A study of science teachers' homework

practices
Yasemin Tas Ataturk University, Turkey
Semra Sungur Vural Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Ceren ztekin Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Abstract
This study investigates Turkish middle school science teachers' homework
practices, the value teachers attach to homework and teachers' communica-
tion with parents about homework. One hundred and sixty-eight teachers
completed surveys. Teachers reported to assign homework frequently: 93.4
per cent of the teachers reported that they assign homework either once a
week or at the end of every class. Problem solving and doing research on a
topic were the most commonly assigned homework types, while making
summaries and memorizing information/formulas were the least preferred
homework types. Teachers gave homework for a variety of reasons includ-
ing knowledge acquisition, skill development and informing parents about
child's progress. Structural equation modelling revealed that teachers were
more likely to place value on homework if class size was small; teachers
who placed value on homework were more likely to communicate with
parents about homework and communication with parents facilitated stu-
dents' homework completion.
Key words Science homework, Teacher homework practices, Homework
value, Communication with parents about homework.
Introduction
Homework has long been studied by the researchers. More recent home-
work research has focused on the role of parental involvement in homework
process. According to Hoover-Dempsey et al.'s (2001) meta analyses, paren-
tal involvement in homework process has positive influences on student-
related outcomes such as attitudes about homework and perceptions of
personal competence. However, informing parents about the homework
process is important (Ersoy and Anagun, 2009) as not all types of paren-
tal involvement may be beneficial for students' learning, such as parental
interference (Dumont et al., 2012). The present study proposes the value
teachers place on homework and communication with parents about
Research in Education, Number 91, (May 2014) Manchester University Press
http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/RIE.91.1.5
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
45
homework as important constructs to be investigated. We hypothesize
that if teachers place more value on homework, they are more likely to
communicate with parents about their child's homework more effectively
which may further increase students' homework completion. Besides, class
size, as a contextual factor, is proposed to influence the value teachers'
attach to homework, as large class size may place some restrictions on
class work (Ehrenberg et al., 2001). The study firstly examines Turkish
middle school science teachers' homework practices (e.g. frequency of
giving homework and reasons for giving homework) and then tests a
model explaining the relationships among class size, the frequency of giv-
ing homework, the value placed on homework, communication with par-
ents regarding homework and students' homework completion rate.
Homework is defined as tasks assigned to students by school teachers
that are intended to be carried out during non-school hours (Cooper,
2007, 4). Teachers give homework for a variety of reasons. Teachers mainly
give homework to practice skills taught in the class, to prepare students for
the next lesson, to increase students' participation and to contribute to per-
sonal development (e.g. developing research skills and building responsibil-
ity). Homework may also be used to support parentchild relations (e.g.
encourage communication between child and parent about class work), to
facilitate parentteacher communication (e.g. inform parents about stu-
dents' learning in class), to support students' interaction with each other as
well as to complete policy requirements for giving a certain amount of
homework (Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001).
Homework supports students' learning of the subject matter (Cooper
2007; Cooper and Valentine, 2001). According to meta analyses results
(Cooper et al., 2006; Cooper and Valentine, 2001), the effect of homework
on students' learning of subject matter knowledge is more pronounced in
older students; the positive relationship between homework time and
achievement is stronger for high school students than for elementary school
students. Muhlenbruck et al. (2000) suggested that elementary and high
school teachers' different purposes of assigning homework might lead this
situation. Accordingly, at the elementary level, homework is more focused
on skill development and not so much on the subject material asked in
achievement tests. Since secondary school students are expected to have al-
ready developed these skills, they are given assignments that are focused
more on the subject matter. The smaller correlation between achievement
and homework at the elementary level may be due to this reason. However,
for young students, homework particularly contributes to development of
study skills and work habits (Cooper and Valentine, 2001; Corno, 2000).
While doing their homework, students arrange workplace, manage time,
monitor motivation, handle distractions and control emotion (Xu, 2008).
Stoeger and Ziegler (2008) reported that training on homework activities
help elementary school students develop time management skills. There-
fore, it seems important to examine teachers' purposes of assigning home-
work because if a teacher's goal is to improve students' study skills, then
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
46
homework will serve to achieve this goal; but if the teacher's goal is to in-
crease knowledge acquisition, then the students will benefit from the home-
work accordingly (Muhlenbruck et al., 2000). Some other benefits of
homework are helping students engagement in social communication such
as through the Internet and the telephone, which in turn supports students'
collaboration, and facilitating parental involvement in students' schooling
(Cooper and Valentine, 2001; Corno, 2000).
In a correlational study, Cooper et al. (1998) explored Grade 2, 4, 6, 8,
10 and 12 students' (N=709), parents', and teachers' (N=82) attitudes to-
ward homework, what proportion of homework was completed and
achievement. Attitude toward homework was measured in terms of partici-
pants' feelings about homework (i.e., liking homework); their beliefs about
the effects of homework on students' interest in school (i.e., whether home-
work increases students' interest in school) and whether they think home-
work helps students learn, develop study skills and learn how to manage
time. Achievement was measured by both a standardized test scores (Tennes-
see Comprehensive Assessment Test scores were standardized by the authors
of the study) and teacher assigned grades (teachers were asked to report a
grade for each student if the class ended on the day of questionnaire com-
pletion). The results showed that students, parents, and teachers all held
positive attitudes toward homework. Regarding the amount of homework
completed by the students, seventy-five per cent of the parents stated that
their children complete all homework while sixty-five per cent of the stu-
dents reported that they complete all homework. A significant correlation
was found between the proportion of homework completed as reported by
both students and parents and students' achievement. Furthermore, for up-
per grades, there was a positive correlation between teachers' attitudes to-
ward homework and the amount of homework they assigned (r=0.41). Path
analysis revealed that parents' attitude toward homework had a positive im-
pact on their child's attitudes toward homework, which in turn was found to
affect the proportion of homework completed. Furthermore, a positive cor-
relation was also found between the proportion of homework completed
and student's grades. The researchers concluded that parents' attitudes to-
ward homework had a positive influence on their child's attitude toward
homework and they called on teachers and policymakers to improve parents'
attitudes toward homework. They suggested that clear communication of
the reasons for homework could be helpful in this respect. To this end, it
seems important to study teachers' communication with parents about their
child's homework. Using the same data set as that of Cooper et al. (1998),
Muhlenbruck et al. (2000) examined the relationship between homework
and achievement at elementary and secondary school levels. Most of the
teachers reported believing in the utility of homework (i.e., they thought
that homework helps students learn, develop study skills, and learn how to
manage time) and scored high on the utility scale.
Besides investigating teachers' and students' homework practices and their
relations with achievement, parents' role in homework has been a focus of
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
47
research. In order to investigate parental influences on students' academic
performance, Keith et al. (1993) examined data from a national survey (N=
21,814) of Grade eight students. Parental involvement was measured in
terms of parents' educational aspirations, communication between parent
and child, home structure and parents' participation in school activities.
Structural equation analyses were conducted. After controlling for ethnicity,
family background variables and previous achievement, parent involvement
had a strong effect on students' achievement (=0.287). This positive effect
to some extent seemed to be due to higher homework completion rates
by students since their parents devoted more time to their child's home-
work. The researchers stressed the importance of parental involvement
and recommended teachers and administrators to take steps to encour-
age parental involvement in schooling, particularly with respect to
homework. In their meta-analysis on parental involvement in homework,
Hoover-Dempsey et al. (2001) found that through modelling, reinforce-
ment and instruction, parent involvement influences students' attributes
associated with achievement. Parental homework involvement was associ-
ated with positive attitudes about homework and school learning; per-
ceptions of personal competence, ability and academic self-concept;
student knowledge of task demands and performance strategies and stu-
dent homework behaviours. Therefore, the researchers stressed the im-
portance of parent involvement in homework.
In a more recent study Dumont et al. (2012) pointed out a need for dif-
ferentiating parental homework involvement such that not all involvement
types may be beneficial for student outcomes. The researchers conceptual-
ized parental homework involvement as a multidimensional construct.
They conducted two studies with Grade eight students (N=1274 and N=
1911) and did structural equation modelling. In the first study, parental
homework involvement was measured by students' perceptions of parental
competence to help with homework (e.g. My parents are very good at
explaining things that I didn't understand at school), students' perceptions
of parental support during the homework process (e.g. My parents help
me with my homework if I am having difficulties), and parent-child con-
flict (e.g. Homework is a source of stress for our family). Results revealed
that perceived parental competence was positively related to general aca-
demic self-concept and perceived parental support positively predicted stu-
dents' attitudes to school work. On the other hand, perceived parentchild
conflict negatively predicted mathematics and reading grades, general aca-
demic self-concept and students' attitudes to school work. In the second
study, two dimensions of parental homework involvement was measured;
students' perceptions of parental support (e.g. I can ask my parents for
help any time if I don't understand something in French) and parental in-
terference during homework (e.g. My parents help me with my homework
even when I don't need any help). It was found that parental support was
positively related to achievement and homework self-efficacy while paren-
tal interference was negatively related to achievement, self-concept,
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
48
homework self-efficacy and homework persistence in French as a second
language. The authors suggested that rather than quantity of parent in-
volvement, quality of parent involvement should be focused.
Contrary to the situation abroad, relatively few studies into homework
have been carried out in Turkey. One study, examining Grade 68 school
students' (N=426) views about science homework (Aladag and Dogu,
2009), revealed that students thought that homework helped them learn
the subject matter and especially group homework helped them compre-
hend the material. Moreover, students' responses to the survey revealed that
preparation type homework motivated students to learn the new concepts
while practice type homework helped students understand the material cov-
ered in the class. In another study, Ersoy and Anagun (2009) interviewed
with Grade five primary school teachers (N=8) regarding their views on
science homework. Qualitative data analysis revealed that the participating
teachers generally assigned homework in order to consolidate subject mate-
rial. However, researchers argued that there is a need to assign more differ-
ent types of homework in order to support students' development of
science process skills and study discipline, and also parents' involvement to
schooling. Teachers reported that they had problems with parents not being
interested in their child's homework, with parents not believing in the bene-
fits of homework, and in some other cases, with parents doing the home-
work instead of the student. The researchers emphasized the need to
inform parents about the benefits of homework with respect to students'
learning and how to provide proper help with their child's homework, and
they suggested further studies include a greater number of participants.
Purpose and significance of the study
The aforementioned literature revealed that homework helps students learn
the subject matter and aids in the development of study skills (Cooper,
2007; Cooper and Valentine, 2001; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011).
Corno (2000) suggested that teachers' homework practices may affect the
way students benefit from homework. However, although homework has
been studied over the years by researchers, the role of teachers in home-
work process has hardly been touched at all (Epstein and Van Voorhis,
2001), and there is limited research on Turkish science teachers' homework
practices. In the present study we investigate (a) how often teachers assign
homework, (b) the proportion of their students who complete homework
regularly, (c) the types of homework teachers assign, (d) teachers' reasons
for assigning homework, (e) the value teachers place on homework, that is
whether they think homework helps students learn the science material and
also whether they consider it beneficial for other courses and daily life and
(f) teachers' communication with parents regarding homework. Descriptive
statistics will be used for this purpose.
Our study proposed to test a range of issues, some of which have been
identified in other studies. We hypothesized that class size may affect
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
49
teachers' homework practices. We did not encounter previous research
which investigated the relationship between class size and the value teachers
place on homework, and frequency of assigning homework. However, stud-
ies show that in small classes, disruptive behaviour is less likely to occur
and more time can be spent on class work, making it possible to have more
class discussions, more assignments and more opportunities to examine stu-
dent work (Ehrenberg et al., 2001). We tested the hypothesize that large
class size may place restrictions on teachers' homework practices; in
crowded classes, teachers may place less value on homework and may as-
sign homework less frequently. We also wanted to test the hypothesize that
the value teachers place on homework may relate to the frequency of giving
homework because teachers who believe in the benefits of homework prob-
ably assign homework more frequently. Previously, Cooper et al. (1998)
found that teachers who had more positive attitudes about homework
tended to assign more homework. We also aimed to assess if teachers who
attach more value to homework may communicate better with parents re-
garding their child's homework. Communication with parents is further an-
ticipated to affect the proportion of students who complete homework
regularly because parents' attitudes toward homework was found to posi-
tively affect students' attitudes toward homework (Cooper et al., 1998).
Thus, we expect that communication with parents may increase parental in-
volvement in the homework process and lead students to complete their
homework. Therefore, we developed a model explaining relationships
among class size, the frequency of giving homework, the value placed on
homework, communication with parents regarding homework and students'
homework completion rate. Structural equation modelling (SEM) will be
used to explore these various relationships. SEM is a method which enables
to test hypothesized relationships among a set of variables based on theory
or previous research (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). More specifically,
how sets of variables define constructs and how these constructs are related
to each other (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004, p. 2) is the main focus of
the analyses. For instance, in our case, value placed on homework (V) items
are hypothesized to define the value teacher's place on homework construct
and the construct is further hypothesized to influence communication with
parents (C) construct. Through SEM, researchers examine how well the
proposed model is supported by the sample data (Schumacker and Lomax,
2004). The model proposed in this study is presented in Figure 1.
Method
Sample
The sample of the study consisted of 168 middle school (Grades 68) sci-
ence teachers. Convenience sampling was used; teachers who taught at mid-
dle schools located in nearby districts in Ankara, the capital city of Turkey,
participated in the study. Although convenience sampling eases data collec-
tion, it is difficult to generalize results (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006) to the
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
50
population of all Turkish science teachers. However, results may represent
teachers' homework practices with similar characteristics. The information
about the sample characteristics is as following: thirty-six (21.4 per cent)
teachers were employed at private schools while the rest of the teachers
were teaching at public schools. Forty (23.8 per cent) teachers were male
and one hundred twenty-eight (76.2 per cent) teachers were female. Partici-
pants' ages ranged from twenty-three to fifty-eight years with a mean of
33.08 (SD=8.24) years. Most of the participants (N=111, 66.1 per cent)
were graduates of middle school science teacher education programs.
Twenty nine (17.4 per cent) teachers were graduates of high school physics,
biology, or chemistry teacher education programs; twenty-six (15.5 per
cent) teachers graduated from physics, biology, or chemistry departments;
and two (1.2 per cent) teachers did not indicate the program they had grad-
uated from. Participants' teaching experience ranged from one to thirty-five
years with a mean of 9.88 (SD=7.72) years. The number of students the
teachers taught in each class ranged from 6 to 55 with a mode of thirty stu-
dents. The teachers taught on average 22.32 (SD=5.31) hours a week.
Context of the study
The Turkish Ministry of National Education made some revisions in science
and technology curriculum in 2005. With these changes, projects and
homework assignments became a more prominent issue in science subject.
Homework is considered to be an important aspect of the education pro-
gram, because homework consolidates newly learned material, contributes
to students' personal development, and instils a responsibility towards
Frequency of
giving HW
Frequency of
giving HW
Value1
Com1
Com2
Com3
Communication
with parents
Value
placed on
HW
Class
size
Class
size
Value2 Value3
HW
completion
rate
HW
completion
rate
Figure 1 Proposed model.
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
51
learning. Moreover, homework is regarded to be an effective way for
teachers to communicate with parents and for parents to understand their
child's progress in the subject. Besides examinations and class participation,
students' homework performance scores are taken into account in student
evaluation (Turkish Ministry of National Education, 2006).
In the middle school, the typical school day is seven hours and students
take three hours of science class in a week. Science is one of the core sub-
jects, and other core subjects are Turkish, mathematics, social studies and
foreign language. At the end of middle school (Grade 8) and high school
(Grade 12), students take nationwide examinations in order to enrol in
more prestigious high schools and colleges, respectively. In addition to stu-
dents' performance on these high-stakes exams, students' grade point aver-
ages (GPAs) are also taken into account when placing students to higher
school levels. Therefore, Turkish education system is highly competitive
and examination oriented.
Instrumentation
The teachers were given three instruments. The first instrument was Demo-
graphic Information Scale, which included items about type of school (pri-
vate or public), gender, age, teacher education program graduated from,
years of experience as a teacher, number of students in their class and
teaching hours in a week. The second instrument was a Teachers' Home-
work Practices Scale. This scale incorporated items requiring teachers to in-
dicate whether they think they were given sufficient education about
homework in their pre-service teacher education programs; whether they
participated in any in-service teacher education programs about homework;
the frequency of assigning homework, the proportion of students in their
classes who complete homework regularly; the types of homework they
give (ten items); the frequencies of individual and group homework they as-
sign (two items); and their reasons for giving homework (thirteen items).
Four of the items related to types of homework and eight of the items re-
lated to the reasons for giving homework were originally developed by
Sidhu and Fook (2010). These items were translated and adapted into
Turkish while the rest of the items were written by the authors of the
study. The third instrument was a Homework Value and Communication
with Parents Scale. The instrument consisted of two subscales: homework
value (three items) and communication with parents (three items). The items
in the communication with parents subscale were prepared for this study
by the authors. The items in the homework value scale were adapted from
the value subscale of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(Pintrich et al., 1991). For this study, the items of the subscale were modi-
fied to measure the value that teachers attach to homework. Items of the fre-
quency of assigning different types of homework and group-individual
homework, and communication with parents about homework were rated
from never (1) to always (5) while purposes of giving homework and value
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
52
attached to homework were scaled from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
agree (5). The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for communication
with parents about homework and the value teachers give to homework
were 0.53 and 0.83, respectively. The reliability coefficient of communica-
tion with parents about homework was somewhat low, but acceptable for
educational studies (Diakidoy et al., 2003; Hatcher and Stepanski, 1994;
Pinarbasi et al., 2006; Pomeroy, 1993). In addition, by utilizing SEM, the
present study allowed for adjustment for measurement error (Schumacker
and Lomax, 2004).
In regard to research ethics, teachers were informed about the purpose
of the study and deception was not an issue; numbers were assigned to the
participants in order to set the confidentiality of the teachers' identities and
the study did not constitute any physical or psychological harm for the
participants.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics were reported in two main sections: The first section
concerns science teachers' homework practices and the second section con-
cerns science teachers' communication with parents regarding homework
and the value they attach to homework.
Science teachers' homework practices
This section presents participants' education in homework, homework as-
signment frequencies, homework completion rates, types of homework as-
signments, and the reasons for giving homework.
Education in homework practices. The teachers were asked whether or
not they thought they were given sufficient education regarding homework
practices during their pre-service teacher education programs. More than
half of the participants (N=97; 58.8 per cent) reported that they had
not given sufficient training in how to prepare homework properly while
sixty-eight (41.2 per cent) teachers reported that they had received such
an education. The results also revealed that only twenty (12.0 per cent)
teachers had taken in-service training in homework practices.
Homework assignment frequencies. The teachers' responses to the item
assessing the frequency of homework assignments revealed that teachers as-
sign homework very frequently (See Table 1). Indeed, the majority of the
teachers (N=156, 93.4 per cent) reported that they assign homework ei-
ther once a week or at the end of every class.
Homework completion frequencies. The proportions of students who
complete their homework regularly as reported by the participant teachers
are presented in Figure 2. As shown in the figure, four (2.4 per cent)
teachers reported that less than twenty-five per cent of their students do
homework regularly, sixty-seven (40.1 per cent) teachers reported that
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
53
2550 per cent of their students do homework regularly, and sixty-one
(36.5 per cent) teachers indicated that 5075 per cent of their students do
homework regularly. Only four (2.4 per cent) teachers indicated that all of
their students do homework regularly.
Type and frequency of homework assignments. The frequencies for giving
different types of homework are presented in Table 2. The most commonly
assigned homework types were problem solving (M=3.87) and research
(M=3.61). In fact, most of the teachers (96.4 per cent and 94.5 per cent,
respectively) reported that they assign problem solving and research home-
work sometimes or more frequently. Poster preparation (M=3.05), con-
cept maps (M=2.96), project work (M=2.95) and setting up an
experiment (M=2.92) were assigned by the teachers less frequently. Mak-
ing summaries (M=2.46) and memorization of information and formulas
(M=2.05) were the least preferred homework assignment types. Indeed,
more than one-quarter of the teachers (N=51, 31.3 per cent) reported that
they never assign homework requiring the memorization of information/
formulas and almost 41.1 per cent of teachers (N=67) indicated that they
rarely assign such types of homework.
The participants' responses to the survey revealed that the teachers assign
individually done homework more frequently (M=4.15) than those
Table 1 Homework assignment frequencies
Frequency Percent
No homework 2 1.2
Once a month 3 1.8
Twice a month 6 3.6
Once a week 77 46.1
At the end of every class 79 47.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
100% 75-100% 50-75% 25-50% 0-25%
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Completion rate
Figure 2 Proportion of students who complete homework regularly.
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
54
requiring group work (M=2.95). More specifically, 84.3 per cent teachers
(N=140) reported that they assign individual homework often or routinely
while less than one-quarter of teachers (N=40, 24.0 per cent) indicated
that they assign group homework often or routinely.
Reasons for assigning homework. The teachers were asked about their
reasons for assigning homework. As can be seen from Table 3, the teachers'
reasons for giving homework varied. They mainly assigned homework so
that their students could practice knowledge and skills learned in the class
(M=4.67), to improve their students' sense of responsibility towards learn-
ing (M=4.61), to improve their students' study discipline (M=4.54) and to
contribute to the development of students' knowledge and skills (M=4.51).
Indeed, more than half of the participants (around sixty per cent) strongly
agreed on the related items. Furthermore, teachers assigned homework to
prepare students for the class (M=4.42), to increase academic achievement
(M=4.41), to improve students' research skills (M=4.37), to improve stu-
dents' time management skills (M=4.36), to help students remedy their de-
ficiencies in the subject matter knowledge (M=4.34), to make students
more independent in their own learning (M=4.34) and to identify the stu-
dents' deficiencies in subject matter knowledge (M=4.33). The findings
also revealed that one-quarter of the participants strongly agreed on the
item that they give homework to inform parents about student progress
(M=3.73). The least favoured reason for giving homework was to com-
plete unfinished school work (M=2.37). The majority of the participants
Table 2 Frequencies of assigning different types of homework
Homework type Never Rarely Sometimes Often Routinely Mean
Making summaries 41 55 32 19 15 2.54
25.3% 34.0% 19.8% 11.7% 9.3%
Problem solving - 6 39 92 29 3.87
3.6% 23.5% 55.4% 17.5%
Memorization of
information/formulas
51 67 33 10 2 2.05
31.3% 41.1% 20.2% 6.1% 1.2%
Making research 1 8 68 66 22 3.61
0.6% 4.8% 41.2% 40.0% 13.3%
Poster preparation 7 35 73 46 6 3.05
4.2% 21.0% 43.7% 27.5% 3.6%
Project work 3 46 81 29 7 2.95
1.8% 27.7% 48.8% 17.5% 4.2%
Oral presentation 9 46 75 33 3 2.85
5.4% 27.7% 45.2% 19.9% 1.8%
Portfolio 27 45 43 32 17 2.80
16.5% 27.4% 26.2% 19.5% 10.4%
Concept maps 9 44 66 41 7 2.96
5.4% 26.3% 39.5% 24.6% 4.2%
Setting up an
experiment
11 44 64 40 6 2.92
6.7% 26.7% 38.8% 24.2% 3.6%
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
55
disagreed (N=51, 30.7 per cent) and strongly disagreed (N=58, 34.9
per cent) with this statement.
Homework value and communication with parents. This section presents
descriptive statistics concerning science teachers' perceptions of the impor-
tance and usefulness of homework for their students and teachers' commu-
nication with parents about students' homework.
Value placed on homework. Participants were asked about the value they
place on homework in terms of whether they think doing homework is im-
portant and useful in helping students to learn and also whether it is benefi-
cial for students in areas that are not part of the science course, such as
other courses and in daily life (See Table 4). The majority of the teachers
Table 3 Purposes of giving homework
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
agree
Mean
To complete unfinished
school work
58 51 7 38 12 2.37
34.9% 30.7% 4.2% 22.9% 7.2%
To practice knowledge
and skills learned
in the class
- - 1 52 113 4.67
0.6% 31.3% 68.1%
To identify students'
deficiencies in subject
matter knowledge
1 6 11 68 80 4.33
0.6% 3.6% 6.6% 41.0% 48.2%
To improve students'
sense of responsibility
in learning
- 1 5 52 107 4.61
0.6% 3.0% 31.5% 64.8%
To increase academic
achievement
1 3 11 62 88 4.41
0.6% 1.8% 6.7% 37.6% 53.3%
To prepare students for
the class
1 3 5 72 84 4.42
0.6% 1.8% 3.0% 43.6% 50.9%
To help students remedy
their deficiencies in the
subject matter knowledge
4 3 9 66 84 4.34
2.4% 1.8% 5.4% 39.8% 50.6%
To improve students'
study discipline
1 3 1 61 99 4.54
0.6% 1.8% 0.6% 37.0% 60.0%
To make students more
independent in their
own learning
1 5 9 73 78 4.34
0.6% 3.0% 5.4% 44.0% 47.0%
To contribute to the
development of students'
knowledge and skills
- 3 3 66 94 4.51
1.8% 1.8% 39.8% 56.6%
To improve students'
time management skills
2 3 8 74 79 4.36
1.2% 1.8% 4.8% 44.6% 47.0%
To improve students'
research skills
- 3 11 73 79 4.37
1.8% 6.6% 44.0% 47.6%
To inform parents about
student progress
3 20 37 63 42 3.73
1.8% 12.1% 22.4% 38.2% 25.5%
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
56
agreed or strongly agreed that homework is useful (N=159, 96.9 per cent)
and important for helping students to learn (N=154, 93.4 per cent) and
also beneficial for other courses and for daily life (N=73, 93.3 per cent).
The mean value for these items was around 4.5 indicating that teachers' re-
sponses fell between agree and strongly agree.
Communications with parents about homework. The participants' re-
sponses to items assessing communication with parents revealed that about
one third of the teachers (N=57, 34.5 per cent) never or rarely talked to
the parents who intervened too much in their children's homework while
the rest of the teachers (N=108, 65.5 per cent) more frequently talked to
parents demonstrating such behaviour (See Table 5). Approximately three
quarters of the participants (N=130, 77.9 per cent) reported that they in-
formed parents about their children's incomplete homework sometimes or
more frequently (M=3.47). The results also revealed frequent use of parent
teacher meetings to give information about students' homework completion
status (M=4.48). The majority of the teachers (N=148, 88.6 per cent)
stated that they often or routinely inform parents about their children's
Table 4 Value attached to homework
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly
agree
Mean
Useful in helping
students to learn
- 2 3 55 104 4.59
1.2% 1.8% 33.5% 63.4%
Important for helping
students to learn
3 - 8 58 96 4.48
1.8% 4.8% 35.2% 58.2%
Beneficial for students
in areas that are not
part of the science
course, such as other
courses and in daily life
1 2 8 65 88 4.45
0.6% 1.2% 4.9% 39.6% 53.7%
Table 5 Communication with parents about homework
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Routinely Mean
Talk to parents who
intervene too much
in their children's
homework
21 36 47 34 27 3.06
12.7% 21.8% 28.5% 20.6% 16.4%
Inform parents about
their children's
incomplete homework
6 31 39 61 30 3.47
3.6% 18.6% 23.4% 36.5% 18.0%
Inform parents about
their children's homework
at parentteacher
meetings
- 2 17 47 101 4.48
1.2% 10.2% 28.1% 60.5%
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
57
homework completion at parentteacher meetings. Consequently, it can be
argued that in general teachers do communicate with parents about students'
homework.
Inferential statistics
The relationships among class size, frequency of giving homework, value attached to
homework, communication with parents and homework completion rates
The relationships among class size, the frequency of giving homework,
value a teacher gives to homework, communication with parents and stu-
dents' homework completion rates were investigated through SEM using
LISREL 8.8 (Jreskog and Srbom, 2007). LISREL is a statistical software
package which is widely used by researchers in order to test model fit to
the data (Scientific Software International, n.d.). In evaluating model fit,
chi-square test and fit indices of root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI) and goodness-of-fit index (GFI)
were utilised. A non-statistically significant chi-square test indicates that ob-
served covariance matrix and the reproduced implied covariance matrix fit
to each other (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). Another fit index related to
residuals is RMSEA. RMSEA values less than 0.05 is interpreted as very
good fit and values less than 0.10 as good fit to the data (Kelloway, 1998).
CFI is used to assess comparative fit. CFI values of greater than 0.90 indi-
cate good model fit (Netemeyer et al., 2003). GFI is a measure of amount
of variance and covariance in the observed matrix accounted for by
reproduced matrix, and GFI value close to 0.95 indicates good model fit
(Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). The results indicated that the proposed
model fits to the data. The chi-square test was not statistically significant
(
2
=26.740, df=24, p=0.317). Fit indices are given in Table 6.
According to the parameter estimates, class size was a significant and a
negative predictor of the value teachers give to homework (=0.22)
which means that teachers are likely to give less value to homework if the
class size is large. Findings suggested that the model explained 4.77 per
cent of the variance in the value variable. Furthermore, there was a signifi-
cant and positive relationship between the value given to homework and
communication with parents (=0.23). This finding implies that teachers
who give more value to homework are more likely to communicate with
parents about homework. The model accounted for 5.11 per cent of the
variance in communication with parents. Communication with parents sig-
nificantly and positively predicted students' homework completion rates
(=0.33). The value placed on homework did not have a direct effect
on the homework completion rate but its influence is mediated through
Table 6 Fit indices

2
df p GFI CFI RMSEA SRMR
26.740 24 0.317 0.968 0.990 0.016 0.060
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
58
communication with parents. The model was able to account for 10.6 per
cent of the variance in the homework completion rates. On the other hand,
neither class size nor the value teachers place on homework was a significant
predictor of how frequently homework is given. In summary, the model re-
veals relationships among class size, the value teachers give to homework,
teacher communication with parents about homework and homework com-
pletion rate of students. Teachers seem to attach more value to homework
(i.e. think that doing homework is important and useful in helping students
to learn, and also beneficial for students in areas that are not part of the
science course), if the class size is small. The more value teachers attach to
homework, the more frequently they inform parents about their child's
homework completion and talk to parents who intervene too much in
child's homework. Furthermore, teacher communication with parents
seems to facilitate student homework completion.
Discussion
The present study examined Turkish middle school science teachers' percep-
tions and self-reported practices regarding homework. The teachers
reported assigning homework frequently with the majority of the teachers
assigning homework either once a week or at the end of every lesson. With
respect to students' homework completion rates; slightly more than three
quarters of the teachers (76.6 per cent) reported that 2575 per cent of the
students in their classes did homework regularly and only a few teachers
(N=4) reported that all of the students in their classes did homework regu-
larly. Since a positive correlation was found between completion of home-
work and students' achievement in the relevant literature (Cooper et al.,
1998), our findings point to a need for encouraging students to do their
homework regularly.
Additionally, the results revealed that science teachers tended to assign a
variety of homework types without focusing on a single specific type of
homework. The most frequently assigned homework types were problem
solving and research homework while making summaries and memorizing
information/formulas were the least preferred homework types. This find-
ing is promising because over-reliance on particular types of assignments
may limit the benefit students get from doing homework and may also neg-
atively influence their beliefs about school learning. If a teacher continu-
ously assigns homework that requires students to memorize information,
the students may think that homework is all about memorization. On the
other hand students should not be lead to think that every piece of home-
work requires creativity (Corno, 2000). Thus, it is recommended that dif-
ferent types of homework be assigned. Furthermore, the participants
reported assigning homework which is done individually more than that re-
quiring group work. Yet, doing homework in groups contributes to the stu-
dents' understanding of the material (Aladag and Dogu, 2009). However,
some group homework may require parents' availability and it may be
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
59
difficult for parents to find time due to work commitments (Reetz, 1990).
Considering feasibility of group homework, teachers may assign more
group homework.
The teachers' answers to reasons for giving homework revealed that they
assign homework mainly to help students learn the subject matter (e.g. to
make students apply the information and skills learned in the class) and de-
velop study skills (e.g. to improve students' time management skills). In ad-
dition, teachers also gave homework to prepare students for the next topic
and to inform parents how well their child is doing. Homework is an im-
portant tool to involve parents in the school process (Cooper, 1989).
Homework provides parents with opportunity to involve in their child's
learning actively, helps parents understand educational program and helps
parents monitor their child's progress in the subject (Turkish Ministry of
National Education, 2006). Muhlenbruck et al. (2000) suggested that ele-
mentary school teachers give homework mainly with the aim of developing
study skills such as time management while secondary school teachers more
focus on homework's contribution to the students' comprehension of the
material. According to our results, Turkish middle school science teachers
appear to be concerned with improving both their students' skill and
knowledge. Turkish teachers' concern for homework's contribution to com-
prehension of the subject matter may stem from the nation-wide exam that
students take at the end of middle school. Students' scores in this exam de-
termine whether students will enrol in a prestigious high school or a regular
high school. Therefore, it is not unexpected to find that teachers assign
homework with the purpose of knowledge acquisition besides skill develop-
ment in middle grades in Turkey. In further studies, we suggest comparison
of teachers' reasons for assigning homework in countries where high stake
exams are held and not held at the end of middle school years. These
exams may include various conceptual questions and presence of nation-
wide examinations may lead teachers to assign homework which is subject
matter focused. On the other hand, in the absence of such examinations,
teachers may be more concerned with developing study skills in their stu-
dents and assign homework accordingly.
In addition, the results revealed that participants placed high value on
homework. The majority of the science teachers thought that homework
was useful and important in that it helped students learn science concepts
and was beneficial for other courses and for daily life, as well. This result is
consistent with Cooper et al. (1998)'s findings, which indicated that
teachers held positive attitudes towards homework and that teachers be-
lieved in the positive effects of homework in helping students to learn, to
develop study skills and time management, and also that homework con-
tributed to students' interest in school.
Moreover, structural equation modelling results revealed that class size
was a negative predictor of the value teachers placed on homework
which means that teachers seemed to give less value to homework in
large classes. It might not be feasible to follow up on homework, to go
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
60
over each student's homework or to provide feedback in crowded classes,
and thus teachers may find homework less effective. However, further re-
search is needed to explain the underlying reasons for this relationship.
The SEM findings also indicated that teachers who placed more value on
homework also talked to parents who intervened in their child's home-
work and they informed parents about students' completion of their
homework in parent meetings. This positive relationship between value
and communication with parents was expected because attitudes are im-
portant determinants of how individuals behave (Kraus, 1995). Teachers
who believed that homework helped students learn the subject matter
and prepared them for daily life also informed parents about their child's
homework practices and how to provide proper help. Therefore, it is im-
portant that in-service and pre-service teacher education programs instil
positive attitudes in teachers towards homework. The results further re-
vealed that communication with parents positively predicted the propor-
tion of students who complete homework regularly. This relationship was
also expected because teachers' communication may lead parents to be
more interested in their child's homework and provide proper help. Get-
ting proper help from parents on homework helps students develop self-
regulatory skills such as prioritizing tasks and time management (Corno,
2000). Keith et al. (1993) found that parental involvement in students'
homework strongly predicts the time students spend on homework.
Therefore, as a result of parent involvement, students may show persever-
ance and spend more time while doing homework, which may explain
higher rates of homework completion. In order to increase parental in-
volvement, the present study revealed the importance of teacher commu-
nication with parents about their child's homework. On the other hand,
in the model neither class size nor the value placed on homework was a
significant predictor of the frequency that teachers assigned homework.
Further research is needed to investigate the impact of different variables
on teachers' homework assignment frequency.
In addition, according to the descriptive findings, more than half of the
participants (58.8 per cent) thought that they had not been given sufficient
pre-service training in effective homework and only a small percent of
teachers (12.0 per cent) took in-service education in homework. We suggest
that in-service and pre-service teacher education programs should incorpo-
rate homework in their programs and should train teachers how to be more
effective in homework practices (e.g. how to manage homework in large
classes). Based on the findings of the study, we suggest these programs to
focus on the positive effects of homework on students' learning and the de-
velopment of study skills so that teachers may place more value on home-
work and develop more positive attitudes towards homework. The more
value teachers attach to homework, the more frequently they communicate
with parents about their child's homework. If teachers ask parents to be in-
volved in their child's homework, parents are more likely to be involved
than they are not asked (Balli et al., 1998). However, it is important that
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
61
parents should provide proper help with their child's homework (Xu, 2004)
and should not cause instructional confusions (Cooper, 1989) as parental
homework support was positively related to academic outcomes (i.e. school
grades, general academic self-concept, and attitudes to school work) whereas
parental homework interference was negatively related to the academic out-
comes (Dumont et al., 2012). Teachers should guide parents how to provide
proper help in child's homework (Xu, 2004). Parents should not behave as
instructional experts or overly involve in homework beyond tutoring, but
parents should be prompted to create suitable home environment and assist
to facilitate students' homework completion (Cooper, 1989). Teacher train-
ing on how to communicate with parents about assisting children with their
homework is an important issue for teacher education programs to consider.
In conclusion, much is still to be revealed about teachers' homework
practice and its relation to student outcomes. The main conclusions and
recommendations which result from the current study are as follows. The
rate of students in science classes that completes homework was low. Sci-
ence teachers and parents may thus encourage students to do their home-
work by communicating the importance of doing homework. Although
science teachers reported to assign various types of homework such as
problem solving and research, they were less tended to assign group home-
work; most of the time they assigned homework done individually.
Teachers may also try to give group homework which is suggested to be
contributing to students' learning (Aladag and Dogu, 2009). When reasons
for assigning homework were examined, it was seen that Turkish middle
school science teachers were concerned with improving both students' skill
and knowledge through homework. We suggested that Turkish teachers
may be concerned with enhancing students' knowledge acquisition through
homework due to the central examination students take at the end of the
middle school. In further studies, we suggest comparing teachers' reasons
for giving homework who teach in the presence and absence of such high
stake examinations from different countries. Another finding of the present
study was that class size negatively predicted the value teachers attach to
homework. As an extension of this study it would be desirable to investi-
gate if teachers had difficulties in large classes such as doing homework
follow-up and checking students' homework. Due to those difficulties in
large classes, teachers may find homework less effective and place less value
on homework. Moreover, the present study revealed that teachers who at-
tached more value to homework communicated better with parents about
their child's homework which in turn found to be positively related to pro-
portion of students who complete homework regularly. Therefore, the pres-
ent study points to the benefits that when teachers value homework, they
are more predisposed towards communicating with parents about home-
work. It is important for in-service and pre-service teacher education pro-
grams to instil positive attitudes towards homework. Furthermore, teacher
education programs can train teachers to have more effective communication
with parents about homework and how to involve parents in their child's
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
62
homework in a proper way, such as being not interfering but supporting their
child's homework process. Teachers can be trained how to communicate
those homework involvement strategies with parents more effectively. Fur-
ther research is needed to illuminate these issues and to evaluate effectiveness
of such trainings.
References
Aladag, C. and Dogu, S. (2009), The Evaluation of Homeworks Which Are Given
at Secondary School According to Students Views, Selcuk Universitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 21, 1523.
Balli, S. T., Demo, D. H. and Wedman, J. F. (1998), Family Involvement With
Children's Homework: An Intervention in the Middle Grades, Family Relations,
47, 14957.
Cooper, H. (1989), Synthesis of Research on Homework, Educational Leadership,
November, 8591.
Cooper, H. (2007), The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for
Administrators, Teachers, and Parents (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. L., Nye, B. and Greathouse, S. (1998), Relationships
Among Attitudes About Homework, Amount of Homework Assigned and
Completed, and Student Achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
7083.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. G. and Patall, E. A. (2006), Does Homework Improve
Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 19872003, Review of
Educational Research, 76, 162.
Cooper, H. and Valentine, J. C. (2001), Using Research to Answer Practical
Questions About Homework, Educational Psychologist, 36, 14353.
Corno, L. (2000), Looking at Homework Differently, The Elementary School
Journal, 100, 52948.
Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P. and Ioannides, C. (2003), Reading About Energy: The
Effects of Text Structure in Science Learning and Conceptual Change,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 33556.
Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Neumann, M., Niggli, A. and Schnyder, I.
(2012), Does Parental Homework Involvement Mediate the Relationship
Between Family Background and Educational Outcomes?, Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 37, 5569.
Ehrenberg, R. G., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A. and Willms, J. D. (2001), Does Class
Size Matter?, Scientific American, 285 (5), 7885.
Elawar, M. C. and Corno, L. (1985), A Factorial Experiment in Teachers' Written
Feedback on Student Homework: Changing Teacher Behavior a Little Rather
Than a Lot, Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 16273.
Epstein, J. L. and Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001), More Than Minutes: Teachers' Roles
in Designing Homework, Educational Psychologist, 36, 18193.
Ersoy, A. and Anagun, S. S. (2009), Elementary School teachers' Views About
Homework Process in Science and Technology Course, Necatibey Faculty of
Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3 (1), 5879.
Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. (2006), How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education (6th Ed.), New York, NY: McGrawhill.
Hatcher, L. and Stepanski, E. J. (1994), A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS
System for Univariate and Multivariate Statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M.
and Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental Involvement in Homework, Educational
Psychologist, 36, 195209.
A
s
t
u
d
y
o
f
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
'
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
63
Jreskog, K. G. and Srbom, D. (2007), LISREL 8.80. Scientific Software
International.
Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. S. and Singh, K.
(1993), Does Parental Involvement Affect Eight-Grade Student Achievement?
Structural Analysis of National Data, School Psychology Review, 22, 47496.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A
Researcher's Guide, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kraus, S. J. (1995), Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of
the Empirical Research, Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 5875.
Muhlenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B. and Lindsay, J. J. (2000), Homework and
Achievement: Explaining the Different Strengths of Relation at the Elementary
and Secondary School Levels, Social Psychology of Education, 3, 295317.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O. and Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues
and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pinarbasi, T., Canpolat, N., Bayrakceken, S. and Geban, O. (2006), An Investigation
of Effectiveness of Conceptual Change Text-Oriented Instruction on Students'
Understanding of Solution Concept, Research in Science Education, 36, 31335.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T. and McKeachie, W. J. (1991), A Manual for
the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National
Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan.
Pomeroy, D. (1993), Implications of Teachers' Beliefs About the Nature of Science:
Comparison of the Beliefs of Scientist, Secondary Science Teachers, and
Elementary Teachers, Science Education, 77, 26178.
Ramdass, D. and Zimmerman, B. (2011), Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The
Important Role of Homework, Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 194-218.
Reetz, L. J. (1990), Parental Perceptions of Homework, Rural Educator, 12, 14-19.
Schumacker, R.E., and Lomax, R.G. (2004), A Beginner's Guide to Structural
Equation Modeling (2nd Ed.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scientific Software International (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ssicentral.com/
lisrel/.
Sidhu, G. K. and Fook, C. Y. (2010), Organization of Homework: Malaysian
teachers' Practices and Perspectives, Research Journal of International Studies, 13,
63-78.
Stoeger, H. and Ziegler, A. (2008), Evaluation of a Classroom Based Training to
Improve Self-Regulation in Time Management Tasks During Homework Activities
with Fourth Graders, Metacognition and Learning, 3, 20730.
Turkish Ministry of National Education (2006), Ilkogretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi
(6, 7 ve 8. Siniflar) Ogretim Programi [Elementary School Science and Technology
Course (Grade 6, 7, and 8) Curriculum]. Ankara.
Xu, J. (2004), Family Help and Homework Management in Urban and Rural
Secondary Schools, Teachers College Record, 106, 17861803.
Xu, J. (2008), Validation of Scores on the Homework Management Scale for
Middle School Students, Elementary School Journal, 109, 8295.
Address for correspondence
Yasemin Tas, Department of Elementary Education, Middle East Technical Uni-
versity, Dumlupinar Boulevard, No: 1, 06800 ankaya/Ankara, Turkey. E-mail:
tasyase@gmail.com
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
9
1
64