International Education Studies; Vol. 10, No.

10; 2017
ISSN 1913-9020 E-ISSN 1913-9039
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Views of Students, Parents, and Teachers on Homework in Elementary

School
Nitza Davidovitch1 & Roman Yavich1
1
Ariel University, Israel
Correspondence: Roman Yavich, Ariel University, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: April 26, 2017 Accepted: May 29, 2017 Online Published: September 28, 2017
doi:10.5539/ies.v10n10p90 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n10p90

Abstract
The current study seeks to examine the perception of the three main populations that have a part in the
educational and pedagogic domain: teachers, parents, and elementary school students, while comparing between
religious and secular schools. The major hypothesis of the study is that teachers, parents, and students do not
have congruent views on the aims and effectiveness of homework. Another hypothesis was that differences
would be found between parents’ views of homework by religiosity. In addition, a negative association will be
found between the teacher’s years on the job and attitude towards homework assignment–such that the more
years of experience the more negative their attitudes towards homework assignment. Finally, differences will be
found in the respondents’ views on homework assignment by the school’s geographic location. The research
findings show that the first hypothesis was partially confirmed. Teachers are the most positive about homework,
followed by students and finally parents. The confirmation was only partial, as the hypothesis was that students’
views would be the least supportive. The second hypothesis was not confirmed, as no significant differences
were found between the views of religious and secular parents on homework. The findings concerning the third
hypothesis found a significant negative correlation; such that the more experienced the teacher the more negative
his or her attitude to homework, confirming the hypothesis. The conclusions of this study indicate that the
homework format is in dispute and there is no consensus on this topic. It appears, at times, that it may be
customary to act by force of habit in formal education, as in other areas. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct
further research on the subject and to explore whether there is a need for change in the educational world,
following the many changes that society has undergone over the years.
Keywords: congruent, effectiveness, elementary school, homework
1. Introduction
Homework is an inseparable part of the contemporary educational environment, a common educational activity
in many cultures and varied study levels (Xu & Yuan, 2003). In the past, homework was not done during school
hours, rather given to students as an assignment to complete at home in their spare time. When a decision was
made to extend the school day, homework was officially integrated in the school curriculum. In other words, at
present homework is not necessarily completed at home (Rawson, Stahovich, & Mayer, 2017).
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. These tasks can be performed within the
school environment (in the school library, in a study center, or in class), but to begin with these are tasks that
students complete at home, in a time and space of their own choice” (Oshrat et al., 2007). According to Butler
(1987), a more universal definition of homework describes it as time that students spend outside the classroom in
activities allocated for the training, enhancement, and implementation of knowledge, as well as learning new
capabilities involved in independent research (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007).
Epstein (2001) developed a typology that explains the reason for assigning homework. Among the major reasons:
practicing skills taught in class, ensuring the student’s readiness for the next lesson, encouraging active
participation in the discipline studied, developing personal responsibility, study capabilities, maintaining a time
frame, self-confidence, and personal sense of achievement. In addition, homework encourages collaborative
learning, teamwork, developing positive thinking about studies, communication with parents, and their inclusion
in the study process. Public relations too are a reason for allocating homework, and signify the strict standards of
the school. Its purpose is to reflect the sincerity of the school and to meet the expectations and policy of the

90
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

school district. At times, homework is given as a penalty for bad behavior, but it is important to note that
assigning homework as a penalty is normally considered improper (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007).
The rationale of homework is divided into three general aims: the first and most central aim reported by teachers
is to enhance students’ academic achievements by practicing. The second speaks of improving motivation and
self-regulation among students, thus imparting to them capabilities such as personal responsibility. The third aim
concerns the establishment of a positive relationship between the school and the home, as homework informs
parents of the contents taught at school, promotes communication on school-related subjects, and generates
standards and expectations (Trautwein, Niggli, Schnyder, & Ludtke, 2009).
Many studies have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of assigning homework. Some say that
homework has immediate benefits for students, such as improving their grades, their performance at school, and
their approach to their studies. There are also long-term benefits such as time management and problem solving
that will assist students not only at school but further on in life. According to other studies, homework provides
extra practice and produces time in which students are involved in studying after school hours. Many believe that
homework widens one’s horizons, as well as preparing students for life and for dealing with the complexities of a
competitive world (Davidovitch, Yavich, & Druckman, 2016).
Others may say that this is a solution that enables the system to cope with a dense curriculum, modifying the
pressure and letting teachers teach more material while confident that the students are practicing the contents
taught in their free time, an asset mainly for teachers (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007). A common argument is that
doing homework reinforces one’s self-confidence, creates autonomous learning, and provides an opportunity to
practice delaying gratification (Cooper, Steenbergen-Hu, & Dent, 2012). According to the self-definition theory
and the social-cognitive theory, the mere fact that homework is the student’s exclusive responsibility leads to a
rise in motivation and in the student’s efforts to complete the tasks, due to a sense of commitment and
accountability (Trautwein et al., 2009).
Despite the many advantages of assigning homework and of its positive impact on the student, there are
disadvantages to this issue as well. Homework has been found to cause, among other things, physical and mental
fatigue, a sense of frustration and anxiety, and no time left for leisure and family activities, causing family
conflicts and problems (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007). In addition, homework may lead in a certain respect to a
deficient teacher-student relationship, when it is used as a penalty or, alternately, “too much” homework that
overburdens the student (Cooper et al., 2012). Teachers tend to begin class with a type of “policing”, aimed at
checking who completed the assignments and who did not, often causing students to look for reasons to avoid
school and sometimes even to develop physical symptoms such as nausea and stomach aches as a result of the
anxiety related to not having completed their tasks (Fleischer & Ohel, 1974). The pressure to complete the tasks
might lead students to cheat and to copy from their peers, and might even cause parents to do their children’s
homework for them, cancelling out any practice effect that homework may have (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007).
Another no less significant disadvantage is widening the academic gap in class, as not all students have the
objective means and conditions to do their homework (for example, a computer at home). These students will not
manage to meet teachers’ requirements and the gap between those students who have more resources and those
who encounter difficulties will only worsen (Fleischer & Ohel, 1974, Regueiro, Suárez, Valle, Núñez, & Rosário,
2015).
Hence, the issue of homework is variegated, and for this reason there are different opinions as to the meaning
ascribed to it, mainly belonging to three main figures in the educational process: teachers, parents, and students.
In light of the information provided above, the current study will deal with how homework is perceived by these
three figures. In addition, the study will examine these differences in a secular school located in a kibbutz in
southern Israel and in a religious school located in a town in central Israel. Notably, no extensive research
literature was found on the differences between the attitudes of parents, teachers, and students on homework in
secular and religious schools, and the current study will attempt to answer this question (Fernández-Alonso,
Suárez-Álvarez, & Muñiz, 2014).
Previous findings on this issue indicate that students harbor certain concerns with regard to grading homework
by teachers, leading to a sense of tension and worry. These students will probably be inclined to cheat and will
try to avoid using deep strategies of cognitive processing. Some students do not like to talk about school with
their parents and feel tense when doing their homework with them. Nonetheless, it was found that when a
teacher provides positive feedback on assignments and encourages students, the student’s attitude to the
academic assignments improves and motivation to make an effort and do homework rises (Alanne & Macgregor,
2007).

91
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

Some students relate that homework helps them better understand the material taught in class and serves for
them as a type of review that summarizes that which was learnt previously (Zu & Yuan, 2003). A study that
examined differences between students from an urban school and students from a rural school explored whether
the student’s achievements and the location of the school affected homework management strategies (such as
time management, work environment, coping with distractions, regulating motivation, and control of negative
feelings). Students from the urban school were found to report higher self-motivation with regard to homework
and learning strategies than students from the rural school. The main reason for this, according to the article, is
that students who live in a city are more oriented towards higher academic studies than students who live in the
country (Xu, 2009).
Furthermore, parents see supervision of preparing homework as their main responsibility with regard to instilling
education and seeing that their children study (Fleischer & Ohel, 1974). Moreover, they believe that homework
keeps them abreast of the curriculum and increases their involvement in their children’s life, as well as
reinforcing parent-school communications (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007). Some parents are of the opinion that
when a teacher gives his or her students homework consistently, this shows concern for their studies and
indicates an effort on the teacher’s part (Xu & Yuan, 2003). Then again, sometimes parents feel that they are not
secure enough in their knowledge to help their children with homework, and that they need more direction from
the teacher in order to help adequately. Some parents think that homework is given mainly to keep the children
busy and has no real significance, and a large proportion have doubts as to the quantity of homework their
children receive (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007). This leads to the conclusion that homework might generate
negative feelings among parents and students due to the heavy load, as well as harming certain aspects of family
life.
Other findings show that teachers, students, and parents all perceive homework as a much more significant tool
than merely an assignment given the students by the educational staff, to be carried out after school. Homework
is perceived as one of the main indicators attesting to the student’s success at school. Students and parents
perceive homework as a measure of the quality of the school and teachers, i.e., the more the teacher is persistent
about homework, the better the school and the teaching staff. Homework is described by parents and students as
a positive activity that helps them stay out of trouble after school. In an interview, a teacher said that in his
opinion homework causes students to determine the course of their studies on their own and to manage their time
and energy as they see fit (Xu & Yuan, 2003). Elementary school teachers perceive homework as a valuable tool
that teaches children self-regulation and time management (Trautwein et al., 2009). From a wide perspective,
homework can be said to be a burden for the figures involved in the educational process. The tasks also require
the students to invest much time and energy. They sometimes cause failures and arguments, generating a cloud
that may overhang the parent-child relationship. Moreover, homework is a burden for the teacher and requires
time to prepare and check (Trauwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, & Niggli, 2006). On the other hand, more positive
aspects that contribute to the student both on the personal level and on the academic level are also described
above. Among the parents as well, despite the sense of difficulty that frequently emerges, in the long term they
usually see that home assignments are to the benefit of the children. Teachers believe that homework has clear
consequences that have personal and educational value for the students.
Parents have a not inconsiderable part in the coping and challenges experienced by students at school, and more
specifically in the process of preparing homework. Cheung and Pomerantz (2012) demonstrate how when
children receive parental direction and guidance they benefit from a “motivation boost” on the academic level.
One of the explanations for this contention is that the mere fact that the parents are involved in their children’s
learning process gives the children high motivation at school, in an attempt to prove to their parents that they are
responsible and thus obtain their approval. In fact, it may be said that the children’s commitment increases and
thus enhances their achievements. In addition, significance is ascribed to the parent’s centrality in the child’s life.
The child’s relationship with his or her parents is usually the most basic relationship in life. Therefore, this type
of motivation might give the child a feeling of having a meaningful goal and that he or she is contributing to
realizing the goals of the major figures in his or her life (the parents). As part of the socialization process,
children internalize the parents’ goals and begin to see them as a personal value in their independent life, and this
transforms the motivation generated by the parent, designated “controlled motivation”, to more autonomous
motivation controlled by the child and his or her own values (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2012).
However, parent involvement in the learning process is a two-edged sword. Yitzhak Friedman, in his article “The
school-parents relationship in Israel” (2011) presents the “closed door” approach, which reflects the attitude of
principals and teachers to parent involvement in the learning process. This approach claims that teachers and
parents have separate roles. Many Israeli teachers report that the damage incurred by parent involvement is

92
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

greater than the benefits. The educational staff feels constantly criticized by the parents on professional issues,
and sometimes their involvement might cause the teachers to feel that they are losing some of their authority.
Fleisher and Ohel (1974) explain that sometimes when preparing homework the parent criticizes the teacher and
harms the teacher’s authority as perceived by the child. In fact, sometimes parents do not know how to help with
the educational process; they did not receive professional training in the study disciplines and are not sufficiently
objective towards their children due to personal feelings. As a result, they might damage their children’s
educational process.
In contrast, the “open door” approach is a complete opposite and claims that many of the basic educational
processes occur outside the school (among the family, peers, and neighborhood). The family is a source of
motivation, and this fact requires very close contact between the school and the community and family. Notably,
the motivation provided by the parent is less significant for elementary school students than for high school
students, since elementary school students have motivation and interest in their studies, versus early teens who
often lose interest in their studies in favor of other area of their life (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2012).
Some findings show that parent involvement reduces pressure on the teachers, provides emotional and mental
support, and diminishes their burnout process. A good relationship with the parents raises teachers’ self-efficacy.
Including the parents in the educational process leads to setting shared goals and modifying the alienation
between educational institutions and society (Friedman, 2011). In conclusion, there are two dimensions on this
matter – parent involvement arouses heated discussion with regard to the educational process undergone by
school children.
As noted here, coping within the school encompasses complicated challenges for all those involved in the
learning process. In Israel, one innovative technique devised to handle the educational procedure and increase its
efficacy is the New Horizon reform. In 2007, assimilation of this reform began in the schools. Its main focus is
changing the employment terms of Israel’s teachers, including among other things expanding teachers’ work
hours and teaching in small groups. Following this change, the teachers receive a significant pay rise. The
purpose of teaching in small groups is to strengthen both weaker and stronger students, to encourage the
integration of new immigrants, to add enrichment studies, and more. In this way, the teacher can follow the
child’s progress on a more personal level, establish a personal and compelling relationship with the student, and
realize his or her educational initiatives. Furthermore, direct individual teaching can lead to excessive exposure
of the teacher versus the student and can be perceived by the teacher as threatening his or her authority and
abilities, after previously become accustomed to teaching in a certain manner. This type of teaching requires a
great deal of work that might overburden the teacher (Cohen, 2011). Thus, it is possible to conclude that this type
of reform affects all those involved in the learning process, by creating motivation and the wish to succeed in a
cyclic and reciprocal manner.
Nonetheless, the fact that today, in the era of computerization and media, technology occupies a considerable
place in the school and environment and with regard to preparing homework, cannot be disregarded. Sarah
Gruper, author of “Technology in the service of pedagogy” (2010), posits that technology does not create a new
educational discipline rather enhances the study experience and effectiveness of studies. The internet affords an
approach to endless information sources that assist learning and teaching. Visual aids such as presentations and
short films facilitate the student’s understanding and clearly demonstrate processes that are hard to grasp
theoretically. The internet environment increases interest and varies learning for students, as well as helping
teachers with technical aspects such as saving and distributing lesson plans, and varying the traditional teaching
methods.
An article that explored students’ views on use of the internet found that they perceive its use for preparing
homework as simple, convenient, and interesting, as well as sharing the student’s work burden. When asked
about using books and encyclopedias, the students described these as boring and awkward. Nonetheless, when
learning for tests and writing papers, students utilize mainly books because they are considered more “serious”
than internet sources. In this context, teachers were found to be slightly reserved about preparing homework
using the internet, but normally they do not actively object (Kolikant, 2010).
The amazing innovative product called the internet also encompasses difficulties and disadvantages in the form
of technical problems in class or at home, dependency on means such as computers, electricity, and internet, the
need to become familiar with a new system, etc. For teachers, for instance, the transition from traditional
educational methods to innovative education in the form of technology is not always easy. One of the major
factors that affect the assimilation of technology at school is the teacher. Studies indicate that the teacher’s views,
perceptions, abilities, and beliefs concerning the digital environment and the teacher’s role in teaching within

93
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

this environment, are crucial factors that affect the integration of technology in the school environment. Harris
and Hofer (2009, in Peled & Magen-Nagar, 2012) indicate that teachers with positive views have the best
command of the digital environment. The better the teacher’s command the lower his or her concerns of change
(Peled & Magen-Nagar, 2012).
A study that compared novice and experienced teachers in using telecommunications in teaching found that the
two groups of teachers expressed interest in using telecommunications, defined it as an intriguing and innovative
tool, and were of the opinion that using it enables professional development and raising students’ motivation.
However, teachers from both groups did not see the added value of peer learning, since it is not possible to know
what each of the students contributed and learned (Shamir-Inbal & Kelly, 2007). Hence, it is evident that the
teachers’ manner of thinking, observation, openness, and practice with regard to teaching methods and in
particular to homework are definitely related to the student’s increasing effort to succeed and to feel more
comfortable when working on assignments, as indicated by the research (Trautwein, Niggli, Schnyder & Ludtke,
2007).
In conclusion, the research literature indicates that the homework domain consists of many varied aspects,
including parent involvement in the learning process, technological innovativeness, and the varied opinions of all
those who participate in it. For this reason, the current study strives to examine the difference between the views
of major figures in the educational process (teachers, parents, and students) with regard to homework in
elementary school. In addition, the study shall explore these differences while comparing between a secular and
a religious school. In the current study, the main hypothesis is that parents, teachers, and students will have
different perceptions of the aims and effectiveness of homework. The study posits that the students will feel that
homework is more of a burden than an asset, teachers will perceive homework as a major manner of applying the
material studied and as most effective, and parents will express an ambivalent view, i.e., will see both positive
and less positive dimensions of homework.
Beyond this general hypothesis, there are three secondary hypotheses that will also be explored: First,
differences will be found between the religious and secular population of parents with regard to their attitudes to
homework. Second, differences will be found in the views of respondents to homework assignment by school
and geographic location. And finally, the teacher’s number of years on the job will affect his or her opinion on
homework assignments – teachers with more years on the job will display a more negative attitude towards
homework assignment.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
The research population consisted of three groups: elementary school students (grades 5-6), the students’ parents,
and the students’ teachers. The study was conducted in two different schools, religious and secular, in two
different habitats – a town in central Israel and a kibbutz in southern Israel.
The sample included a total of 181 respondents. These included 110 students (55 from the religious school, 55
from the secular school), constituting 60.8% of the total sample, 36 parents (18 from a religious town, 18 from a
secular kibbutz) constituting 19.9% of the total sample, and 35 teachers (18 from the religious school, 17 from
the secular school), constituting 19.3% of the total sample. Among the teachers, 54.3% were homeroom teachers,
17.1% subject teachers, and 28.6% both. The teachers’ number of years on the job ranged from one to 36 years
(M=13.7, SD=10.57).
Age range: 5th-6th grade students (aged 10-12), parents and teachers with an age range of 25-65. An attempt was
made to create a balance between respondents from the two populations (the religious school and the secular
school).
2.2 Tools
A closed and structured questionnaire was used with the students, parents, and teachers, a different questionnaire
for each population. The questionnaire included one closed part with structured questions and a second part with
open-ended questions. An informed consent form was employed in the questionnaires distributed to the teachers
and parents. An informed consent form of parents/guardians was employed for minors participating in the study.
Since the study included both a closed questionnaire and an open-ended questionnaire, an in-depth analysis was
carried out, which resulted in two types of results: quantitative and qualitative.
2.2.1 Quantitative Questionnaires:
• The students’ questionnaire comprised 26 statements, with an internal consistency of a=0.81.

94
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

• The parents’ questionnaire comprised 18 statements, with an internal consistency of a=0.78.

• The teachers’ questionnaire comprised 19 statements, with an internal consistency of a=0.72.
2.2.2 Qualitative Research
In this subchapter, various content worlds were constructed based on the respondents’ answers to the open-ended
questions in the questionnaire.
Among the students, the content worlds formed were: negative feelings about homework, positive feelings about
homework, encroachment on free time and vacations, sense of burden and difficulties, and homework as a form
of punishment.
Among the parents, the content worlds formed were: helping the child with homework, motivating the child to
prepare homework, the parent’s degree of involvement, and general comments.
Among the teachers, the content worlds were based on the main ideas in the open-ended questions: how
homework is assigned, main subjects in which homework is assigned, coping with not preparing homework,
effectiveness of homework, effect of technology, parent involvement, involvement and role of the teacher,
reforms in education, and the efficacy of homework.
2.3 Procedure
At first, the researchers visited the elementary schools in each residential area in person. After the students had
completed the questionnaire, all copies were collected. Then, in the teachers’ lounge, the researchers interviewed
mainly the homeroom teachers and subject teachers of the same classes. Interviews with the parents were
conducted by telephone or in a personal encounter. The researchers managed to obtain 181 participants who
cooperated and completed the questionnaire, however problems were encountered with finding respondents in
the parent and teacher population, as explained in the discussion chapter. The research procedure took
approximately 3 months.
For data processing, SPSS software was used to analyze statistical data. The initial research hypothesis was
examined based on the findings of the qualitative part, the second hypothesis was examined by a t-test for
independent samples, the third hypothesis was examined with Pearson’s correlation, and the fourth and last
hypothesis was examined with a series of t-tests for independent samples.
3. Results
3.1 Quantitative Analysis
For descriptive data of the research variables see Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the research variables (N=181)

Variables M SD Minimum Maximum Original scale
Teachers’ attitudes towards homework (n=35)
General measure 3.39 0.45 2.47 4.58 1-5
Technology measure 2.84 0.33 1 5 1-5
Measure of aims and benefits of homework 3.50 0.14 2.40 4.60 1-5
Measure of disadvantages of homework 3.50 0.29 1 5 1-5
Students’ attitudes towards homework (n=11)
General measure 2.59 0.38 1.68 3.52 1-4
Measure of aims and benefits of homework 2.40 0.15 1.14 3.86 1-4
Parents’ attitudes towards homework (n=36)
General measure 2.34 0.44 1.61 3.39 1-4
Measure of aims and benefits of homework 2.50 0.22 1.25 3.75 1-4
Measure of parent involvement 2.25 0.18 1.50 3.33 1-4

This table shows that, with regard to the general measures, the parents’ score was the lowest (M=2.34), followed
by the mean among the students (M=2.59), and the mean among the teachers was the highest (M=3.39). It is
evident that a homogeneous data distribution was received for the three groups (SD=0.38-0.45), namely, the
rankings were similar within each group. With regard to the specific measures, it is evident that means located
slightly above the relevant scales were received for all the subgroups (parents, teachers, and students), with
homogeneous data distributions.

95
ies.ccsenet.org Internationnal Education Stuudies V
Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

3.1.1 Findings for the Reesearch Hypottheses

The first reesearch hypothhesis posited tthat differences would be fouund in the percceptions of teaachers, parents, and
students w
with regard to homework.
h Duue to the researrch design, it w was not possibble to examine the significance of
the differeences, but Tabble 1 shows thhe following ttrend: teacherss’ attitudes weere the most ppositive (M=3 3.39),
followed bby students’ atttitudes (M=2.559), and finallly parents’ (M= =2.34). Thereffore, the researrch hypothesiss was
only partiaally confirmedd – as it was poosited that studdents’ attitudes would be the lowest of all subgroups. Nottably,
the findinggs of these hyppotheses weree analyzed maiinly from a quualitative persppective and theerefore they ca an be
found in thhe qualitative results
r subchappter below.
The seconnd research hyypothesis positted that differeences would bbe found betw ween parents inn attitudes tow wards
homeworkk by religiosityy of the responndents (religiouus/secular). Foor this purpose, a t-test for inndependent sam
mples
was held. T
The findings are
a presented inn Table 2.

Table 2. MMeans and staandard deviatiions of attituddes towards asssigning homeework by religgiosity, among
g the
parents (N
N=36)
Religious Secular t(34) p Cohhen’s d
M SD M SD
Parents’ attituudes towards homeework assignmentt 2.26 0.34 2.43 0.52 -1.15 n.s

This table shows that noo significant diffferences weree found in attittudes towards hhomework bettween religious and
secular parrents (t(34)=-1.115, n.s). Thereefore, the seconnd research hyypothesis was nnot confirmed.
The third rresearch hypotthesis posited tthat a negativee correlation w
would be foundd between the tteachers’ numb ber of
years on thhe job and theiir attitude towaards homeworrk assignment – such that thee more years oon the job, the more
negative wwould be the attitude
a reporteed. In order too examine thiss hypothesis, a Pearson’s coorrelation was held.
Compatiblle with the hyypothesis, the findings show wed a significcant negative correlation wiith medium power
(r=.-.381, pp<.05), such thhat the more yyears on the jobb the more neggative the teaccher’s attitude ttowards homework
(see Figuree 1).

Figure 11. Linear correelation betweenn the teacher’ss number of yeears on the job and attitude toowards assigning
hhomework

The fourthh research hyppothesis positeed that differennces would bee found in resppondents’ attittudes to homework
assignmennt, by the schoool’s geographhic location. IIn order to exxamine this hyypothesis, a sseries of t-testts for

96
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

independent samples was held. For the findings see Table 3.

Table 3. Means and standards deviations of attitudes towards assigning homework by place of residence/school
(N=35)
Religious school (N=18) Secular school (n=17) t p Cohen’s d
M SD M SD
Parents’ attitudes towards homework assignment 2.26 0.35 2.43 0.52 1.151 n.s -0.39
Teachers’ attitudes towards homework assignment 3.58 0.39 3.19 0.43 -2.762 <.001 0.95
Students’ attitudes towards homework assignment 2.51 0.38 2.67 0.36 2.263 <.05 -0.43
1
df=34; 2df=32.17; 3df=107.6

This table shows that significant differences were found in teachers’ attitudes towards homework (t(32.17)=-2.76,
p<.001), such that those teaching at the religious school (M=3.58, SD=0.39) were found to have more positive
attitudes towards homework than those teaching at the secular school (M=3.19, SD=0.43). This finding has a
strong effect size (Cohen’s d=0.95). Moreover, significant differences were found in attitudes towards homework
among students (t(107.6)=2.26, p<.05), such that those studying at the religious school (M=2.51, SD=0.38) were
found to have more negative attitudes towards homework than students at the secular school (M=2.67, SD=0.36).
This finding has a medium effect size (Cohen’s d=0.43). No significant differences were found between parents’
attitudes towards homework assignment (t(34)=1.15, n.s). Hence, in light of all the above, it is possible to see that
the fourth research hypothesis was partially confirmed (see Figure 2).

3.5

3 Kramim-Elkana

2.5 Maale Shacharut -

Kibbutz Yahel
2

1.5
Teachers Students

Figure 2. Differences in positive attitudes towards homework assignment, by school

3.2 Results–Qualitative Analysis

The purpose of the open-ended part of the questionnaires was to expand understanding of the research topic by
turning attention to the experiential-subjective perceptions of the respondents. The questions posed to the
interviewees were intended to examine their personal perceptions of the significance and aims of homework, in
various different contexts to be presented below. Three different questionnaires were administered to three
different populations: parents, teachers, and students, divided by two area of residence: a religious school in the
town of Elkana and a secular school in Kibbutz Yahel, in order to form a comparison between a secular school
and a religious school. Due to the fact that the research design included an independent variable on three levels –
i.e., the type of population: parents, teachers, and students - content analysis of the interviews generated a large
number of themes.
Analysis of the qualitative findings included collecting the respondents’ answers to the open-ended questions,
followed by categorization and classification of those answers that had similar general content and that served to
focus the findings. Finally, frequencies were calculated for each population and its findings.
3.2.1 Population of Students
The open-ended part of the students’ questionnaire was presented at the end of the closed questionnaire as a

97
ies.ccsenet.org Internationnal Education Stuudies V
Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

rubric in w
which they couuld share their opinions on hhomework. In tthe first stage,, the main issuues that arose in the
responses were identified and categoriized and in thee second stage the frequenciees of the studennts’ responses were
checked. TTable 4 presentts the categoriees raised by thhe students in tthe open-endedd part – “I havee something ellse to
say about hhomework”.

Table 4. Thhe categories raised

r by the students in the open-ended paart of the questtionnaire
Category Quotes from students at the religious scchool Quotes ffrom students at thhe secular school
“I hate homework, and would prefer thaat there was none!!!”
“Theere is no need forr that annoying thhing –
Negative feelings (Responndent 25)
hom
mework.” (Responddent 103)
about homeework “I think that it’s unnecessary and there is noo need for homew
work”
“Borring and unnecesssary” (Respondentt 94)
(Responndent 53)
“I reallyy like homework” (Respondent 12)
Positive feelings
“Homew
work is always som
mething good” (R
Respondent 9)
about homeework
“Homew
work teaches a lot”” (Respondent 1)
W) is worth nothhing and comes at the
“(HW
expeense of the tim
me we have to enjoy
ourselves” (Respondeent 101) “I think tthat it is preferablee to add school hours (long days) insstead
“It’ss extremely annoyying, simply a waaste of of homeework. I think thatt when we’re at hhome we can afford to
Encroachm
ment on
timee at home after sschool…” (Respoondent forget aabout school for the moment andd separate home from
free tim
me and
88) school” (Respondent 34)
vacations
“In my
m opinion the teaachers shouldn’t bburden “I don’t like to do homewoork, because it takkes lots of my free time
us with
w homework on vacations, because then and timee for playing at hoome” (Respondentt 6)
we spend all our time on homew
work”
(Resspondent 65
metimes HW is excessive, whenn they
“Som “Homew
work are an impoortant part of my learning process, but
assiggn worksheets theey’re very long inn math there is often no balancee and then there are periods when
n no
Sense of buurden and
and bible”
b (Respondennt 73) homewoork is assigned annd others in whichh we are overburdened
difficulties
“Wee’re given tooo much homew
work” with lotss of homework” (R
Respondent 38)
(Resspondent 105) “We aree constantly given homework” (Resppondent 41
metimes there aree students in classs who
“Som
Homework as a form “Sometimes certain studeents get more hom
mework because they
don’’t do their homew
work and then the entire
of punishmeent were dissorderly, and it’s nnot fair” (Responddent 49)
classs is punished” (Reespondent 59)

Figure 3, bbelow, is com

mprised of two parts. Each ppart represents a different scchool and residdential area. In
n the
secular schhool, 29 studeents (52.7%) answered the open-ended ppart of the quuestionnaire, annd in the relig gious
school 33 students answered the open--ended part of the questionnaaire (60%). Thhe figure indicaates the frequencies
of notablee categories prresented in Taable 4. The pproportions refflect the numbber of times eeach category was
mentionedd.

Kram
mim Sc
chool Maale S
M Shacharrut
Schhool
Burden
19% Burrden
27% 17%
Negative
feelings 28%
27% Infringemennt 25
5% Neggative
27% on free time
e
31% fee
elings
General
comments

Figure 33. Frequencies of categories rraised by studeent

98
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

These data indicate five main categories that reflect the opinions and feelings of students with regard to
homework. In both schools there were many negative feelings, such as boredom with homework, nervousness,
agreement that homework is unnecessary and unimportant, and more. Homework is often perceived by the
students as a burden and a waste of time. Moreover, students in both schools agree that homework encroaches on
their free time after school (time for playing with friends, quality time with parents, etc.). In both schools it was
evident that homework is also used as a form of punishment. There is a difference between the schools in the
category of positive feelings about homework, with students from the religious school expressing no positive
feelings at all, while students at the secular school shared perceived benefits of homework.
3.2.2 Population of Parents
For this population, the qualitative analysis was performed as follows: In the first stage, as for all respondents,
the answers of respondents who replied to the open-ended questions were gathered. In the second stage, main
categories were identified based on the open-ended questions. Finally, the frequencies of the parents’ responses
were examined. The open-ended part of the questionnaire took the form of a personal interview that included 3
open-ended questions and an option of comments. Table 5 below presents the categories related to the responses
of the students’ parents:

Table 5. The categories related to the responses of the students’ parents

Category Quotes from parents of students at the religious school Quotes from parents of students at the secular school
“Very little, I believe that homework is for the student
“A few minutes if at all” (Respondent 174)
Helping the child with and not for the parents” (Respondent 149)
“Twenty to thirty minutes a day” (Respondent 170)
homework “An hour and a half a day” (Respondent 157)
“One hour” (Respondent 173)
“Fifteen minutes a day” (Respondent 156)
“Definitely urge him. It is important that he not fall
behind in the material studied and review the material.
“Yes, homework is mandatory – that’s just the way it
I try to sit with him and explain things he does not
is” (Respondent 154)
understand” (Respondent 182)
“I don’t urge my child, he’s responsible for it”
Motivating the child to do “Apply slight pressure (on the children) that the
(Respondent 150)
homework responsibility is their’s and that they will have to cope
“Encouragement, support, explaining the significance,
with the consequences at school if they do not do it
quality time together, sense of humor” (Respondent
(homework)” (Respondent 165)
153)
“Ask if there is any (homework), but no more than
that” (Respondent 171)
“We are involved. We receive (information) once
“I am not involved and I don’t try to intervene… my every two weeks from the homeroom teacher and the
Involvement of the parent,
daughter is herself critical” (Respondent 152) children – they summarize the studied material in
influence and agreement
“I am involved and I agree with the material studied school and are very happy” (Respondent 168)
with the material studied
“ (Respondent 158) “I am only involved when the teacher asks me to be”
(Respondent 165)
“HW is important for expanding knowledge and
“In my opinion learning should occur only at school”
learning of papers submitted, reviewing the material”
(Respondent 179)
(Respondent 155)
“I don’t think that doing HW is essential or necessary
General comments “In my opinion there is not enough HW and it is a pity
at my children’s young age. It only applies pressure
and it is certainly necessary in order to develop
and makes her feel less valued when she doesn’t
independent learning beyond that studied in class. And
manage to do it” (Respondent 167)
it hardly happens” (Respondent 151)

Figure 4 below is comprised of two parts. Each part represents a different residential area. Ninety five percent of
parents at a secular school on a kibbutz and 77.8% of parents at a religious school in a town answered the
open-ended part of the questionnaire. The figure indicates the frequencies of notable categories presented in
Table 5. The percentages reflect the number of times each category was mentioned.

99
ies.ccsenet.org Internationnal Education Stuudies V
Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

Parentts - Elk
kana
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
Lo
ow
20.00%
10.00% M
Medium
0.00% High
Helping the Motivating Parents'
child with the child to involvementt
homework do
homework

Figure 4. Frrequencies of ccategories geneerated by respoonses of students’ parents - E

Elkana

Parrents - Kibbuttz Yahel

50.00%
40.00%
30.00% Lo
ow
20.00% Me
edium
10.00% High
0.00%
Helping thhe Motivatting the P
Parents'
child with
h child to do invvolvement
homeworrk home ework

Fiigure 5. Frequuencies of categgories generatted by responsees of students’ parents – Kibbbutz Yahel

The abovee data indicatee four categories that reflect the parents’ oopinion on hom mework. Withh regard to the time
invested inn preparing homework withh the child, itt seems that qquite similarlyy in both residdential areas, some s
parents invvest no time ata all and givee their childrenn the message that it is theirr own responssibility, while other
parents invvest a great deeal of time in ppreparing hom mework with thheir children aand see it as a shared task. In the
category oof “motivatingg the child to do homeworkk” as well, theere are heteroggeneous answeers and there is no
overarchinng trend in a certain directionn. Some parennts urge their cchildren to work hard in variious creative ways, w
while otheers do not stresss this at all. Inn the third cateegory, it is clear that most paarents (in bothh populations) have
no influennce and controol over the maaterial studiedd, some are m more involved in the contentts of the education
provided aand some less,, and most agrree with the m material studiedd. The generall comments shhow that paren nts of
students att the religious school perceivve homework as an importannt and essentiaal condition annd a substantiall part
of the learrning process. Parents of thee students at thhe secular schhool, in contrasst, feel that hoomework should be
done in schhool, is not veery essential, annd even causess at times negaative feelings aamong the studdents. Furtherm more,
the figure indicates a geeneral trend shhowing that thhe parents at tthe religious school display more involvement
than at thee secular schoool, which is com mpatible with the findings off the general ccomments stateed above.
3.2.3 Popuulation of Teacchers
For this poopulation, the qualitative anaalysis was sim
milar to that of the parents’ reesponses. In thhe first stage, as
a for
all responndents, the ansswers of respoondents who replied to thee open-ended questions werre gathered. In n the
second staage, main categgories based oon the open-ended questions were identifieed. Finally, thee frequencies of o the

100
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

teachers’ responses were examined. The open-ended part of the questionnaire took the form of a personal
interview that consisted of 9 open-ended questions and an option for comments. The following is Table 6, which
presents the categories and the sample statements, quoting the population of teachers.

Table 6. The categories and the sample statements, quoting the population of teachers
Category Quotes from teachers at the religious school Quotes from teachers at the secular school
“Varied – computer, workbook, notebook. “…I give assignments on the computer or in the
Assigned in person” (Respondent 118) textbook. Explanations are given in person”
Way of assigning the
“Different ways, they usually involve a workbook (Respondent 137)
homework
and a notebook. There are also assignments using “(HW) is given in a workbook and in a notebook, in
electronic media” (Respondent 115) person” (Respondent 139)
“Core subjects: math, English, language, and
Main area in which homework Bible” (Respondent 127) “Math, English, written comprehension”
is assigned “Religious subjects, math, English” (Respondent (Respondent 132)
111)
“If homework is assigned, you must devote time to
“You check, you inform the parents. Sometimes checking it. A student who does not fulfill the
punishments – detention or copying out a certain assignment shall have to complete it by the next
Checking and coping with
chapter” (Respondent 122) lesson” (Respondent 137)
students who did not do their
“…Usually you check. You give a possibility of “I always check homework, if I would not check I
homework
completing. If it is repetitive – the parents are would not assign. Anyone who does not complete the
involved” (Respondent 117) homework remains for extra hours to complete it and
the parents are updated” (Respondent 138)
“Homework also helps the children revise,
“Homework is mainly intended to reinforce
particularly those who struggle. In addition, it gets the
learning habits and to review. Some subjects are
The effectiveness of the parents involved…” (Respondent 129)
beneficial and some less” (Respondent 124)
homework “Homework has almost no benefits. If there is a
“Less beneficial, there are innovative methods, for
project you can give homework but the best learning
example research papers” (Respondent 116)
is performed in class” (Respondent 139)
“At first the children were enthusiastic about doing
“…I am adamantly opposed to a class Whatsapp
homework online, but now it’s already less
group – I update my students in class and the parents
challenging because it’s more common”
by e-mail” (Respondent 129)
Effect of technology (Respondent 127)
“There is an impact, the computer and the Hevruta
“The children like to do it on the computer –
make the students learn and do more” (Respondent
progress leads to enjoyment. Less routine…”
135
(Respondent 122)
“The parents are involved, in my opinion too “Intervention is necessary. In my class there is
much” (Respondent 118) intervention if the parent has any difficulty he
Parent involvement in
“The parents intervene, each case is different. contacts me by telephone” (Respondent 132)
academic aspects
Some are too involved and some should be more “There is no parent intervention and in my opinion
involved” (Respondent 124) that is as it should be” (Respondent 136)
“It is necessary to work together: child, parent, and
teacher” (Respondent 127) “It is the teacher’s responsibility to teach and to help
“It is the parents’ responsibility. The teacher can’t the student overcome the difficulties and provide him
Involvement and the teacher’s
reach every student with difficulties. Even due to with appropriate tools and strategies” (Respondent
role – who is responsible for
the number of students. It is possible to provide 132)
helping a student who
support to several students” (Respondent 122) “It is obviously the teacher’s responsibility to explain
encounters difficulties?
“It is the teacher’s responsibility, but it is also and to improve the student’s achievements”
necessary to include the parents and ask for their (Respondent 136)
involvement”

101
ies.ccsenet.org Internationnal Education Stuudies V
Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

“There is the Ofek Hadash prrogram, its purposse is to

m exists and enablles students who aare
“The program
mic gaps, to suppoort, and to nurture
close academ e. I see
interested inn doing so too complete theeir
no reason to do homew
work in these hours”
h
Reform in eeducation – Ofekk homework” ((Respondent 111)
(Respondennt 137)
Hadash “In our schhool the individuual hours are nnot
“We have the Ofek Hadaash, and I allow
w the
intended for completing homework” (Respondeent
possibility oof completing hoomework” (Respo
ondent
126)
132)
“Regretfullyy, I see no change in the aim
ms of
“Important – promotes review and helps advance”
homework. Teachers still uuse it as a mea
ans of
(Respondent 121)
completing study material thaat they did not com
mplete
“The aims of homework hhave not changeed,
Aims and effi
ficacy of homeworkk in class” (Reespondent 137)
homework iss important. The child reviews hhis
“There is deefinitely a changee - for the good. In my
studies. Noot to overload but to assignn”
opinion chiildren should noot always be asssigned
(Respondent 122)
homework – only in specific ccases” (Responden
nt 139)

Figures 5-10 below pressent the frequeencies of the m

most notable caategories preseented in Table 6. The percentages
reflect thee number of tiimes each cateegory was meentioned. At thhe secular schhool 17 teacheers participated, of
whom 10 answered thee open-ended part of the qquestionnaire ((58.8%). At tthe religious sschool 18 teac chers
participateed, of whom 144 answered thee open-ended ppart of the queestionnaire (77.8%).
Figures 6-11: The frequeencies of the m
most notable caategories preseented in Table 66.

Wa
ay of as
ssignin
ng
homewwork
Catego
ory 1

100.00%
% Only
workbook/n
noteb
50.00%
%
ook
0.00%
%
Workbook/n
note
book and
computer

Figure 6. Frequenciees of categoriess–main subjectts

Main s
subjectts
Cate
egory 2

100.00%
80.00%
Math
h
60.00%
40.00% Lang
guage
20.00% English
0.00% Relig
gious
Kramim Maale
Shacharu
ut

Figure 7. Freqquencies of cattegories–way oof assigning hoomework

102
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

How effective is homework

Category 4

70.00%
60.00% Very effective
50.00%
40.00% Partially
30.00% effective
20.00% Not at all
10.00% effective
0.00%
Kramim Maale
Shacharut

Figure 8. Frequencies of categories–homework preparing

How do you cope with students

who don't prepare homework
Category 3
60.00%
50.00% Inform the
parents
40.00%
30.00% Complete before
school/long
20.00% day/recess
10.00% Complete by
next lesson
0.00%
Kramim Maale
Shacharut

Figure 9. Frequencies of categories–homework effectiveness

103
ies.ccsenet.org Internationnal Education Stuudies V
Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

Figure 10. P
Parent’s involvvement

Te
eacher's involvement - who is
respo
onsible forr helping the student?
C
Category 7
100.00%

80.00%

60.00% Teaacher's
responsibili
ty
40.00%
Parrent's
responsibili
20.00%
ty

0.00%
Kramim Maale Sh
hacharut
Figure 11. Teeacher’s involvvement

The data ccited above gennerated nine categories (in T

Table 6), from which it is poossible to learnn about the fee
elings
of the teacchers, while coomparing between the schoolls.
In the firstt category, wheere they were aasked about hoow homework is given, theree is a great sim
milarity betwee
en the
schools. AAccording to thhe reports, hommework is usually assigned iin varied wayss, using a workkbook, a noteb book,
and assignnments on the computer.
c
In the seccond category, which presennts the main aareas in whichh homework iis assigned, thhere is a simillarity
between thhe groups. Moost of the hom mework is in thhe subjects off: math, languaage (or Hebreww), and Englissh. A
difference between the schools in thiss category waas assigning hoomework in B Bible (or religiious studies) at
a the
religious sschool, reinforccing its characcterization as a religious schoool.
The third ccategory preseents the teacherrs’ reports on cchecking homeework and deaaling with studdents who do not do
their homeework. Most of o the teachers, in both schoools, indeed check whether thhe students haave completed their
assignmennts. With regarrd to dealing wwith non-comppliance, variouus penalties aree usually emplloyed – including a
conversation with the paarents, detentioon after school, a reprimand, etc.

104
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

The fourth category examined the effectiveness of homework as perceived by the teachers and, in general, it
appears that the teachers perceive homework as an important aspect, both with regard to reviewing and learning
the material and with regard to supporting the student and including the parents in the study process after school.
The fifth category referred to the query whether technology influences the academic process – Most of the
teachers at the religious school were in favor of technology, claiming that doing homework on the computer is
enjoyable and increases the students’ motivation. In contrast, in the secular school the responses were more
diverse, some of the teachers felt that technology has no contribution and others felt that there is more
compliance with preparing homework when the assignment employs electronic means.
The sixth category examined the topic of parent involvement in the academic aspect. It appears that at the
religious school the feelings were uniform – there is a certain involvement of the parents and there is an
emphasis on the need for involvement, but there must also be a certain balance, namely the involvement should
not be too extreme. At the secular school the reports were not uniform – some claimed that parent involvement is
important, and others that it is completely unnecessary and the parents are responsible for the educational aspect
alone. In this category an interesting finding manifested in the figures was that in the religious school the
teachers encourage and think that parent involvement is necessary while at the secular school the large majority
of teachers do not think that there is an essential need for parent involvement in the academic field.
The seventh category, which refers to opinions on the teacher’s responsibility for students who need extra
support, shows that in the secular school there was a relatively firm opinion concerning the fact that the teacher
is the student’s main conspicuous aide, unlike in the religious school, where a division was evident between the
teacher, the parent, and the cooperation between them.
The eighth category refers to the Ofek Hadash reform and indicated that the program operates in both schools
and in both the main aim is not to do homework rather to provide students with extra and individual teaching.
The ninth and final category speaks of the aims and efficacy of homework in a more general way, and indicates
that in both schools similarly there are those who think that homework is very beneficial and it promotes review
and learning, and of course also those who think that homework is only a way for the teacher to complete
material that he did not reach in class.
4. Conclusion and Discussion
In the professional literature, homework and its aims have been studied extensively from many different
perspectives. The purpose of the current study was to examine the main idea of homework and how it is
perceived by 3 main populations: parents, teachers, and students, when these populations come from two
different schools: a religious school and a secular school. The findings concerning the main hypothesis of our
study are manifested particularly in the qualitative results part, to which several more specific hypotheses are
added and their findings presented in the quantitative results part.
According to the findings of the qualitative part, the first and main hypothesis that teachers, parents, and students
will not have congruent views of the aims of homework was confirmed. In other words, they have different
perceptions of homework and all its various aspects.
A. The hypothesis was that teachers would perceive homework as a major way of implementing the study
material and as very effective. This secondary hypothesis was partially confirmed. Some teachers perceived
homework as a way of reviewing, studying, and revising the material and in their opinion this is an
essential part of the learning process. In contrast, other teachers thought that today there are more
innovative ways of learning and reviewing the material and homework does not have to be the major and
only way of learning. These two opinions represent the difference between teachers from the different
schools: Teachers from the religious school strongly believe in assigning homework and in its significance,
versus teachers from the school school who believe that there are many different ways of learning aside
from assigning homework, and that learning should take place in the classroom and not during students’
leisure time. This finding is not compatible with the research literature, as in most of the studies in the
literature review the teachers mostly displayed positive attitudes towards homework (Xu & Yuan, 2003),
and if there were any “complaints” these referred to the burden created by the need to check homework
rather than to criticism of ways of learning and review of the material.
B. The study hypothesized that parents would be ambivalent on the issue of homework, i.e., would see both
positive and less positive aspects of this topic. Accordingly, it may be seen that some parents invest time
and urge their child to prepare their homework, but say that in their opinion homework is not a significant

105
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

need. Similarly but contrarily, it is evident that some parents invest time and do not urge their child, but
think that homework is meaningful and should be emphasized. Compatible with the research literature, it
seems that on one hand parents believe that homework indicates the student’s success at school and this is
the reason for its great significance (Xu & Yuan, 2003), but at the same time many parents feel that
homework is given mainly to keep the children busy with no real significance, and a large proportion have
queries as to the quantity of homework assigned to their children (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007). A
conspicuous difference observed between the various residential areas is that in the religious school in the
town of Elkana homework is perceived by the parents as a meaningful part of their children’s learning
process, while in the secular school in Kibbutz Yahel homework is perceived as more marginal.
C. The study hypothesized that the students would feel that homework is more of a burden than an asset, and
accordingly, in both schools, feelings of burden, nervousness, and encroachment on one’s spare time, were
described. These results are compatible with a study from 2007, which found that homework causes
students feelings of frustration and anxiety, physical and mental fatigue, and taking time from leisure and
family activities (Alanne & Macgregor, 2007). When comparing students from the two schools, students
from the religious school expressed no positive feelings at all towards homework, while students from the
secular school shared perceived advantages of homework. This leads to the conclusion that these students
manage to see the full picture and maybe have a slightly more mature view, and so simultaneously grasp
both the advantages and disadvantages of homework. This finding is compatible with the findings of Xu
and Yan (2003), which present students’ positive attitudes towards homework, claiming that these help
them better understand the study material and serve as another summarizing review of the material.
This hypothesis can also be explained in statistical terms that appeared in the quantitative part. The findings
show that the teachers’ attitude is the most positive, followed by the students’ attitude, and finally the parents’
attitudes. Thus, it is possible to see that there are indeed differences between the groups but the research
hypothesis was nonetheless only partially confirmed, as it posited that the students’ attitudes would be the lowest
of all the subgroups.
Hence, there is an essential difference between the perceptions of parents, teachers, and students on homework.
Each group relates to the topic from its own personal perspective, leading to the differences. One possible
explanation is that teachers see homework assignment from a professional point of view, while students and
parents report their feelings from a more personal point of view. The differences between the age and period of
life of each group of respondents also explain the difference: Students are at the beginning of adolescence, when
the peer group is at the center of their attention and they are naturally less interested in homework and studies
and therefore often perceive school as more oppressive than constructive. The parents express an ambivalent
attitude because on the one hand they want to share and be close to their children’s feelings, but on the other they
see the educational and academic process from a mature and experienced point of view and understand its
significance. The teachers’ perspective derives from a more professional place and therefore they are often in
favor of assigning homework but also offer alternatives for improving the study process. Another conspicuous
explanation is the residential area and religiosity of each group, which can certainly explain the difference
between the groups. Education and the academic atmosphere may be said to affect the perceptions of each group
of respondents by virtue of their differences, and this is further explained below under the secondary hypothesis
in the quantitative part.
4.1 Findings of the Quantitative Research
The second hypothesis posited that differences would be found in the respondents’ attitudes by school and
residential area with regard to assigning homework, such that at the secular school the attitude towards
homework would be more negative than at the religious school.
A. Among the teachers: Teachers at the religious school were found to have more positive attitudes towards
homework than teachers at the secular school. This finding confirms the research hypothesis.
B. Among the students: Students at the religious school have more negative attitudes towards homework than
students at the secular school. This finding contradicts the research hypothesis.
This shows that the above research hypothesis was partially confirmed. A study conducted with students on this
topic shows that students from an urban school reported higher self-motivation in all aspects related to learning
strategies and homework than students from a rural school. The main reason, according to the study, is that
students raised in the city are more oriented towards higher education in academia than students raised in the
country (Xu, 2009). In the current study, unlike the previous findings, it was the students who live in a town in
central Israel, with a spirit more closely affiliated with urban conduct that in the kibbutz, who expressed more

106
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

negative attitudes. A possible explanation is that the typical atmosphere in an Israeli kibbutz is usually more free
and open, leading to the conclusion that the atmosphere at school and at home is the same, and therefore there is
less sense of pressure than a place with an urban atmosphere. Furthermore, the findings of the qualitative
research showed that parent involvement in the secular school is very low compared to the religious school, and
as a result students in the secular school may feel less pressure from their parents and feel that the attitude to
homework is less restrictive and up to them.
4.2 Additional findings
The third hypothesis posited that the teacher’s number of years on the job would affect his or her opinion on
assigning homework. The research hypothesis was that teachers with more years on the job would have a more
negative attitude to assigning homework, and this hypothesis was confirmed. This hypothesis is considered a
general hypothesis, since no research literature was found to refer to the comparison between teachers with more
years on the job and novice teachers with regard to assigning homework. The answer to this finding may be
located in teachers’ perceived burnout. Namely, due to the fact that teachers feel fatigue and a heavy burden that
accumulate over the years, and homework takes time and energy, therefore they ascribe mainly negative feelings
to these assignments.
4.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
This study uncovered several limitations that might affect its results. First, the manner in which the
questionnaires administered to the respondents were worded precluded varied statistical analysis and limited the
researchers’ ability to examine differences between the groups. As a result, an in-depth qualitative analysis was
conducted, but this is nonetheless a limitation that constitutes a disadvantage of this study, and in the future it
would be advisable to use more suitable questionnaires for conducting comparisons and checking inter-group
differences.
Second, cooperation with the respondents was also a limitation. The population of teachers and parents was not
sufficiently accessible, and when cooperation was formed there was a feeling that insufficient efforts were put
into answering the questions. This fact might detract from the quality of the study and responses to the
questionnaires.
Another limitation was encountered is the wording of the research hypothesis. This is because the research
literature is very sparse with regard to studies on homework that compare different sectors (religious-secular)
and different residential areas (kibbutz – urban town). The fact that the teacher and parent population was not
equally divided gender-wise in responses to the questionnaires, and that it was very hard to locate male teachers,
might also be detrimental to the research results. In further studies it would be advisable to try and form a
balance between the sexes in order to avoid gender bias and to cancel this factor as an intervening factor.
The researchers recommend that a further study be conducted on this topic, taking into account the research
limitations, as it is a fundamental central topic in the educational process of the children and in the development
of the future generation. It would be interesting to examine homework from a perspective of “then and now” and
to understand how the educational process can be improved and made more efficient, as well as whether the
homework method is still constructive and efficient or should new methods be devised. Another suggestion is to
conduct a comparative study between the familiar homework method and more innovative methods developed.
In addition, the differences between the efficacy of homework in elementary school, junior high school, and high
school can be examined – to understand whether there are ages in which it is more or less effective. Furthermore,
there are dozens of suggestions for this type of research and it is important to continue studying such a central
topic in our life.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mor Atia and Lee Shimony, undergraduate students of social sciences at Ariel
University, for their assistance in the data collection for this study.
References
Alanne, N., & Macgregor, R. (2007). Homework: The upsides and downsides–towards an effective policy and
practice in Australian schools.
Cheung, C. S. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’ involvement enhance children’s achievement?
The role of parent-oriented motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 820.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027183
Cohen, S. (2011). Teachers’ Compliance with Change: Factors that Motivate Teachers to Join the “Ofek Hadash”

107
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 10; 2017

Reform in Israel. Jerusalem: School of Public Policy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Cooper, H., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Dent, A. (2012). Homework. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, A. G. Bus,
S. Major, & H. L. Swanson (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 3: Application to learning
and teaching (pp. 475-495). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/13275-019
Davidovitch, N., Yavich, R., & Druckman, E. (2016). Don’t throw out paper and pens yet: on the reading habits
of students. Journal of International Education Research, 12(4), 129-144.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v12i4.9799
Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz J. (2014). Homework and academic performance in
mathematics: a multilevel approach with Primary school students. Rev. Psicol. Education, 9, 15-29.
Fleisher, G. & Ohel, S. (1974). Homework in the elementary school: Limitations and hazards. In A. Cohen (Ed.),
Studies in Education (pp. 159-166). Haifa University. [Hebrew]
Friedman, Y. (2011). The school-parents relationship in Israel. Studies in Educational Administration and
Organization, 32, 237-267. [Hebrew]
Gruper, S. (2010). Technology in the service of pedagogy. Eureka, 30, 1-7. [Hebrew]
Kolikant, B. D. Y. (2010). Students’ attitudes towards use of the Internet after school hours for school assigments.
In Y. Eshet-Alakalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri, & Y. Yair (Eds.), The Learning Person in the
Technological Era (pp. 32-37). Raanana: Open University. [Hebrew]
Peled, B., & Magen-Nagar, N. (2012). Characteristics of teachers in a compuer-based school environment.
Teaching and Learning in the Internet Era, 14, 157-189. [Hebrew]
Power, T. J., Watkins, M. W., Mautone, J. A., Walcott, C. M., Coutts, M. J., & Sheridan, S. M. (2015). Examining
the validity of the Homework Performance Questionnaire: Multi-informant assessment in elementary and
middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 260. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000081
Rawson, K., Stahovich, T F., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Homework and achievement: Using smart pen technology
to find the connection. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 208-219.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000130
Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., & Rosário P. (2015). Homework motivation and engagement
throughout compulsory education. Rev. Psicodidáctica, 20, 47-63.
https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.12641
Shamir-Inbal, T., & Kelly, Y. (2007). Computer-based teaching–A way of life or a burden on the teacher?
Characterizing the extremes of teacher’s computer-based practice. In Y. Eshet-Alakalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden,
N. Geri, & Y. Yair (Eds.), The Learning Person in the Technological Era (pp. 174-180). Open University.
[Hebrew]
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a
domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 438.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438
Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., & Ludtke, O. (2009). Between-teacher differences in homework
assignments and the development of students’ homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176
Xu, J. (2009). School location, student achievement, and homework management reported by middle school
students. School Community Journal, 19(2), 27.
Xu, J., & Yuan, R. (2003). Doing homework: Listening to students’, parents’, and teachers’ voices in one urban
middle school community. School Community Journal, 13(2), 25-44.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

108