University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations 5-1-2014 Teachers' Beliefs and Practices Regarding Homework: An Examination of the Cognitive Domain Embedded in Third Grade Mathematics Homework Pandora Dell Bedford University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.edu/etd Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, and the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Bedford, Pandora Dell, "Teachers' Beliefs and Practices Regarding Homework: An Examination of the Cognitive Domain Embedded in Third Grade Mathematics Homework" (2014). Theses and Dissertations.edu/etd/450 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact open-access@uwm.
TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND PRACTICES REGARDING HOMEWORK: AN EXAMINATION OF THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN EMBEDDED IN THIRD GRADE MATHEMATICS HOMEWORK by Pandora D. Bedford A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Education at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee May 2014 ABSTRACT TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND PRACTICES REGARDING HOMEWORK: AN EXAMINATION OF THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN EMBEDDED IN THIRD GRADE MATHEMATICS HOMEWORK by Pandora D. Bedford The University of Wisconsin –Milwaukee, 2014 Under the Supervision of Professor DeAnn Huinker The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain a better understanding of third grade math teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding homework, to explain how teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding homework aligned to the framework of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Domain, and to determine the administrative influences on homework practices. The data were collected during October and November 2013.
Six third grade math teachers (primary unit of analysis) and four principals (secondary unit of analysis) were interviewed from Dell School District. Each participant (teacher and principal) was interviewed for approximately one hour. A second meeting was set at a later time with the teachers. This second meeting was arranged in order to ask additional questions based on the interviewees' responses from the initial interview and also to collect homework samples.
The follow-up meetings varied between 10 to 15 minutes. The interview transcripts were then transcribed. The data were analyzed to determine the themes: teachers’ beliefs and practices of homework, alignment of homework items to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, and administrative influences on homework. ii Three major themes emerged regarding teachers’ beliefs about homework—extra repetition of practice, connection between home and school, and building responsibility.
Four major themes related to teachers’ homework practices were found— quantity of homework, type of homework, source of homework, and differentiation of homework. Overall, the majority of homework items, across all cognitive domain levels, were aligned to a low category (remembering, 68%); however, there were some variations among the distributions of homework. In comparing what teachers espoused about homework practices and what was actually assigned, the majority were aligned. Four major themes emerged from the principals’ comments—school-wide expectations for homework, complaints about homework, principals’ beliefs and value about homework, and cognitive domain of homework.
The four major findings of the study included: homework was used primarily for low-level practice, more so than high-level thinking; teachers’ homework practices were not part of the principals’ leadership agenda, because principals took a “hands-off approach” to homework; teachers assigned low-level homework with little attention to Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive domain, because this allowed students to be successful and responsible for completing their homework and; homework was a lost art, because principals did not utilize the opportunity to talk with teachers about using homework more effectively to promote students’ learning; therefore, teachers continued implementing their same homework practices from the past. iii ©Copyright by Pandora D. Bedford, 2014 All Rights Reserved iv DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! I also dedicate my accomplishment to my parents (Mary and Mason Bullock), family, and friends. They have encouraged and motivated me to stay the course and complete this major milestone in my life.
I hope to inspire my nieces, nephews, cousins, sisters, brothers, friends, and colleagues to embrace the LOVE for LEARNING! With God, all things are possible! v TABLES OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Dedication v Table of Contents vi Appendices x List of Figures xi List of Tables xii Acknowledgements xiii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Rationale and Significance of the Study 3 Research Questions 3 Definitions and Terms 4 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 7 Homework: Review of Literature 9 History of Homework 9 Purpose of Homework 13 Positive and Negative Effects of Homework 14 Effective Use of Homework 18 Quality of Homework 20 Types of Homework 21 Teachers’ Beliefs and Views of Homework 23 Administrators’ Beliefs and Views of Homework 25 Theoretical Framework: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 26 Original Bloom’s Taxonomy 27 Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Domain 30 Reasons for the Revision 31 Bloom’s Taxonomy and Revised Bloom’s Critics 32 Bloom’s Taxonomy in the Classroom 33 Research Gaps 34 Chapter 3: Methods 35 Research Questions 35 Qualitative Research Design 36 Participants 38 Dell School District 38 vi Schools 38 Macy Elementary School 40 Hilltop School 40 Boston Street School 41 Hope Avenue School 41 Principals 42 Teachers 42 Recruitment of Participants 42 Principal Recruitment 42 Teacher Recruitment 43 Procedures 46 Interviews 46 Collection of Homework 47 Interview Protocol 48 Data Sources 50 Interview Transcriptions 50 Homework Assignments 51 Homework Log 51 Documentation of Text from E-mail Messages 52 Field Notes 52 Data Analysis 53 Creswell’s Data Analysis Spiral 53 Interpretative Analysis 54 Content Analysis 55 Constant Comparison Analysis 56 Trustworthiness 58 Cross Checking 59 Power Relations 60 Inter-rater Reliability 61 Subjectivity and Bias 63 Limitations of the Study 64 Length of the Study 65 Chapter 4: Findings: Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices 67 Participants 67 Ms. Garrison 72 Summary of Participants 73 Teachers’ Beliefs about Homework 77 Extra Repetition of Practice 77 vii Connection Between Home and School 79 Building Responsibility 82 Teachers’ Homework Practices 84 Quantity of Homework 84 Type of Homework 87 Source of Homework 90 Differentiation of Homework 93 Summary 96 Chapter 5: Findings: Alignment of Homework to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 97 Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy: The Cognitive Domain 98 Cognitive Domain Level of Assigned Homework 99 Distribution of Homework Items 99 Young 100 Garrison 102 Yates 104 Mapp 105 Williams 108 Allen 110 Comparing Two Teachers in One School 111 Allen and Young 112 Williams and Yates 112 Comparing Teachers’ Espoused Homework Practices to Actual Practice 112 Summary 114 Chapter 6: Findings: Administrative Influence 115 School Principals 115 Mrs. Strong: Principal at Macy Elementary School 115 Mr. Cummings: Principal at Hilltop School 116 Mr.
Sims: Principal at Boston Street School 116 Mrs. Harris: Principal at Hope Avenue School 117 Administrative Influence of Teachers’ Mathematics Homework Practices 118 School-wide Expectations for Homework 118 Complaints about Homework 121 Principals’ Beliefs and Values about Homework 124 Cognitive Domain of Homework 127 Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions 131 Overview of the Study 131 Major Findings 132 Major Finding 1: Homework Is For Low-Level Thinking 133 Major Finding 2: Homework Practices Were Not On The Principals’ Leadership Agenda 134 viii Major Finding 3: Low-Level Homework With Little Attention to Bloom’s Taxonomy 136 Major Finding 4: Homework Is A Lost Art 140 Implications for Practice 143 Implications for Further Research 146 Summary 148 References 149 Curriculum Vitae 177 ix APPENDICES Appendix A: Solicitation Email for Participation of Research Study to Principals 162 Appendix B: Overview of the Research Study for Principal 163 Appendix C: Overview of the Research Study for Teacher 164 Appendix D: Solicitation Email for Participation of Research to Teachers 165 Appendix E: Research Participant Information and Consent Form Principals 166 Appendix F: Research Participant Information and Consent Form Teacher 168 Appendix G: Initial Teacher Interview Protocol 170 Appendix H: Protocol for Conducting the Initial Principal Interview 172 Appendix: I: Homework Log 173 Appendix J: Documentation of Text from E-mail Messages 174 Appendix K: Tracking of Field Notes 175 Appendix L: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Homework Question(s) Chart 176 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: An Examination of Homework Cognitive Domain 4 Figure 2: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Domain Graphic 30 Figure 3: Homework Log 48 Figure 4: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Homework Chart 56 Figure 5: Young’s Math Homework Categorized by the Cognitive Domain Levels of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (n=295 homework items) 100 Figure 6: Garrison’s Math Homework Categorized by Cognitive Domain Levels of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (n=181 homework items) 102 Figure 7: Yates’ Math Homework Categorized by the Cognitive Domain Levels of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (n=59 homework items) 104 Figure 8: Mapp’s Math Homework Categorized by the Cognitive Domain Levels of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (n=261 homework items) 106 Figure 9: Williams’ Math Homework Categorized by the Cognitive Domain Levels of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (n=68 homework items) 108 Figure 10: Allen’s Math Homework Categorized by the Cognitive Domain Levels of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy (n=34 homework items) 110 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Teacher Demographics, School Accountability Score and Rating, and WKCE Grade 3 Proficiency Score for 2012-13 75 Table 2: Summary of Student Demographics in each Teacher’s Classroom 76 Table 3: Summary of Teachers’ Beliefs about Homework 84 Table 4: Summary of Weekly Schedule and Time Allotment for Math Homework 87 Table 5: Teachers’ Practices Regarding Differentiation of Homework 96 Table 6: Distribution of Math Items from Teachers Based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Domain Levels in Homework (n=898 homework items) 100 Table 7: Summary of the Alignment of Teachers’ Espoused Homework Practices to the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 113 Table 8: Summary of Principals’ Espoused Typical Homework Assigned to the Preferred Homework 130 xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my Committee Members Dr. DeAnn Huinker, Dr. Latish Reed, Dr.
Raji Swaminathan, Dr. Wallace, and Dr. Martin for believing in me and guiding me through this amazing journey. I would like to thank my former professor, Dr.
Gail Schneider, for teaching me to press on during difficult times in my life, and inspiring me to accomplish an important achievement within my career. Thanks to my lovely parents, Mary and Mason Bullock, for always believing in me and having faith that God will grant me favor with the completion of my Ph. Thanks to my family, friends, and colleagues for encouraging me not to give up! Sincere thanks to my dearest friend, Dr. Seelpa Keshvala for being my “study buddy” during my undergraduate, masters, and doctoral studies.
Thanks to Reginald L. Lawrence II for offering words of wisdom and motivating me to stay focused and complete my work. Thanks to JMAC for always calling me Dr. Bedford before the completion of my Ph.
Thanks to Dr. Bridget Araujo and Patrice Ball for agreeing to meet with me on the weekends to support me with writing my paper. Thanks to Felicia Thomas-Lynn for taking time out of her busy schedule to edit my paper. Thanks to Stella Miranda for making final edits to my paper.
I read this scripture several times a day as I worked on my dissertation. Practice and cultivate and meditate upon these duties; throw yourself wholly into them (as your ministry), so that your progress may be evident to everybody. Based on Astleitner (2007), homework can be regarded as a set of tasks or problems that are supposed to support learning (e., by activating prior knowledge, intensifying comprehension, or applying knowledge to new tasks or problems). High homework quality thus requires the careful selection and preparation of appropriate and, to some extent, interesting tasks that reinforce classroom learning (Trautwein & Ludtke, 2007).
Teachers assign homework because they expect it to enhance learning and achievement, parental involvement, study skills, work habits, and motivational dispositions (Bempechat, 2004; see also Warton, 2001). Researchers have studied the academic effects of homework for some time. To date, empirical research on the level of cognitive domain (based on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy) embedded in homework assignments has been sparse.