Homework: At Home or at School?—Attitudes of Teachers, Parents and the General Public: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the attitudes of three influential groups toward homework: parents, teachers and the public. Specifically, attitudes toward reducing and eliminating homework, as well as creating alternatives to conventional homework, are examined. The first hypothesis is that the attitude of teachers and parents toward homework is positive, whereas that of the public is negative, in line with the Israeli Ministry of Education that suggests changing homework policies. Another hypothesis is that there is a correlation between the seniority of teachers and their attitudes toward homework—the greater the seniority, the more negative the attitude. Finally, the effect of various background variables of teachers (class grade and subject area: sciences or humanities) and parents (age of parents, number of children in the family and child birth-order) on their attitudes toward homework is examined. The first research hypothesis was confirmed—most teachers and parents are supportive of homework, whereas the public is the least supportive. In addition, the public is the most supportive of changing homework policies, parents are less supportive, and teachers are the least supportive. No correlation was found between the seniority of teachers and their attitudes toward homework. Finally, background variables have no effect on attitudes toward homework. According to these findings, the public is not yet ready to completely forgo homework, which has been so widely used and accepted. The desire to change the traditional homework policy exists, but the concept that homework is essential remains.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".