This page is still in construction.“Fundamental Principles in the Debate on Homework”
The provision of homework to primary and high school students has been commonplace, in varying degrees, from the beginning of the 20th Century, onward. And while the contention over homework’s proper place in the pedagogical setting has historical roots contemporary with its very adoption, “arguments against homework,” and thus ever increasing debates about it, “are becoming more popular and intense” (Costley, 2013, p. 2). With the prevalence of data available to researchers in the modern era, therefore, combined with the current sophistication of statistical modelling, much focus has begun to be levelled upon this timeless question.
This shift toward an empirical investigation into homework’s efficacy in the classroom, based on data points and critical analysis, has lent modern educators new promise in their search for a definitive solution to the matter. But scholarly commentary on the findings of these investigations, juxtaposed against alternate interpretations of the selfsame research, demonstrates that the weight of collected data currently at our disposal has not yet provided us a decisive resolution. Furthermore, the division appears to be as rift as ever, the only difference being that now both sides are armed with ample, demonstrable “evidence.”
Somewhere in the middle, however, lies education. A thorough and critical reading of even a sampling of the topic’s extant literature reveals it. Hidden amid the data and its various, varying interpretations lies a common undercurrent pervasive in the intentions of both camps to the debate. Within the papers and analyses addressing the issue of homework, there exists a call not to more or less of it, but rather a heartfelt call to increased quality in teaching itself. How that manifests in—or outside of—the classroom is a matter of myriad opinions, yet these can be essentially divided into two factions: those for and against assigned homework.
Definitions
What experts designate as homework is something that needs to be established in order to create the boundaries for any constructive discussion into the matter. For the purpose of this review, homework is defined as “all study activities, tasks, and assignments that students perform outside the formal setting of the classroom, normally not in the presence of a teacher” (Oshrat et al., quoted in Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017, p. 90).
Similarly, to understand wherefore the benefits of homework arise and manifest, if at all, it will be important to contextualise motivation and engagement. Valle et al. (following Skinner and Pitzer) differentiate the two in a causal relationship. “[E]ngagement,” they maintain, is the “behavioral manifestation of motivation” (2016, p. 2). This is to say that the degree to which a student is engaged exists only as a reflection of the motivation that moves from within. The authors go on to utilise this definition to distinguish “learning goals”—individual motivation based on educational attainment—from “performance goals”—a motivation to out-perform one’s peers (2016, p. 3).
With these foundations in place, a constructive investigation of the two sides of the homework debate, and their own underlying motivations, may be conducted.
The Case for Homework
Researchers who advocate for the inclusion of homework in the school model regard it as nothing short of a “powerful instructional tool” (Marzano & Pickering, 2007, p. 4). And in a poll reported in 2008, 77% of students and 80% of teachers and parents agreed, identifying homework as “important or very important” (Costley, 2013, p. 3). The case for homework builds itself, in synthesis, along three rationales: achieving academic prowess through repetition and practice, engendering a habit of self-regulation and responsibility, and calcifying the relationship between the school and home environments (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017). Time management is a skill that is also regularly identified as benefited by regular completion of assigned work (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017; Valle et al., 2016). It has been noted that countries such as Hong-Kong and Singapore, whose students regularly perform highly, report a distinct correlation between homework and their successes (Jerrim, Lopez-Agudo, & Marcenaro-Gutierrez, 2018).
Overall, it is argued, the framework of expectations that results from independent, externally allotted tasks ultimately prepares students for “the complexities of a competitive world” (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017, p. 91; Jerrim et al., 2018). But a deeper analysis of this premise raises, perhaps, an interesting question. Could the structure of our school systems, charged with educating the children who will one day inherit this “complex and competitive” world, possibly be creating that very world? Could it be, that is to say, that education’s goal of preparing children for the world is instead preparing the world itself? This is a meta-analysis that perhaps deserves further investigation.
Other arguments for homework assert that the extension of the work day into after-school or otherwise outside-of-face-to-face hours, gives teachers the time they need to cover the large amounts of material in the syllabus, confident that the students will be annealing their understanding independently (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017).
The Case against Homework
Those who argue against homework use many of the same arguments in reverse. In the same poll as cited above, in fact, 90% of students reported feeling anxiety and stress from homework—a correlation confirmed by researchers in the field (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017)—and 40% of parents regarded the assignments that were being sent home as mere “busy work” (Costley, 2013, p. 3). Overall, the negative effects reported by this faction relate in corollary to the advantages touted by their counterparts. Homework, they observe, can lead to boredom when it is aimless or repetitive; can encourage counterproductive interaction from parents, untrained and unfamiliar with subject matter or teacher instruction; and can ultimately become a hindrance to participating in activities outside of the school œuvre (Costley, 2013, p. 8). Going further, external expectations levied by homework have been linked to increased cheating, copying and parental completion of student tasks. Pressure from these factors has been cited in its extremes as contributing to a “deficient teacher-student relationship” and even school avoidance (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017, p. 91). Teachers too have indicated “highly resent[ing] homework policies that state that homework must be assigned on a regular basis” (Costley, 2013, p. 7).
Due to these points, there has been concern from some that children are “losing their childhood” (Jerrim et al., 2018, p. 2) in the interest of engendering a “corporate-style, competitive U.S. culture that overvalues work to the detriment of personal and familial well-being” (Marzano & Pickering, 2007, p. 3). Thus with a reading of the empirical data that seems, to this camp, to indicate little to negative correspondence between homework and academic achievement (Jerrim et al., 2018), particularly for primary-aged students (Costley, 2013; Jerrim et al., 2018; Marzano & Pickering, 2007), the sentiment against work-prescriptive school cultures has reached a critical juncture. “Homework strikes” (Jerrim et al., 2018, p. 2) have even begun to be arranged. To bolster their position, the proponents of abolishing homework point to case studies of countries such as Finland, academically among the world’s “highest performers,” who have conspicuously curtailed their use of homework (Jerrim et al., 2018, p. 2).
Discussion
With the advent of an increasingly data-rich and technological society, within which this debate is unfolding, the issue of homework is now being scrutinised with empirical measures that would seem to provide cut-and-dry, black-and-white answers. But whereas results, on one hand, appear to indicate little to no causal correlation between homework and increased academic success (Jerrim et al., 2018), alternate viewpoints result in opposite interpretations. Amazingly, these varied opinions arise even though much of analysis reported seems to be reliant on relatively few pools of quantifiable research.
With this data and its polarised analyses seemingly only confounding the matter, then, the true answer is clearly more sophisticated than a simple adoption or abstention of homework. Academics on both sides of the debate indicate that ultimately it is the students’ motives and engagement that is of principal value to education (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017). How that end is to be achieved, however, appears to be a matter of personal preference. Yet the message is repeated that, in whatever way, the classroom environment must be first and foremost attended to, centralising the child as the principal purpose for education. Essentially, it is quality—not quantity or specific methodology—which matters (Valle et al., 2016).
In many cases, this may take significant reform (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017; Marzano & Pickering, 2007). Increasingly personalised and “small group” instruction has been shown to be of far more value than homework (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017, p. 93), as has facilitated independent study within the classroom setting (Costley, 2013). Other suggestions, too, can and should be entertained. Some school districts, for instance, are granting students allowance for the non-completion of homework or ensuring the integration of “fun” into whatever gets assigned (Costley, 2013, p. 7). Student involvement in homework electives has also been suggested (Kohn, referenced in Costley, 2013). In this light, the question of what or how much homework to assign—or how to use it—becomes more of a symptom of the changes being called for than an ends in itself.
Yet the literature is also careful to highlight that our intentions for assigning homework, if at all, must be clear. By allowing students non-completion, what does the “hidden curriculum” teach them? If homework is optional, how are they learning responsibility and the management of external factors? Similarly, what sort of ethic are we instilling if our students come to expect that all work must be “fun”? If homework is primarily based on entertainment value, how are children learning the values of focus, perseverance and serious investment? And, to a further extreme, if teachers are assigning homework and students are primarily conducting their education at home, what is the point of class time in the first place? On the flip side, if homework is not purposeful, what is the point of doing it at all? A critical investigation into the research on homework reveals that it is the reasoning behind assigning independent work expectations—or not—that is important, not necessarily the work itself.
Homework also comes to play within the question of parent involvement. Proponents of the practice maintain that homework creates a link between school and home, and keeps parents abreast of what is happening in class (Costley, 2013). But the direct interface between the students’ respective milieux is derided by others, citing familial pressure and instructional confusion as hazards of parental involvement (Costley, 2013). Yet as education is something that happens for the child in both environments, home and school (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017), clearly parents and teachers alike are vital educators in the lives of their progeny. Their shared role, in fact, requires “very close contact” (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017, p. 93). Is homework, then, a poor substitute for interaction between teachers and parents? Does homework cheaply tick this box, and in so doing undermine the efficacy that called for it in the first place?
Conclusion
Due to its external and to some degree quantifiable nature, homework has long been used as tool for the promotion of academic growth. And yet modern research has failed to find a definitive causal link between homework and educational success. On both sides of the argument for or against the utility of homework, however, a careful reading of the literature reveals, more than anything else, an underlying call for quality in teaching. And while academics may differ in how they prefer to methodologically achieve this benchmark, a common theme may be discerned which almost universally revolves around the inspiration of internal motivation and constructive cooperation between the parties involved in the education of our children. Given this discovery, then, perhaps a better question to be explored—as opposed to what or how much homework to assign—would be to investigate these principia.
“Improving the Instructional Quality of Homework”
The use of homework in childhood education is something that must be given careful consideration. With strong proponents for both its necessity and its abolishment, the debate over the practice’s efficacy has been at issue since the end of the 19th Century (Gill & Schlossman, 2004). As such, shifts in public and institutional opinion have resulted in partisan action and reaction throughout modern education’s history. Yet both sides raise valid arguments for their position, and so the debate tarries on.
With students, teachers, parents and administrators—not to mention public opinion and legislators—weighing in on the decision, the discussion regarding homework is nuanced at the very least. Each of these actors have their own reasons to either support or oppose homework’s use, and each individual may furthermore have contrary opinions even within his or her own group regarding the task, purpose or organisation of homework. “[The use of] homework probably involves the complex interaction of more influences than any other instructional device” (Cooper quoted in Trautwein & Köller, 2003, p. 35). Partially or wholly for this reason, even after more than 100 years of prolonged discussion no definitive answer has been reached. “[T]he opponents of homework exaggerate its harms, the supporters overstate its benefits” (Gill & Schlossman, 2004, p. 180).
With “[a]rguments against homework [in this way] becoming more popular and intense” (Costley, 2013, p. 2), a serious study of how the practice affects student and classroom outcomes is necessary. Ever since the beginning of the last century, and even slightly earlier, a scientific approach has been levelled at this question (Gill & Schlossman, 2004). Through the collection and data and empirical evidence, researchers hoped to rationally deduce the best and most effective way for homework to be employed in the school setting. And while academics have vacillated in their hypotheses, parents have tended to consistently support homework and it has remained more or less ubiquitous in the educational milieux (Gill & Schlossman, 2004).
Arguments for Homework
Fundamental to any productive conversation to this issue are the definitions and rationales of homework in the first place. And though there are, of course, varying opinions on even these initial principles, essentially homework can be divided into two basic types—instructional and non-instructional (Cooper et al., 2020)—with “three general aims”: practice, personal motivation, and disciplinary connection between the school and home environments (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017, p. 2).
Homework, as a pedagogical tool, is “a classic form of self-regulated learning” (Trautwein & Köller, 2003, p. 137). Given the limits of the school day, the continuation of work into after-school hours provides students the time they need to conceptualise material from the day. This also give teachers the confidence that class curricula will be reinforced independently (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017). It has been demonstrated that homework, in this vein, has both immediate and long-term influence on academic success (Cooper et al., 2020). And because this study is being concluded in the students’ own time, they are becoming involved in their work in a manner different to what could result from simple completion of tasks during school hours.
This expansion of education’s boundaries is important, also, to promote learning as something not relegated to school alone. Bridging academic work into the home is often the first step to a much wider appreciation of what learning is and can be (Costley, 2013). The outcome of this, it has been suggested, is manifold, including demonstrable effects toward the improvement of independence, time management, self-discipline, study skills, inquisitiveness, and overall attitudes toward school and education (Cooper et al., 2020). Thus academic outcomes are by no means the sole benefits of regular homework practice.
The connection established between school and home through this form of learning has further benefits as well. Involving the parents implicitly in the educational process is a direct way to keep them informed about what is being taught at school. This also helps give them security that their children’s education is being properly looked after. At the same time, homework helps strengthen filial connections by providing a medium in which parents may work together directly with their children (Cooper et al., 2020).
Due to these reasons, it can be reasonably argued that “it would not be imprudent, based on evidence in hand, to conclude that doing homework causes improved academic achievement” (Cooper, Robinson and Patall quoted in Marzano & Pickering, 2007, p. 75). And with the non-academic aspects of homework’s benefits taken into consideration, the practice of homework promises to furthermore help establish universal “skills for learning how to learn” (Corno & Xu, 2004, p. 229).
Arguments Against
The case for disparaging homework and its effects can be shown to be equally as compelling, often using the selfsame research. Much of the argument rests in the assertion that there is little to no—or even negative—correlation between a culture of homework and the benefits for which it is adopted. This is purported to be especially true in the younger years—with effects becoming more positive into high school—and is oft repeated (cf. Costley, 2013; Epstein, 1988; Jerrim et al., 2018; Kohn, 2007; Trautwein & Köller, 2003, etc.).
But even aside from the reported lack of support for homework’s utility, several negative effects have been specifically cited. Out-of-class assignments have been derided, for the most part, as menial or pointless work regularly doled out to students not from necessity but an adherence to expectations of tradition, the administration or parents (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017; Gill & Schlossman, 2004; Kohn, 2007). Parents, in fact, though on one hand believing that the assigning of homework “shows concern for [students’] studies and indicates an effort on the teacher’s part” (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017, p. 3), on the other hand have identified most tasks sent home as little more than “busywork” (Costley, 2013; Epstein, 1988; Kohn, 2007). Teachers, too, have been cited to “highly resent homework policies that state that homework must be assigned on a regular basis” (Costley, 2013, p. 8).
In terms of parent involvement in independent work completion, teachers complain about lack of support at home (Cooper et al., 2020). Additionally, help that is given by parents is often misguided. Parents with no training may supervise work insufficiently, overly pressure their children, or confuse them with conflicting ideas to what was presented in class (Costley, 2013).
With all of these complications, why the practice of homework is still being observed is a question that has led to the staging of “homework strikes” in select communities (Jerrim et al., 2018, p. 2). The question is “cost” (Trautwein & Köller, 2003, p. 138). What value is gained by homework vis-à-vis what is lost to other activities vital for the growth of the child? Maintaining friendships, participating in community/family activities, and simply enjoying leisure time are equally as important to personal development as the academic pursuits exercised by homework (Costley, 2013; Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017; Trautwein & Köller, 2003). In synthesis, the argument maintains that “homework contributes to a corporate-style, competitive U. S. culture that overvalues work to the detriment of personal and familial well-being” (Marzano & Pickering, 2007, p. 3). Even the assertion that the completion of homework “reinforces” class concepts, as lauded by those in favour of homework’s use, in itself “denotes the repetition of rote behaviours, not the development of understanding” (Kohn, 2007, p. 2). Thus children are “losing their childhood” (Jerrim et al., 2018, p. 2) and developmental process is compromised, in exchange instead for quantifiable outcomes (Corno & Xu, 2004).
Homework, furthermore, risks affecting personal values. An early example of “performance exchange” in the child’s life, homework supplants intrinsic, internal motivation for external rewards (Corno & Xu, 2004, p. 228). In many cases, the purpose for homework seems not so much to address student needs but is, rather, “assigned by a teacher for students to complete on the teacher’s schedule with the teacher’s requirements in mind” (Corno & Xu, 2004, p. 228). This shift in incentive undermines personal motivation, “satiating students on academic pursuits” (Cooper et al., 2020, p. 8) which leads, ultimately, to loss of interest (Chen & Stevenson, 1989) and “boredom” (Costley, 2013, p. 8). This may in turn impact students’ relationships with their teachers and attitudes toward school in general (Cooper et al., 2020; Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017).
Discussion
Due to the complex nature of the question at hand, the value of consulting experts and pooled data when approaching the utility of homework is clear. And as this issue has been in the public eye effectively since the onset of modern education, much research has been conducted into its nature. As such, as demonstrated by the duality of the arguments above, there is ample material that could be used to validate either party’s position (Cooper et al., 2020). Yet when the data is analysed empirically, there are few sources that either support or disavow either stance alone (Chen & Stevenson, 1989). Therefore, a more qualitative analysis of the material must be carefully considered.
As a case in point, it has been suggested that time spent on homework actually decreases measured achievement levels (Epstein, 1988; Trautwein & Köller, 2003). Taken at face value, this seems clearly to support the argument of those who oppose the use of homework. But when more deeply considered, the logical fallacy that more work results in less achievement leads to further insight into the matter. An alternate answer could be that students who understand the content will spend little time in work completion while those who do not will require longer (Epstein, 1988). The former students will need less help; the latter, more. The statistic is also directly dependent on a child’s individual diligence, the effectiveness of his or her study skills, and the length of work allotted by the teacher in the first place (Chen & Stevenson, 1989). Additionally, the type of work assigned—content-based vs. product-oriented—is a no-less important deciding factor (Corno & Xu, 2004).
With these deeper points further clarified, the question becomes far more nuanced than a simple yes/no debate. Such dualism will never suffice to shed light on the “complex processes inherent in homework and its completion” (Trautwein & Köller, 2003, p. 135). By delving into the underlying implications of extant research, it may however be possible to unravel a different, richer approach to the question of homework. There is ample evidence that demonstrates homework’s correlation to cognitive benefits and so, even though finding a “causal relationship” remains elusive (Jerrim et al., 2018, p. 3), it is worth continued consideration as a valid pedagogical tool.
Exploring this, then, several factors become evident. Whereas the sex of students is not significant to homework’s benefit (Costley, 2013), age has repeatedly been shown to be notable (Costley, 2013; Gill & Schlossman, 2004; Jerrim et al., 2018; Marzano & Pickering, 2007; Trautwein & Köller, 2003; Valle et al., 2016). The child’s environment, too, has an effect. Students polled in the city had a greater bent toward academic achievement than did children in rural areas (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017). And whereas it has been shown that time spent on homework has little or even negative significance to outcomes, as least at face value, positive effects have been more clearly demonstrated in regards to the amount of homework that has been fully completed (Marzano & Pickering, 2007).
What this all suggests, then, is that homework is a valid tool when used appropriately, with the needs of the children in consideration the desired outcome clear. Positive gains arise not through mechanical attendance to homework but are instead a natural result of students’ individual motives. Work completed in this manner, in turn, affects cognition, self-regulation and the development of appropriate learning strategies (Valle et al., 2016).
Recommendations
Ultimately, it is important for educators to recognise that the assignment of homework adds to the load faced by those in their care. These young people are required, simply by the period of life in which they find themselves, to balance their occupation as students with their nature as children. Homework, when inappropriate or overly time-consuming, becomes a stress on the lives of students (Cooper et al., 2020; Corno & Xu, 2004).
The key then will be to ensure that any work assigned for independent completion will be appropriate. Teachers must take into consideration homework as something that belongs within the context of education, not as an end in itself. Meeting outcomes, though attractive for measurement and accountability, must take a back seat to the development of students’ process (Corno & Xu, 2004). Homework must be neither ubiquitous nor tedious, assigned “on those occasions when it’s truly necessary” (Kohn, 2007, p. 3) to maintain its effectiveness and inspire internal motivation.
In the classroom environment, homework can play a wonderful role in building upon curricula, extending upon learning, and ensuring that the students are progressing. “[I]n order for homework to be successful” in this way, however, “you have to have 85% of the kids do it” (Anonymous middle school teacher quoted in Corno & Xu, 2004, p. 231). This addresses the social context of homework and childhood education (Cooper et al., 2020). Yet because the onus is upon the children themselves to complete this work in, essentially, their free time, it again becomes apparent that said work will have to maintain at least a modicum of personal interest.
In order to achieve this, teachers can take into consideration several factors. Work will be effective and rewarding that integrates concepts or skills that have been learned separately, thus inspiring students to make connections between previously isolated lessons (Cooper et al., 2020). For this reason, project-based assignments will be valuable. Assignments that are personalised, designed for a specific purpose and with the individual in mind, will also be more attractive to the learner. To this end, it has been suggested that “teachers assign only what they design” (Kohn, 2007, p. 3). The children themselves can be given some input into choosing their assigned work (Cooper et al., 2020; Kohn, 2007; Valle et al., 2016). In addition, connecting homework to everyday activities (e.g. baking, playing sports, etc.), particularly those that can incorporate an element of play, is a vital consideration to inspiring engagement. Connections made to those aspects of children’s lives they witness personally will help them understand the utility of planning and making decisions for long-term outcomes (Corno & Xu, 2004). And in so doing, the student’s engagement will be encouraged by “capitaliz[ing] on the child’s positive attitude for the familiar while allowing the bar to be ever so gradually raised” (Corno & Xu, 2004, p. 232).
Chiefly, homework must come to be regarded by the student as purposeful (Chen & Stevenson, 1989). Children, when asked to do something in which they can see value, will naturally rise to a challenge (Kohn, 2007). And when they find success in doing something because the wanted to do it personally, not merely to meet another’s agenda, their sense of self-efficacy is strengthened. This, in turn, will increase their willingness to complete tasks set before them and persist when faced with difficulties. The ultimate outcome that educators can achieve is the help instil in their students personal motivation to find interest in any task and do the job well (Trautwein & Köller, 2003). Teachers and administrators must remember that it is not their job to help facilitate the academic growth of the child alone, but emotional and physical as well (Gill & Schlossman, 2004).
The role of the parent, of course, is also integral to the full growth of the child. In terms of homework, it is important to note the vital role parents can play in work completion. Though most parents, it is true, are not formally trained as teachers or may have different approaches to conceptual understanding, they can be effective aids to the process of education with proper guidance from the school (Costley, 2013; Gill & Schlossman, 2004). This will also involve them in a deeper way than merely informing them about what in going on in class through the work that is sent home. Parents and their children can become collaboratively involved in the work that is being done, thus enriching the connections both have to school and the relationship they have with each other (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017).
In totum, the question of homework is something that must be considered in a manner deeper than whether it simply should or should not be part of the school culture. The field of education has at its disposal a powerful pedagogical tool in homework when properly considered and made appropriate to its context. Bridging the school and home environments—as well as abetting the children’s understanding that education is something that happens not only within the walls of the classroom but far beyond—are essential foci for the teacher’s role. Through careful consideration, homework can be designed such that it not only avoids being tedious, repetitive or time-consuming but becomes instead a natural response to the student’s internal drive to learn.