Views of Students, Parents, and Teachers on Homework in Elementary School
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".