012). We believe that this research may serve as a springboard or foundation for other researchers to explore HW from other perspectives in the journey to improve the situation regarding HW in traditional—and even in flipped—classrooms.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Dr. Larry D. Yore and Sharyl A. Yore for their kind and generously provided help in editing the manuscript.


REFERENCES Alghamdi, A. K. H. & Al-Salouli, M. S. (2013). Saudi elementary school science teachers’ beliefs: Teaching science in the new millennium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 501–525. An, S. & Wu, Z. (2012). Enhancing mathematics teachers’ knowledge of students’ thinking from assessing and analyzing misconceptions in homework. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 717–753. Bembenutty, H. (2011). The first word: Homework’s theory, research, and practice. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 185–193. doi:10.1177/1932202X1102200201. Bennett, S. & Kalish, N. (2006). The case against homework: How homework is hurting our children and what we can do about it. New York: Crown. Berrett, D. (2012). How ‘flipping’ the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/HowFlipping-the-Classroom/130857/ B l u e st e i n , J . ( 2 01 2 ). Wh a t a b ou t h om e w o r k? R e t ri ev e d f ro m ht tp:/ / www.janebluestein.com/2012/what-about-homework/ Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Bonham, S. W., Deardorff, D. L. & Beichner, R. J. (2003). Comparison of student performance using web and paper-based homework in college-level physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1050–1071. doi:10.1002/tea.10120. Brock, C. H., Lapp, D., Flood, J., Fisher, D. & Keonghee, T. H. (2007). Does homework matter? An investigation of teacher perceptions about homework practices for children from nondominant backgrounds. Urban Education, 42(4), 349–372. doi:10.1177/ 0042085907304277. Bryan, L. A. (2012). Research on science teacher beliefs. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 477– 495). New York: Springer. Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C. & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62. doi:10.3102/00346543076001001. Cooper, H. & Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 143–153. Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elementary School Journal, 100, 529–548. Coutts, P. M. (2004). Meanings of homework and implications for practice. Theory Into Practice, 43(3), 182–188. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4303_3. Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C. & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in mathematics: Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.001. Epstein, J. L. & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181–193. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4. Eshach, H. & Schwartz, J. (2006). Sound stuff?: Naïve materialism in middle school students’ conceptions of sound. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 733– 764.


Eshach, H., Dor-Ziderman, Y. & Yefroimsky, Y. (2013). Question asking in the science classroom: Teacher attitudes and practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 67–81. Gawronski, B. (2007). Attitudes can be measured! But what is an attitude? [Editorial]. Social Cognition, 25(5), 573–581. Jones, M. G. & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067–1104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaur, B. (2011). Mathematics homework: A study of three grade eight classrooms in Singapore. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 187–206. Keith, T. Z. (1982). Time spent on homework and high school grades: A large-sample path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 248–253. doi:10.1037/00220663.74.2.248. Kralovec, E. & Buell, J. (2001). End homework now. Educational Leadership, 58(7), 39–42. Lavonen, J., Jauhiainen, J., Koponen, I. T. & Kurki-Suonio, K. (2004). Effect of a long‐term in‐service training program on teachers’ beliefs about the role of experiments in physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 309–328. Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K. & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two‐year mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1199–1224. Markow, D., Kim, A. & Liebman, M. (2007). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: The homework experience. New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Milbourne, L. A., & Haury, D. L. (1999). Helping students with homework in science and math. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432454) National Education Association. (2008). Help your student get the most out of homework. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/tools/56548.htm Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. & Akkoç, H. (2009). Preservice teachers’ instructional beliefs and examination of consistency between beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1173–1199. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas‐about‐ science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H. & Allen, A. B. (2010). Extending the school day or school year: A systematic review of research (1985–2009). Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 401–436. doi:10.3102/0034654310377086. Reynolds, A. J. & Walberg, H. J. (1991). A structural model of science achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 97–107. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G. & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645. doi:10.1002/sce.10128. Schwartzwald, J. (2000). Attitudes. Social psychology (Vol. 2, Unit V ed., pp. 121–300). Tel Aviv: Open University of Israel.


Shellard, E. G. & Turner, J. R. (2004). ERS focus on … homework: Research and best practice. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Tamir, P. (1985). Homework and science learning in secondary schools. Science Education, 69(5), 605–618. doi:10.1002/sce.3730690503. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage. Thomas, A. H. (1992). Homework: How effective? How much to assign? The need for clear policies. Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council. Tobin, R. & Tippett, C. D. (2014). Possibilities and potential barriers: Learning to plan for differentiated instruction in elementary science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 423–443. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9414-z. Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M. & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Chameleon effects in homework research: The homework–achievement association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis chosen. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001. Wallace, C. S. & Kang, N. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers’ beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936–960. doi:10.1002/tea.20032. Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 155–165. Wiesenthal, R., Cooper, B. S., Greenblatt, R. & Marcus, S. (1997). Relating school policies and staff attitudes to the homework behaviours of teachers: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(4), 348–370. Xu, J. (2010). Homework purposes reported by secondary school students: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 171–182. doi:10.1080/ 00220670903382939. Zhu, Y. & Leung, F. K. S. (2012). Homework and mathematics achievement in Hong Kong: Evidence from the TIMSS 2003. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 907–925. Zohar, A. & Ben-David, A. B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82. Ida Kukliansky Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Ruppin Academic Center Emek Hefer, Israel E-mail: [email protected] Itai Shosberger and Haim Eshach Department of Science and Technology Education Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva, Israel