Lxartiklenpublicerari PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/271665609
Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from

Sweden
Article in Educational Research · December 2013

DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2013.844936
CITATIONS READS
15 2,596
1 author:
Max Strandberg
Stockholm University
5 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Max Strandberg on 03 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Stockholm University Library]
On: 13 November 2013, At: 05:04
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20
Homework – is there a connection with

classroom assessment? A review from
Sweden
a
Max Strandberg
a
Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm,
Sweden
Published online: 11 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: Max Strandberg (2013) Homework – is there a connection with
classroom assessment? A review from Sweden, Educational Research, 55:4, 325-346, DOI:
10.1080/00131881.2013.844936
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844936
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Educational Research, 2013
Vol. 55, No. 4, 325–346, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844936
Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment?

A review from Sweden
Max Strandberg*
Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

(Received 5 September 2012; final version received 22 April 2013)
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 05:04 13 November 2013
Background: The growing interest among researchers concerning how to use assess-
ment to enhance students’ learning as well as to improve instruction provided the
impetus for this review of teachers’ assessment activities related to homework.
Purpose and method: The purpose was to bring together and critically examine the
evidence in a way that illuminates research findings firstly on homework related to
formative assessment, and secondly to relate research findings on homework to
teachers’ classroom work to formative assessment, and finally to complement exist-
ing international research by examining findings from Sweden. International peer-
reviewed articles as well as doctoral theses, reviewed anthologies, encyclopaedias,
international reports, and handbooks were used.
Findings and conclusions: Findings show a gap in the research field of homework,
especially in relation to formative assessment. Various research findings point to the
importance of exploring the quality of homework. Research on how to assign and
assess homework must consider the problems and conflicts that homework causes
students, parents and teachers. Research is also needed to illuminate issues related to
conditions for equity in relation to homework and feedback.
Keywords: homework; formative assessment; quality of homework; Sweden; equity
and homework
Introduction
Teachers, at all levels, are constantly assigning and correcting homework. Activities
related to homework are part of a teacher’s daily work. The place of homework is rarely
questioned as it belongs to school history and school tradition. Homework ‘is a wide-
spread educational activity across cultures, ages and ability levels’ (Warton 2001). When
teachers assign homework, parents or other adults are also implicitly involved, since
their assistance is expected by teachers and by society.
The growing interest among researchers about how to use assessment (Sadler 1989;
Black and Wiliam 1998; Gipps 1999; Hattie and Timperley 2007) to enhance students’
learning as well as to improve instruction provides context for this review on the assess-
ment of homework.
Assessment has long traditions in China and Europe in general, as well as in
Sweden in particular. The most common historical roots identified are attributed to
Chinese dynasties more than two thousand years ago (Black and Wiliam 1998; Gipps
1999). The motive for assessment has primarily been selection. This was the case, for
*Email. max.strandberg@edu.su.se
© 2013 NFER
326 M. Strandberg
instance, in relation to written tests on the Confucian classics, assigned in China for
selection into the prestigious civil service. These early examinations were developed in
Northern Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, first in Prussia
and later in France and England, in order to select candidates for government (Gipps
1999). Furthermore, the implementation during the sixteenth century, by Jesuits in
Europe, of grades has been interpreted as a motivational alternative to punishment
(Carlgren 2002). However, according to Aas (2006, 184), pedagogical considerations
seemed to have come second to administrative considerations (e.g. the distribution of
students). These early examples of assessment practices have been acknowledged
internationally.
In Sweden, assessment was already in use before public schooling was introduced.
From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, every home was visited once a year by
the local priest, who assessed each family member’s knowledge in Christianity, and later
also their reading skills, at a catechetical meeting (Johansson 1983, 102; Resnick and
Resnick 1977). The priest made notes on each family member’s reading skills in the
parish examination records (Johansson 2003). A special kind of oral interrogation prac-
tice with fixed questions and answers was established. Reading ability subsequently
increased and a breakthrough in mass literacy took place, according to the examination
records, in the decades before and after 1700. Lexa (an old spelling for the Swedish
word for homework) is mentioned in the church records as early as 1561 (Lundahl
2006, 134) and was related to these yearly examinations. Homework (lexa), which,
according to Lundahl had the same meaning as it has today, began in an ecclesiastical
context, assessed by the priest.
When elementary schools were established in Sweden in 1842, the teachers took
over from the priests1 with assessment and grading (Adelmann 2002, 30; Forsberg and
Lindberg 2010, 23). The teachers ‘inherited’ the priests’ method of checking the stu-
dents’ knowledge and of asking questions that had a single correct answer. Those who
could not answer were punished. Assigning and checking homework was, even as ele-
mentary school was being implemented, a part of the teacher’s everyday work.
Homework is generally defined as schoolwork done outside the school without assis-
tance from teachers2 (Cooper 1992; Hellsten 2000; Cooper and Valentine 2001; Epstein
and Van Voorhis 2001; Hughes and Greenhough 2004; Westlund 2007). Bembenutty
(2011a) refers to a partly modified definition made by Cooper of homework as ‘tasks
assigned to students by schoolteachers that are meant to be carried out during non-
instructional time’ (2011, 185). Homework is thus a multifaceted interaction between
home and school in which different actors are involved (Westlund 2004, 31). Although
homework is defined as schoolwork done outside of the school environment, homework
existed in Sweden even before elementary schools were established. As indicated above,
all Swedes were expected to prepare for yearly examinations at catechetical meetings,
initially by rote learning of prayers, the Ten Commandments and other specific parts
from the Bible. Later, they were expected to practise reading these same texts aloud and
were then also assessed on their reading. As these catechetical meetings assumed that
parents taught their children and servants, it can be claimed that homework was
assigned and assessed in these early oral examinations.
The purpose of the review is to bring together and critically examine the evidence
in a way that illuminates research findings firstly on homework related to formative
assessment; secondly to relate research findings on homework to teachers’ classroom
work with formative assessment and finally, to complement existing international
research by examining findings from Swedish research. The multiple research
Educational Research 327
contributions on the relationship between homework time and achievement have been
excluded at this stage, as they are not connected directly to formative assessment.
This is inspired by two often cited homework researchers who raise questions:
… about teachers’ roles in using homework as an instructional tool, including whether and
how well they introduce assignments and follow up assignments with discussions, marks
and related quiz or test questions. Research on these topics would open the ‘black box’ of
homework and should make research on homework more useful in policy and practice.
(Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001, 191)
Method
The following types of material have been included in this review: international peer-
reviewed articles, doctoral theses, reviewed anthologies, encyclopaedias, international

reports and handbooks, all of which have been published in English. For the review of
Swedish research, theses, journal articles and reports have been used, together with
knowledge the author has accumulated concerning homework and assessment. The pri-
mary focus of this review is on homework, and formative assessment is relevant for the
review only when it is related to homework.
The EBSCO-host3 (EBSCO) database was used to find full text articles on home-
work and assessment from between 1989 and 2011. The choice of the year 1989 as the
point of departure is based on two key publications: Sadler’s (1989) article on formative
assessment and Cooper’s (1989) paper on homework. Initial literature reviewing started
in 2010, with homework used as a title search term, assessment in abstract, practice in
all text, teacher in all text and parents in all text. Homework was the primary search
term, with assessment as the second. Practice, in combination with teacher, was used in
order to find research about how, why and in what way teachers assign homework, and
also to find research on homework that had an instructional purpose and connections to
teachers’ classroom practice. The term Parents was used to find research on parental
involvement in homework. Later, in the spring of 2012, the same searches were
repeated to update the previous search and to find newly published articles. To review
what was written about homework in assessment literature, the order of the two first
search terms, homework and assessment, was switched to assessment in title, homework
in abstract, which resulted in articles about assessment that mentioned homework in
some way.
The last search took place in June 2012, with homework as the title search term and
assessment as abstract, and the results from between January 1989 and December 2011
amounted to 20 articles. About half of these concerned learning disabilities or high
school teaching, which have not been included in this review, as these have a different
focus. Retrospectively, a snowball-effect resulted in more texts than an advanced search
on EBSCO would have yielded. However, EBSCO has been of considerable help in
finding texts that have been referenced in journal articles, theses, reviewed books,
reports and magazines.
Encyclopaedias (Ziegler 1992; Cooper 1992; Simmons 1922) provided an overview
of the research field and information about trends in research on homework, while a
handbook (Deslandes 2009) provided a perspective on recent research on different
aspects of homework in the western world. Journals (Educational Psychologist 36/3,
Theory into Practice 43/9, Journal of Advanced Academics 22/2) published special edi-
tions about homework, which provided a broader perspective on research in the field of
328 M. Strandberg
homework. Reports (OECD 1997, 2011a, 2011b; The State of Queensland 2004;
Vallberg Roth 2010) also provided an overview, as well as also an impression of the
kind of knowledge about homework and assessment the various authorities had wanted.
When reading the literature, new references were found, which in turn lead to the dis-
covery of new literature. This part of the search strategy could best be described as a
‘snowball’ effect: each article resulted in more articles but also to a denser core of
recurring homework researchers. The same references were found recurring in various
articles, reports, theses, encyclopaedias and handbooks. Articles that were not found in
the EBSCO search were found in references within articles, handbooks and reports. The
same pattern was evident in Swedish research: certain authors were repeatedly refer-
enced in most of the literature.
Furthermore, once a report or a magazine was read, the authors’ names were
searched on EBSCO in order to investigate their publication histories. By reading jour-

nal articles, reports and anthology chapters and at the same time searching on EBSCO,
a general picture of the field began to emerge more clearly. Several articles were
research reviews (Cooper 1989; Cooper, Robinson and Patall 2006; Hellsten 1997;
Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001; Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2001; Warton 2001) on different
aspects of homework, which provided an impression of earlier research. The discovery
of the same references recurring in several reference lists wove a web of research on
different aspects of homework. The references lists in journal articles, reports, hand-
books and anthologies became a complement to the EBSCO searches.
For Swedish research, National Library Systems (Libris) (http://libris.kb.se) and
Academic publications at Swedish universities (Swepub) (http://www.swepub.se) dat-
abases were used to find reports and theses, while Artikelsök (http://corp.btj.se/?id=836)
was used for articles. A review of Swedish research on assessment (Forsberg and Lind-
berg 2010) was also used.
In addition, the author’s previous work in the field of research on homework
(Strandberg and Lindberg 2012) as well as the author’s knowledge of the Swedish
research field were utilised.
Finally, the articles found on EBSCO were searched internally for the terms: assess-
ment, feedback and homework, to gain a first impression of whether the article was of
interest and whether it should or should not be included. Literature that mentioned some
of the words briefly, without relating to or discussing them more specifically, was
excluded. The author then read the abstracts and summaries and examined the lists of
references. In order to get an overview of articles the focus, methods and the theme of
each article in a document were then summarised.
The steps outlined in Figure 1 were taken to organise the data, in total 58 texts
including 42 peer-reviewed articles, 11 reviewed book chapters, one thesis, two reports,
one magazine article and one academic paper. As a first step, in order to organise the
findings, Van Voorhis’ (2004) distinction between instructional (n=28), communicative
(n=24) and political (n=11) homework motives and functions was used. Articles con-
cerning assessment in combination with homework were sorted into a column.
Figure 1. Columns used to classify journal articles, theses, reports.

More than half of the empirically based articles (34) were studies structured
according to a quantitative (e.g. large-scale or quasi-experimental) research design. Four
studies used a comparative research design. Ten studies were based on qualitative data
(e.g. case studies, interview studies) and nine articles were reviews of homework
research. Several of the empirical articles also included a research review, the results of
which also contributed to this review.
The following background section starts with a brief summary of homework
research and ends with an introduction to formative assessment. The research for this
review is mainly related to USA and other Western countries as well as Sweden.
Homework research
In order to contextualise the research questions in this paper, the following section starts
with a retrospective overview of homework research.
Historically, issues related to homework are described by Cooper4 (1992, 1063) who
portrays the perspectives of the last hundred years in the USA concerning connections
between societal changes and homework and the impact of how public attitudes emerge.
At the beginning of the last century, the brain was viewed as a muscle that could be
strengthened through mental practice. Educational theories suggested that homework
could be an important means of disciplining children’s minds (Cooper and Valentine
2001, 145), which meant that homework was viewed favourably (Cooper 1992, 1063).
In the USA during the 1940s, the emphasis in education shifted from rote learning
(drill) to problem solving, and homework fell out of favour, as it was closely associated
with the repetition of material. At the start of the space age (in the late 1950s), the US
people became concerned that education lacked rigour and left children unprepared for
complex technologies (ibid.). More homework was proposed as one of the solutions to
this problem. The Coleman Report (1966) in the USA pointed at a strong relation
between school achievement and family economic and educational backgrounds. During
the 1960s, parents and educators became concerned that homework was undermining
social experience and out-door recreation (Cooper 1992, 1063). But when the A Nation
at Risk report (US Department of Education 1983) was published, homework had
returned to favour. The push for more homework continued until the end of the twenti-
eth century, when parents who were concerned about too much stress on their children
led the backlash against homework. These historical notes show the kinds of issues
related to homework that have long been studied and discussed.
When reviewing research on homework, there is the clear impression that American
scholars dominate homework research. Research from the USA by Cooper and
Valentine (2001, 145) came to the following conclusions. Homework is an important
part of most school-aged children’s daily routine; not all teachers assign homework and
not all students do homework, but most educators believe that homework can be an
important supplement to school activities. Meanwhile, public attitudes toward homework
have been more closely tied to a broader prevailing social philosophy and to national
and international economic trends than they have to the research on homework’s effec-
tiveness (Cooper and Valentine 2001, 45). Homework is sometimes perceived as a nega-
tive for both students and parents, causing conflicts at home and at school. The effect
on learning is also brought into question, with trends in homework debate and in
research on homework in which ‘Certain decades favour homework or just as actively
discount it’ (Ziegler 1992, 603). When homework has been popular, researchers have
emphasised its efficacy, whereas, in times less friendly to homework, the same empirical
330 M. Strandberg
results have been interpreted quite differently (Ziegler 1992; Cooper 1989; Cooper and
Valentine 2001). However, research trends in the rest of the Western world may show
similar patterns as in the USA.
Linking homework to formative assessment

The central idea in formative assessment is a focus on learning (Black et al. 2004),
which involves a focus on teachers’ instruction. The following quote from Sadler
(1989) shows the potential for formative assessment, which also has relevance for
homework.
Formative assessment is concerned with how judgments about the quality of student
responses (performances, pieces, or works) can be used to shape and improve the student’s
competence. […] Broadly speaking, feedback provides for two main audiences, the teacher
and the student. Teachers use feedback to make programmatic decisions with respect to
readiness, diagnosis and remediation. Students use it to monitor the strengths and weak-
nesses of their performances, so that aspects associated with success or high quality can be
recognized and reinforced, and unsatisfactory aspects modified or improved (120–121).
The distribution of publications over decades in the articles found on EBSCO shows a
dramatic growth in research on formative assessment since the middle of the 1990s. On
EBSCO, a search for formative assessment in article abstracts gets one hit in 1995,5 10
hits in 2002 and 55 hits in 2011. Between 1995 and 2011 the number of articles with
homework in the title increase nearly 10-fold, while the number of articles with
assessment in the title increased by more than 170 times. The lack of research attention
paid to the assessment of homework is evident, as ‘homework+assessment’ 1995–2011
in all text on EBSCO resulted in only three hits.
The growing international interest in formative assessment started when Black and
Wiliam (1998) suggested in a research review that formative assessment was an effec-
tive method to enhance learning and instruction.6
Sadler (1989) had earlier shown that feedback is a key element in formative assess-
ment, usually defined in terms of information about how successfully something has
been or is being done. In a review of 2000 journals, Hattie and Timperley (2007, 81)
reported that feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achieve-
ment but this impact could be either positive or negative. ‘Feedback has no effect in a
vacuum: to be powerful in its effect, there must be a learning context to which feedback
is addressed’ (2007, 82). Feedback should address the following questions (Black and
Wiliam 2009; Hattie and Timperley 2007): Where is the learner going, how is (s)he
doing, and what is needed for achieving the intended goals? Students’ engagement in
their learning is enhanced by constructive feedback, which illuminates the knowledge
expressed in the goals in relation to students’ actual knowledge (Black and Wiliam
2009; Hattie and Timperley 2007). The aim of feedback is to reduce the gap between
the level of knowledge and the goal. Reviews and research on feedback conclude that it
is a powerful tool that contributes to students’ learning.
The process of formative assessment was, according to Brookhart (2003, 7), cyclical,
as it is supposed to never end, but to develop learning and instruction continuously.
According to the Swedish researcher Björklund Boistrup (2010),7 assessment is a
concept with broad boundaries. She mentions six aspects of teachers’ explicit and
implicit assessment activities in mathematics at elementary school: (1) during ongoing
work sessions/processes, (2) at the end of working sessions/processes, (3) processes
related to diagnoses and tests, (4) summaries in various kinds of assessment forms, (5)
A basis for three-part (teacher–parent–student) development conferences, (6) summaries
in grades. However, Björklund Boistrup did not include teachers’ assessment and fol-
low-up on homework as a part of teachers’ assessment activities. It is not clear whether
they left out assessment of homework or if they claim that feedback on homework is
included either in ‘during on-going work’ or in ‘development conferences between par-
ents, students and teachers’. This underlines the need to include research on teachers’
classroom work with the formative assessment of homework.
Connections between homework and assessment

This first part of the report of the results of the review is based on studies where assess-
ment in relation to homework is explicitly mentioned. One characteristic for quantitative

research on homework is that results often are weak and even contradictory. The body
of evidence is seldom large or homogeneous enough to draw any conclusions.
Furthermore, there is a lack of research on the quality of assignments, as well as on the
connection between subject and homework assignment (Liang 2010; Österlind 2001).
Some findings seem to be clear – these are related to students’ achievement. Cooper,
Robinson and Patall (2006) showed positive results for assigning homework to older
students but this was not clear enough for younger students. Moreover, there was no
strong evidence that increased time on homework increases students’ achievement
(Cooper 1989; Warton 2001; Liang 2010; Trautwein et al. 2006). Giving more
homework to students does not necessarily result in better achievement. Parental assis-
tance seemed to have a positive impact for younger and older students but not to stu-
dents in the middle range of school years (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008, 1039).
In order to progress this further, I have looked for differences and similarities
between the studies that explicitly mention assessment of homework. The articles were
divided into three categories; firstly studies that have to do with teachers’ response and
the use of assessment of homework, secondly research that is related to the quality of
teachers’ feedback on homework, and thirdly studies that concern teacher attitudes and
‘cultural scripts’ (Goddard and Wierzbicka 2005; Lea 2004; Stigler and Hiebert 1999)
in assessment of homework.
Teachers’ response and use of assessment on homework

Teachers’ response to homework assignments in class could, according to Cooper
(1989, 142), vary in four ways:8 firstly, teachers can demonstrate how the assignment
could have been more accurately completed either in class or individually; secondly,
teachers can assign a grade to the assignment by a letter or a number that can be used
as a part of a student’s performance evaluation; thirdly, teachers can provide either ver-
bal or written praise or criticism with the purpose of rewarding correct responses or
punishing incorrect ones, and fourthly, teachers can provide nonverbal incentives such
as candy or early dismissal. However, according to Cooper, the results were weak. In a
review of nine studies comparing research on the effects of types on instructional feed-
back and follow-up, Cooper did not find two studies that replicated an identical compar-
ison of the strategies above (ibid.). Multiple feedback for explaining all homework
problems is more efficacious than simply explaining the problems requested by students.
In the 13 articles that Cooper (1989, 146) reviewed, evaluative feedback was ranked
higher than shorter comments like ‘excellent’ or ‘you must do better next time’.
332 M. Strandberg
Furthermore, Cooper found that incentives together with verbal praise ‘increased the
completion or accuracy of homework by disadvantaged children, which may enhance
school performance’ (1989, 148).
The research on feedback strategies revealed little basic data for choosing one
strategy over another (Cooper 1989, 148). Nevertheless, monitoring of homework
assignments is important as it acknowledges students’ effort (Boivie 1843, 378; Cooper
1989; Columba 2001, 373; Lekholm Klapp and Cliffordson 2008, 182).
Teachers use homework assignments to collect information about students’ under-
standing and plan subsequent lessons (Bang et al. 2009). Thus homework is used as a
tool for planning instruction and assessing whether or not instruction has been success-
ful. Another similar purpose is the use of homework to collect information to identify
individual students’ understanding and learning problems (Cooper 1999). In both cases,
homework assignment was used as a tool for collecting information about students’
understanding and knowledge development. If homework assessment is compared with
other assessment methods, it is nevertheless the least important method. In a study on
third and fifth grade teachers’ classroom assessment of students’ achievements,
Martinez, Stecher, and Borko (2009) asked teachers how important a number of factors
were in evaluating the children in their classes. The importance for student assessment
was as follows: (1) The individual child’s achievement relative to the rest of the class,
(2) the individual child’s achievement relative to local and state standards, (3) individual
improvement over past performance, (4) effort, (5) class participation, (6) classroom
behaviour and conduct, and (70 completion of homework participation (2009, 86).
Compared with six other evaluation methods, homework completion received the lowest
rank. Nevertheless, teachers who valued completion of homework and worksheets
obtained more information on student performance than those who did not (Martinez,
Stecher, and Borko 2009, 98), which means that their judgments on student performance
were improved by the additional information they had.
It is suggested that an illustration of good practice may be found on the NCCA9
website. This recommends teachers to base assessment ‘upon the criteria for success in
the particular task set’, not to set out too many criteria and to consider whether always
giving marks or grades helps students to learn more effectively, as the giving of marks
and grades can be counter-productive (Vatterott 2011). According to Vatterott (2011),
grading homework did not make students focus on the learning objectives.
Quality of teachers’ feedback on homework

Corrected and returned homework may have a negative effect insofar as it may create
an atmosphere in which assessment is perceived as judgment instead of information for
improvement (Brookhart 2001, 329).
Assessment of homework, according to a report by Brookhart (2001) that followed
3000 students between grades 7 and 10 for four years, could not be separated from the
classroom assessment environment as homework is a part of teachers’ practice. It is not
simply a question of giving feedback to students but also a matter of the quality and
usefulness of feedback: ‘Students’ perceptions of both the quality of feedback and their
own competence as learners depend, in part, on useful feedback’ (Brookhart 2001, 323).
It is in the classroom environment and practice that homework is assigned and therefore
it cannot be separated from teachers’ instruction practice. In a comparative study of
PISA results from Canada, USA and Finland, Liang (2010) suggests an emphasis on
homework that is more closely connected to instruction instead of increasing the amount
of homework.
Teachers’ feedback and control of homework completion influence students’ efforts
in doing homework as well as the content and the design of assignments, which also
affects students’ management of homework (Xu 2009). In a study of 1895 students from
111 secondary classes in the USA, Xu (2009) discusses students’ affective attitudes to
homework and what impact these attitudes had on management of homework.
According to Xu, an affective attitude towards homework at the student and class level
had a positive effect on homework management (2009, 123).10 Research on teachers’
attitudes and ‘cultural scripts’ that may impinge upon (influence) assessment and home-
work design is reported in the next section.
Attitudes and scripts in feedback

Sending assignments from school does not ‘necessarily generate intended learning out-
comes, particularly if different groups of parents are involved’ (Hughes and Greenhough
2004, 87). In a case study, Hughes and Greenhough (2004), discuss the contribution that
teachers’ attitudes make to student learning. Two students with different results who
were assigned the same homework in Maths were compared. Hughes and Greenhough
(2004) showed that there were a number of variables that made a positive contribution
to one of the students but not to the other (2004, 89). Feedback on homework assign-
ment had an impact on students’ learning, but so did the school context, the classroom
context, the home context, and the peer-group context as well as nature of the task
(Hughes and Greenhough 2004; Xu 2009). In this study, feedback was seen as an inte-
grated part of teacher instruction. Feedback was an element in the learning process,
although the places where homework was done and the attitudes to the homework
assignments influence the learning process as well.
Thus learning outcomes [author’s italics] are seen as being generated primarily through an
interaction between the attitudes to the task, student engagement with the task, and feed-
back on the task. (Hughes and Greenhough 2004, 88)
Not only attitudes, but also teachers’ feedback is mediated by preconceptions and
assumptions, as well as by cultural scripts (Goddard and Wierzbicka 2005; Lea 2004;
Stigler and Hiebert 1999), defined as ‘mental models that guide behaviour’ (Stigler and
Hiebert 1999, 87). Such scripts tend to be widely shared and hard to see (p. 85).
Strandberg and Lindberg (2012) found in a study about categories of feedback that
teachers’ ‘cultural scripts’ could present an obstacle, which did not advance the
students’ learning.
To sum up: attitudes and ‘cultural scripts’ influence teachers’ feedback of home-
work. The research on homework that explicitly mentions assessment deals with teach-
ers’ responses to homework, how teachers use homework to ensure that the class and
individual students are following instructions. The quality of homework and teachers’
attitudes to feedback on homework are two other subjects for research on homework
and assessment.
Findings that in some way are connected to teachers’ opportunities to use formative
assessment are presented in the following section.
334 M. Strandberg
Implicit relations between assessment and homework

This section addresses the research on homework, which has implicit connections to
teachers’ classroom work with formative assessment. Homework, at least in Sweden
(Lundahl 2006) and the USA (Kralovec 2007), has long since belonged to teachers’
classroom practice. Educational research that concerns instruction, learning or parental
cooperation may thereby have connections to homework practice and is therefore inter-
esting in relation to assessment of homework. In order to present the findings meaning-
fully, articles and reports that contained the same topic have been sorted under three
headings.
Homework: purposes and functions

Researchers have categorised several motives for assigning homework (Hellsten 1997;
Cooper and Valentine 2001; Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001; Van Voorhis 2004). When
Van Voorhis (2004) asked hundreds of educators why they assigned homework11 Van
Voorhis found:
Most teachers assign homework for one of the following 10 purposes: practice, preparation,
participation, personal development, parent-teacher communication, parent–child relation,
peer interaction, policy, public relations and punishment. (2004, 207)
Not only are there different motives for assigning homework, homework’s function also
varies between stages of schooling, for instance between elementary school and senior
high school (Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001; Van Voorhis 2004). Young students may
complete homework to avoid getting into trouble or to please parents and teachers
(Warton 2001, Xu and Yuan 2003). It is not until students approached middle-school
age that they began to understand that homework could serve intrinsic values (Warton
2001, Brock et al. 2007). Warton (2001) claimed that homework research has focused
on adults’ perspectives and understanding of homework and not on students’ perspec-
tives and understanding (Warton 2001, 155). At the elementary level, homework tends
to focus on issues such as helping students to learn to manage their time and develop
good study habits rather than on academic content, which is the primary focus of home-
work at the high school level (Brock et al. 2007).
Few studies address students’ perspectives on homework in relation to assessment
(Warton 2001; Xu and Yuan 2003). However, two perceptions expressed by students in
Wilson and Rhodes (2010) have a connection to formative assessment and homework:
firstly, if teachers do not grade the homework and return it quickly, the students report
feeling like they have wasted their time in that activity (Wilson and Rhodes 2010, 352),
and secondly, students prefer that the teacher shows how the homework has an impact
on current subject matter and connects homework assignments to current lessons (ibid.).
In an interview study, Xu and Yuan (2003) found that students preferred homework that
has a clear point:
Acknowledging that some assignments were interesting, many students frequently also
noted that other assignments were frequently boring, or considered too easy or too hard, or
involved too much writing, or were not relevant to their life context. (2003, 38)
The students in Xu’s (2007) study completed more assignments if they liked the topic.
Furthermore, homework may have both a short- and a long-term purpose. Short-term
positive effects of homework (Cooper 1989) have to do with learning of a specific

subject while long-term positive effects have more to do with fostering good study hab-
its, independence and responsibly taking and developing positive attitudes to studying
(Österlind 2001).
Students considered homework interesting if it was connected to a certain topic or
skill relevant to their lives or if they understood the purposes of the specific exercise
(Cooper 1989; Xu 2007, 2009). Researchers such as Columba (2001), Vatterott (2011),
Van Voorhis (2011) have claimed that if homework should be a useful tool it must be
coordinated with instructional objectives (Columba 2001, 373).
In a survey of 10th-graders in a major city in China, Hong, Wan, and Peng (2011)
found that Chinese teachers rated students’ homework behaviours more favourably than
the students themselves did. Hong, Wan, and Peng (2011, 304) claim that this discrep-
ancy between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of student homework behaviours is

problematic in regard to teachers’ efforts to improve homework performance. Another
discrepancy, which is mentioned in Van Voorhis (2011, 223) occurs when teachers
underestimate how often families are involved in homework. These discrepancies
between students’, parents’ and teachers’ notions about how much time is spent on
homework may, according to Van Voorhis (2011), lead to communication problems
between home and school. Misunderstandings between home and school can be attrib-
uted to teachers’ expectations of how much time should be spent on homework and
how much time parents and student actually spend on homework.
Homework as a self-disciplining technology

Homework is traditionally a symbol with a strong structural element in schooldays and
in students’ everyday life (Ljunggren 1993; Westlund 2007). Homework is a part of a
disciplining process that every student comes across in the process of developing their
own sense of responsibility (Österlind 2001). To plan schoolwork every week is a com-
mon duty for pupils in Swedish schools and they mention homework often in their
weekly plans (Vallberg Roth 2010; Österlind 2001). In an interview study with 44
Swedish students, Österlind (2001) found that homework is accepted as part of the
everyday routine, and is positive for some students but a frustration for others. One hun-
dred and twenty-nine pupils aged 13–15 years (Westlund 2007) wrote essays on the
theme ‘Write about when time matters to you’. Westlund found that a great amount of
their spare time was used for planning and doing homework.
The pupils clearly advocate that objectives to be achieved are very important to them –
they feel responsible for achieving their objectives and for planning their own
‘learning-paths’.
When students take on more of the responsibility for homework and planning their
schoolwork, school turns out to become more of a social arena (Vallberg Roth and
Månsson 2008). Those who prefer to have fun in school have to do a lot of schoolwork
at home (Westlund 2007). In the two schools that Westlund studied, homework was
included as part of a self-disciplining steering technology where flexible work hours
were equated with increased control and reduced constraint. Task-oriented and perfor-
mance-oriented pupils must, according to Westlund (2007), be prepared to make choices
and tick off given school tasks all through the week, including at weekends. Pupils who
do not fulfil the demands were called ‘wanderers’ (Ståhle 2006, 90); they moved
336 M. Strandberg
around, lacking self-discipline and purposefulness. According to the teachers described

in Westlund (2007, 794) ‘A competent pupil takes great responsibility and does not
count upon being ‘served’’. Self-regulated assignments put frames on what students
could choose to work with during the day. In a self-regulated school practice (Eriksson
2011), the teacher is supposed to be on hand for students if they have questions. Teach-
ers instruct students with documents that could be found in the local curricula or on the
school’s homepage. When the communication between students and teachers is done
primarily through logbooks, the risk of invalid assessment is greater than when students
and teachers communicate verbally. The students may do their homework and other
instructions whenever they want, which means that students may misunderstand instruc-
tions without the teacher being aware of it.
Among Scandinavian researchers, such as Österlind (2001), Stålhe (2006), Eriksson
(2011), Westlund (2007) and Klette (2011), there is criticism of self-regulating teaching
practices for contributing to the creation of problem sets for special-needs students.
Westlund (2007) found that the focus on developing self-regulating skills resulted in a
more indistinct difference between work and leisure time for students. The students felt
that too many tasks, alongside the fact that they could choose when, in what order and
where they completed the tasks, produced feelings of stress (Westlund 2007). An exam-
ple of less critical research is found in a two reviews on self-regulated learning by
Ramdass and Zimmerman (2011) and by Bembenutty (2011b), who both emphasise
positive relations between homework activities, responsibility for learning and self-effi-
cacy (2011b, 194). Students became self-regulated by setting goals, selecting and using
strategies and monitoring performance, which Rampdass and Zimmerman (2011) and
Bembenutty (2011b) claim support their learning. Assigned homework should, accord-
ing to Xu and Yuan (2003), be connected to teachers’ instruction in order to develop
self-regulating abilities – otherwise students do not feel motivated to take responsibility
for homework.
Parental involvement
About half of the articles found on EBSCO concerned research on cooperation between
home and school regarding homework. No research studies were found on EBSCO, in
handbooks or in reports that explicitly concerned assessment of homework connected to
parental involvement.
Homework, according Van Voorhis (2004), has a communicative function, as it
engages students, teachers and parents, who according to their roles have different
motives and wishes (Warton 2001; Westlund 2007; Brock et al. 2007) in relation to
homework. When the Coleman Report was published in 1966, researchers suggested
that schools should educate parents in order to enhance learning outcomes and school
productivity (De Carvalho 2009, 61). It was posited that the less well-educated parents
should contribute to the learning of students that had learning difficulties. This sugges-
tion, according to De Carvalho, was due to neo-liberal educational policies. The targets
for the parental education policy were low income and disadvantaged families and ‘at-
risk’ students. Training parents to be involved in homework had three positive results:
firstly higher rates of homework completion, secondly fewer problems with homework
and finally the possibility of improved academic performance among elementary school
children (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008). According to Xu (2009), parents’ support
with homework structure is important for students’ completion of homework. Boys in
middle and high school need and can, according to Xu (2005), benefit from family
involvement. Low-achieving students get more time when parents are assisting them,
and more homework is returned back to teachers (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008,
1039). Elementary and high school students benefit from parental involvement. A meta-
analysis of 22 samples from 20 studies correlating parent involvement and achievement
revealed ‘[p]ositive associations for elementary school and high school students but a
negative association for middle school students’ (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008,
1039).
However, ‘across all designs the overall effect of parental involvement was small
and not often significant’ (Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008, 1087). A process-oriented
parental cooperation seems, according to Walker et al. (2009), to increase students’
motivation. Parent-student interactions during homework are important ‘as they offer
access to a range of attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, skills and behaviours that facilitate
learning’ (Walker et al. 2009, 32). However, homework can create tensions between par-
ents and children (Forsberg 2007; Patall, Cooper, and Robinson 2008; Symeou 2009) as
questions could be raised as to whether homework is positive or negative at all
(Solomon, Warin, and Lewis 2002). The Department for Education and Employment
(DFEE) in England underscored the complex factors of cooperation between parents,
teachers and children.
However, policies such as the DFEE Homework guidelines and the introduction of home-
school contracts do not take account of the complex factors mediating the three-way rela-
tionship between schools, parents and their children. (Solomon, Warin, and Lewis 2002,
620)
Parents are ‘investing considerable time and emotional effort into supporting a home-
work agenda that is not their own, which they have little power to influence’ (Solomon,
Warin, and Lewis 2002, 620). In a study of 16 Swedish middle-class families, Forsberg
(2007, 209) showed that parents do not call into question whether or not they have to
assist their children (2007, 219). Homework could equally be understood as an assign-
ment given to parents:
Although there is no explicit Swedish homework policy, through parental involvement in

homework as institutionalized practice, there is still an implicit homework policy, where
parents are supposed to be involved and children are supposed to let their parents be
involved. (Forsberg 2007, 221)
If homework creates tensions at home, this will in some way impose itself on teachers’
follow-up and feedback. If homework content or homework demands are characterised
by middle class values, students and parents from other socio-economic classes may
have difficulty in taking advantage of teachers’ assessment and feedback. The next sec-
tion concerns equity in the assessment of homework.
Issues of equity
The number of schools that are multilingual, multiethnic and diverse is increasing, as a
result of international migration. Social discrimination is not an issue that exists only
outside school: Equity in formative assessment becomes an issue (among many), when
teachers and students belong to different ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. An
example of insufficient equity in formative assessment is provided by the two students
338 M. Strandberg
in Hughes and Greenhough (2004), mentioned earlier, who not were given equal
feedback from the teacher as s/he misunderstood their ambitions and subject interest.
Bang (2011) found in a US study of 192 English language learners aged 10–11 that
negative comments from teachers led to diminished academic self-esteem (Gipps and
Murphy 1994). Uncompleted homework produced frustration (Bang 2011). Every single
homework assignment that the immigrant students struggled to understand expanded the
knowledge gap between them and their non-immigrant schoolmates (ibid.). In an inter-
view study of 273 immigrant students and 57 teachers, Bang et al. (2009) found that
teachers valued classroom behaviour and homework completion more highly than
course understanding when they were grading. English skills seemed (Bang et al. 2009,
20) to overshadow teacher perceptions of other academic skills in determining
immigrant students’ grades and language proficiency was assessed rather than course
understanding.
Teachers may limit the learning of boys, students of different ethnic backgrounds or
girls if they are not conscious of their cultural scripts. An example of this can be found
in a study by Murphy and Ivinson (2005) where they show how teachers’ notions about
good writing in fact limited boys’ writing. Ethnocentrism in feedback was found in a
study by Strandberg and Lindberg (2012), when the teacher ignored one student who
wanted to talk about his mother’s fear of being thrown out of the country in a classroom
discussion and when the teacher in her comments forgot that students originated from
Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East rather than Sweden.
In these two studies, gender and ethnicity were the basis for bias. However, social
class or religion could just as well provide the basis for bias, as they are other factors
that may unconsciously influence teachers’ feedback.
Teachers underestimate immigrant students’ understanding (Bang et al. 2009) and
sometimes give higher or inappropriate grades than they should have. Expectations have
to do with people’s underlying – even unacknowledged – concepts and assumptions
about abilities and skills (Gipps and Murphy 1994, 5). Students learn how to perceive
their own abilities, and if expectations are low, it is easy simply to fulfil those expecta-
tions, bringing down self-esteem. Equity in relation to assessment is a question of atti-
tudes towards members of socio-economically under-privileged minorities (Gipps and
Murphy 1994).
According to the research of Bang et al. (2009), homework completion and capabil-
ity in English rather than course understanding had an important role in teachers’ grad-
ing. Epstein and Van Voorhis (2001) found that students in privileged schools got more
homework than did students in low-ability classes:
… some teachers may assign students in low-ability classes less homework or less interest-
ing assignments than students in honors or advanced classes, or convey low expectations
that slower students will do the work. (Epstein and Van Voorhis 2001, 184)
Dettmers, Trautwein and Lûdtke (2009, 398) found that teachers may assign more
homework in schools attended by students from privileged families or with higher than
average school achievement. Students attending schools with frequent or lengthy home-
work assignments outperformed students with fewer or shorter homework assignments
(Dettmers, Trautwein and Lûdtke 2009; OECD 2011b). Disadvantaged students who
succeed in school spent more time studying than their average disadvantaged low-achie-
ver (OECD 2011a).
In interviews with students in two low-income schools, Bempechat et al. (2011)

found that many students lacked a quiet working environment and someone to help.
The teachers assigned little and/or low quality homework, which Bempechat et al. sug-
gest decreased students’ motivation to complete homework. High- and low-achieving
students need to believe that homework is meaningful, that teachers value their endeav-
our and monitor their completion (Bempechat et al. 2011, 251). The young people inter-
viewed had little assigned homework and had little or no consequences if they did not
complete assigned tasks. The students relied on friends or family members when they
needed help. Homework was a largely solitary activity, which according to Bempechat
et al. (2011) is associated with a negative effect. They suggest that teachers should ‘cap-
italize on the fact that homework is essentially a social experience’ and integrate other
‘spheres of influence’, such as peers, family members and workplace colleagues
(Bempechat et al. 2011, 273).

In conclusion, the previous section has displayed four factors that have implications
on teachers’ assessment of homework: first, the multiple motives for and functions of
homework; second, homework and students self-disciplining; third, complications around
teachers cooperation with parents; and finally, questions regarding equity in assessment.
Before we present final conclusions, the following section discusses what Swedish
research on homework connected to assessment could add to international research.
Swedish research on homework connected to assessment

Although Swedish research has already been referred to above in relation to categorisa-
tion, the focus here is on the relation between Swedish and international research. The
10 studies found from between 199312 and 2012 are all relatively small qualitative
studies. The Swedish research field connections between homework and assessment
have similarities to research elsewhere in the Western world: no study with an explicit
focus on assessment of homework was found, but there were several with connections
to teachers’ classroom work with homework and assessment. The complement to inter-
national research is mainly in terms of questions and topics related to students’ perspec-
tives on homework, and to how homework influences relations between parents and
children and power relations between students, parents and teachers. Four of six studies
that focus explicitly on homework were based on either student interviews, weekly
plans and essays or a combination of these, to analyse experiences and perceptions of
homework (Österlind 2001; Leo and Pettersson 2005; Westlund 2007; Gu and
Kristoffersson 2010). Ljunggren (1993) and Hellsten (2000) contributed to the field with
their reviews of hidden assumptions about homework. Among Swedish homework
research there has consequently been, in comparison with other Western research, a high
interest in student and parent experiences and views about homework. Warton’s (2001)
research is equivalent to this. Homework was a source of conflicts between parents and
children, according to Forsberg (2007), who studied family life in middle-class families.
The influence of homework assignments on relations between parents, teachers and
students is studied by Leo and Pettersson (2005). According to Hellsten (2000) and Leo
and Pettersson (2005) the practice of homework is in many ways an unregulated and
non-reflective practice that is not mentioned in curricula. Glasman (2009) and Kryger
and Ravn (2009) drew the same conclusions in France and in Denmark, respectively,
where homework is also neither mentioned in any curricula nor deeply challenged.
Österlind (2001) and Forsberg (2007) both found that homework was a duty that
parents had to accept and that it was hard for them to ‘take up another subject position
340 M. Strandberg
than that of a ‘responsible parent’ who helps the child with homework or controls what
it is done’ (Forsberg 2007, 209). In the middle-class families that Forsberg (2007)
observed, homework is the everyday work that causes most conflicts. Österlind (2001)
claimed that homework contributes to social misallocation, as parents had different pre-
requisites for homework support. Bouakaz and Persson (2007), who focused on influ-
ence and homework assistance in families from minority backgrounds, showed that
parents had difficulties in understanding how to help their children in the way that
teachers desired. Homework appeared as an important matter in students’ weekly plans
(Vallberg Roth and Månsson 2008) as in many ways it organised their out-of-school
time (Westlund 2004). According to Vallberg Roth and Månsson (2008, 59), homework
was included in elementary teachers’ use of portfolios, individual education plans, oral
presentations, laboratory reports, logbooks, dramatisations and as the foundations for
assessment.
In a survey of Swedish research on assessment, Forsberg and Lindberg (2010) con-
nected the history of homework with the priests’ assessments at catechetical meetings
before public schools were established. They claimed that assessment of homework is a
special form of oral assessment practice that has not been given adequate attention in
research of assessment.
The majority of schools in Sweden are to some extent multilingual,13 which influ-
ences cooperation between school and home in different ways. Homework can be used
as a way to develop cooperation between home and school (Van Voorhis 2009; Epstein
and Van Voorhis 2001) especially when there are wide gaps between cultures and lan-
guages. In Strandberg and Lindberg’s case study (2012), the purpose of homework in
multiethnic and multilingual classes was to develop learning about and for cultural
diversity, but also to develop cooperation between home and school. Seven different cat-
egories of feedback were found in the teachers’ feedback when student were discussing
an interactive (Van Voorhis 2001) homework assignment in civics. This particular topic
put high demands on teacher feedback, as the teacher could not predict what the stu-
dents would say in classroom discussion. The students interviewed their parents or other
adults about fear in their country of origin and in Sweden. During the discussion, when
the students presented answers, the teacher gave feedback that in six of seven cases
made learning about cultural diversity possible. The teacher’s cultural scripts became
visible when he or she did not permit talking about the fear of being expelled from the
country.
Parents in Sweden are expected to assist their children with homework. As a result
of a tax reform (2007) parents are offered deductions if they hire homework consultants.
The number of companies which offer homework assistance is increasing, which may
be interpreted as a kind of shadow education14 system that seems to be an alternative
for parents with few children and high income. Another tendency is that parents with
immigration backgrounds send their children to supplementary schools (Bouakaz and
Persson 2007) to compensate the perceived lack of education.
Particularly in Sweden, students since the 1990s have been given responsibility for
planning and doing schoolwork. Accountability for reaching goals is transferred from
teachers to students, as it is their responsibility to learn. This effort to increase students’
responsibility for homework may stand in opposition to teachers’ opportunities to work
individually as well as collectively with formative assessment. In schools and classes
that favour a teaching practice that focuses on students’ individual responsibility,
teachers do not have the same opportunity to lead and distribute work in class (Eriksson
2011). Students might find that feedback limits their responsibility; however, this may
not be the case for all (Österlind 2001), as students with different perspectives, habitus
(Bourdieu 1991) and attitudes respond differently to the call for self-responsibility.
Conclusions
Although homework and assessment have long-established connections and rely on old
school traditions, there is little research on assessment of homework and what there is
lacks consistency. Since schools were established, teachers have, in different ways,
assessed student learning and behaviour. Review of the literature suggests that home-
work is a part of school activity and teachers classroom practice, even if this has some-
times been questioned.
There is research, which is explicitly and implicitly connected to assessment and to

teachers’ classroom work, but there are no studies that explicitly focus on formative
assessment and homework. However, signs of an emerging interest in the relation
between formative assessment and homework can be found (e.g. Strandberg and Lind-
berg 2012).
Different research findings, described above, point to the importance of exploring
the quality of homework. This paper has critically examined earlier research on home-
work, explicitly and implicitly related to formative assessment, teachers’ classroom work
and displayed connections between homework quality and feedback. It has also
described problems and conflicts that homework can cause students, teachers and par-
ents, and how these should be considered in research on how to assign and assess
homework. Finally, this review has, through Swedish research, discussed questions
about teachers’ opportunity to assess homework when students take more responsibility
for homework and studies.
Further research
Findings show a gap in the research field of homework, especially in relation to forma-
tive assessment. Collaborative research between teachers and educational researchers
could be a way of focusing both the quality of homework in relation to the intended
learning goals, and for exploring both feedback and other aspects of formative assess-
ment as tools for enhancing students’ learning and teachers’ instruction.
Research findings suggest that teachers’ ‘scripts’ influence feedback, that notions
about gender and ethnicity impinge upon meaningful feedback and that students in
under-privileged schools get less complex and less volume of homework than students
in privileged schools. Further work is needed in order to illuminate issues related to
conditions for equity in relation to homework and feedback.
From a Swedish perspective, more research is needed into how to develop teachers’
formative assessment practices without discouraging students from taking more respon-
sibility for homework.
Notes
1. The sacristan was often responsible for teaching the members of the parish the Bible and
how to read.
2. From a student perspective, homework can be regarded as something that takes time that
would otherwise be spent with family and friends (Xu 2007; Westlund 2004).
342 M. Strandberg
3. Elton B. Stevens COmpany, http://wwwabbriviations.com/EBSCO. EBSCOhost is a search

service, which gives access to a number of different databases. Full-text articles, citations
and media options vary per database. EBSCO covers 8500 journals and 3900 reviewed titles.
4. The American homework researcher Harris Cooper is the single most frequently citied of all
homework researchers.
5. Between January and December 1995.
6. Interestingly, Black and Wiliam (1998, 37) mention research about the quality of feedback in
a study with 500 Venezuelan students involving 18 mathematics teachers. The researchers
trained the teachers to improve written feedback in response to homework.
7. Cf. Löfgren and Lindberg (2010) mention in a comparative study that teachers assess home-
work but do not discuss it.
8. Harris Cooper mentions feedback in the chapter ‘Home and community factors and
classroom follow-up’ in his often-referenced research review Homework (1989). Cooper’s
references are mainly to research in the USA.
9. NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) is an Irish organisation formed on
a statutory basis that supports teachers and schools. ‘The mission is to advise the Minister
for Education and Skills on curriculum and assessment for early childhood education to the
end of second level’. http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-primary_Edu-
cation/Junior_Cycle/Assessment_for_Learning_AfL_/Homework/
10. The impression is that the teachers studied by Xu (2009) seemed to be more focused on
how to achieve completion of homework than on what students learn and could learn better
from homework.
11. He found that teachers hesitated to answer the question of why they assign homework,
because they are rarely asked to identify their reasons for particular homework assignments.
12. The searches for current Swedish research started in 1993, the year when Ljunggren
published Undervisning som kommunikation: om läxor och offentliga samtal i skolan
[Instruction as communication: Homework and public dialogue in school] in Utbildning och
demokrati [Education and Democracy].
13. According to statistics from Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education] 2011,
at 15 October 2011, more than half of all compulsory schools have students that are entitled
to study their mother tongue as a separate subject. The number of students that are multilin-
gual is probably higher, since not all students want to have extra lessons or can prove they
speak another language than Swedish every day at home.
14. Shadow Education is, according to A comparison of Hong Kong and United States schools,
defined as ‘activities outside of school that mimic (shadow) activities performed in school.
For example, activities such as crams school, private tutoring (for profit), and test prep ser-
vices.’ (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/finalli.356/shadow_education)
References
Aas, G. H. 2006. Likhet uten solidaritet? Idéhistoriske studier av karakterer i utdanning og
Meritokrati [Equality without solidarity? Studies from the vantage point of history of ideas on
uses of marking systems in education, and of meritocracy]. Institutionen för idéhistoria och
vetenskapsteori: Göteborgs universitet/University of Gothenburg.
Adelmann, K. 2002. Att lyssna till röster. Ett vidgat lyssnandebegrepp i ett didaktiskt perspektiv.
[Listening to Voices. An extended notion of listening in an educational perspective]. Lund
University
Bang, J. H., C. Sua’rez-Orozco, J. Pakes, and E. O’Connor. 2009. “The importance of homework
in determining immigrant students’ grades in schools in the USA context.” Educational
Research 51 (1): 25.
Bang, H. J. 2011. “Newcomer immigrant students’ perspectives on what affects their homework
experiences.” The Journal of Educational Research 104 (6): 408–19.
Bempechat, J., J. Li, S. M. Neier, C. A. Gillis, and S. D. Holloway. 2011. “The homework expe-
rience: Perceptions of low-income youth.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 250–78.
Bembenutty, H. 2011a. The last word: An interview with Harris Cooper. Research policies, tips,
and current perspectives on homework. Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 342–51.
Bembenutty, H. 2011b. “Meaningful and maladaptive homework practices: The role of self-effi-
cacy and self-regulation.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (3): 448–73.
Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. “Assessment and classroom learning.” Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice 5 (1): 7–73.
Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshal, and D. Wiliam. 2004. “Working inside the black box:
Assessment for learning in the classroom.” The Phi Delta Kappan 86 (1): 8–21.
Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 2009. “Developing the theory of formative assessment in Educational
Assessment.” Evaluation and Accountability 21 (1): 5–31.
Björklund Boistrup, L. 2010. Assessment discourses in mathematics classrooms: A multimodal
social semiotic study. Doctoral thesis: Department of Mathematics and Science Education,
Stockholm University.
Boivie, P. G. 1843. Pedagogik [58] Betänkande om Student-examen [Pedagogy report on Swedish
A-level examination]. In Frey: tidskrift för vetenskap och konst [Journal of Science and Art]
1841–1850, 3, no. 58: 378.
Bouakaz, L., and S. Persson. 2007. “What hinders and what motivates parents’ engagement in
school?” International Journal about parents in Education 1: 97–107.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Kultur och kritik [Culture and critic]. Uddevalla: Daidalos.
Brock, C. H., D. Lapp, J. Flood, D. Fisher, and K. T. Han. 2007. “Does Homework Matter? An
Investigation of Teacher Perceptions About Homework Practices for Children From
Nondominant Backgrounds.” Urban Education 42 (2): 348–372.
Brookhart, S. M. 2001. “Effects of the classroom assessment environment on mathematics and
science achievement.” Journal of Educational Research 90 (6): 323–30.
Brookhart, S. M. 2003. “Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and
uses.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 22 (4): 6–11.
Carlgren, I. 2002. Det nya betygssystemets tankefigurer och tänkbara användningar [The figures
of taught in the new Swedish assessment system, and possible ways of using them]. I Att
döma eller bedöma Tio artiklar om bedömning och betygssättning. [To judge or to assess. Ten
articles about assessment and grading]. Stockholm: Skolverket, Liber.
Columba, L. 2001. “Daily classroom assessment.” Education 122 (2): 372–4.
Cooper, H. 1989. Home and community factors and classroom follow-up. Homework Research on
Teaching Monograph Series. New York: Longman.
Cooper, H. 1992. “Homework.” In Encyclopaedia of education. 2nd ed, edited by J. Guthrie.
New York: Macmillan.
Cooper, H. 1999. Homework research and policy: A review of the literature. Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement 2, no. 2: 1–9. University of Minnesota, USA. http://
www.hisparks.com/MathHelpers/Homework_Research_and_Policy.pdf
Cooper, H., and J. C. Valentine. 2001. “Using research to answer practical questions about home-
work.” Educational Psychologist 36 (3): 143–53.
Cooper, H., J. C. Robinson, and E. A. Patall. 2006. “Does homework improve academic achieve-
ment? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003.” Review of Educational Research 76: 1–62.
De Carvalho, M. E. 2009. “Homework, gender and family–school relations.” In International per-
spectives on student outcomes and homework family–school–community partnerships, edited
by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge.
Deslandes, R. (ed.). 2009. International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family–
school–community partnerships. London: Routledge.
Dettmers, S., U. Trautwein, and O. Lûdtke. 2009. “The relationship between homework time and
achievement in not universal: From multilevel analyses in 40 countries.” School Effectiveness
and School Improvement 20 (4): 375–405.
Eriksson, I. 2011. Skriftspråkliga redskap i självreglerande undervisningspraktiker [Literacy
related tools in self-regulated teaching–practices]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Epstein, J. L., and F. L. Van Voorhis. 2001. “More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing
homework.” Educational Psychologist 36 (3): 181–93.
Forsberg, L. 2007. “Homework as serious family business: power and subjectivity in negotiations
about school assignments in Swedish families.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28
(2): 209–222.
Forsberg, E., and V. Lindberg. 2010. Svensk forskning om bedömning – En kartläggning [Swedish
research on assessment – A survey]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Gipps, C. 1999. “Socio-cultural aspects to assessment.” Educational Review of Research 24: 355–
392.
344 M. Strandberg
Gipps, C., and P. Murphy. 1994. “Chapter 1: Defining equity.” In A fair test? Assessment, achieve-
ment and equity, edited by C. Gipps and P. Murphy. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Glasman, D. 2009. “Parents and Children’s Homework in France.” In International perspectives
on student outcomes and Homework Family – School – Community Partnerships, edited by
R. Deslandes. Routledge: London.
Goddard, C., and A. Wierzbicka. 2005. “Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good
for?” Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (2): 153–66.
Gu, L., and M. Kristoffersson. 2010. “‘Hemma blir som skola’ Elevperspektiv på hemläxor 8
[‘Home becomes school’ students’ perspectives on homework].” Locus 4 (10): 50–65.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The power of feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77
(1): 81–112.
Hellsten, J.-O. 1997. “Läxor är inget att orda om Läxan som fenomen i aktuell pedagogisk littera-
tur [Homework is nothing to talk about: homework as phenomena in contemporary pedagogi-
cal literature].” Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige 2 (3): 205–20.
Hellsten, J.-O. 2000. Skolan som barnarbete och utvecklingsprojekt: en studie av hur grundskolee-
levers arbetsmiljö skapas-förändras-förblir som den är [School as child labour and
development work: a study of how student’s work environment in compulsory school is
created–changes–remains the same]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Hong, E., M. Wan, and Y. Peng. 2011. “Discrepancies between students’ and teachers’ perceptions
of homework.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 280–308.
Hoover Dempsey, K. V., A. C. Battiato, J. M. T. Walker, R. P. Reed, J. M. Dejong, and K. P.
Jones. 2001. “Parental Involvement in Homework in.” Educational Psychologist 36 (3):
195–209.
Hughes, M., and P. Greenhough. 2004. “Learning from homework: A case study in learning to
read critically.” In Teaching and learning, edited by L. Poulson and M. Wallace. London:
Sage.
Johansson, E. 1983. Kyrkoböckerna berättar [The Parish Examination Records Reports]. Stock-
holm: Liber Förlag.
Johansson, E. 2003. “Church records – Part I: From orality to reading tradition. Church records –
Part II: Baptism, teaching to observe, and the demographic data base (DDB) opening
reflections.” Interchange 34 (2–3): 137–51.
Klette, K. 2010. ‘Recipes for Busy Kitchens’: Arbetsplaner som lärande verktyg. [‘Recipes for
Busy Kitchens’: self-regulated learning as tools for learning]. In Uppdrag undervisning –
kunskap och lärande [Mission instruction – knowledge and learning], ed. I. Eriksson,
V. Lindberg and E. Österlind, 27–146. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Kralovec, E. 2007. “A brief history of homework.” Encounter 20 (4): 4–5.
Kryger, N., and B. Ravn. 2010. “Homework in Denmark.” In International perspectives on
students outcomes and homework family– school–community–partnerships, edited by
R. Deslandes. London: Routledge.
Lea, V. 2004. “The reflective cultural portfolio: Identifying public cultural scripts in the private
voices of white student teachers.” Journal of Teacher Education 55 (2): 116–27.
Lekholm Klapp, A., and C. Cliffordson. 2008. “Discrepancies between school grades and test
scores at individual and school level: Effects of gender and family background.” Educational
Research and Evaluation 14 (2): 181–99.
Leo, U., and D. Pettersson. 2005. Läxor – en oreglerad bedömningspraktik. [Homework – an
unregulated assessment practice]. Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy
2005: 1. Uppsala.
Liang, X. 2010. “Assessment use, self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: comparative
analysis of PISA 2003 data of Finland, Canada and the USA.” Evaluation & Research in
Education 23 (3): 213–29.
Ljunggren, C. 1993. “Undervisning som kommunikation: om läxor och offentliga samtal i skolan
[Instruction as communication: Homework and public dialogue in school].” Utbildning och
demokrati 2 (1): 9–21.
Lundahl, C. 2006. Viljan att veta vad andra vet Kunskapsbedömning i tidigmodern, modern och
senmodern skola [The wish to know what others know. Knowledge assessment in pre-modern,
modern and late-modern education]. Doctoral thesis. Arbetsliv i omvandling 2006:8
Arbetslivsinstitutet, Stockholm.
Löfgren R. and V. Lindberg. 2010. Bedömningshandlingar i två klassrum Likartat kemiinnehåll

men skilda inramningar [Assessment actions in two classrooms. Similar chemistry content
with different settings]. Skip rapport 9. Stockholm.
Martinez, J. F., B. Stecher, and H. Borko. 2009. “Classroom assessment practices, teacher
judgments, and student achievement. Mathematics; evidence from the ECLS.” Educational
Assessment 14 (2): 78–102.
Murphy, P., and G. Ivinson. 2005. “Gender, assessment and students’ literacy learning:
Implications for formative assessment.” Teacher Development 9 (2): 185–99.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 1997. Parents as partners in
Schooling Center for Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publications. Child
Education 74 (6): 342–46.
OECD. 2011a. Against the odds: Disadvantaged students who succeed in school. OECD
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264090873-en
OECD. 2011b. Quality time for students learning in and out of school. In Learning in and out of
school. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087057-en

Österlind, E. 2001. Elevers förhållningssätt till läxor En uppföljningsstudie [Students’ approach to
homework. A follow up study]. Rapport 2001:1. Dalarna: University College/Högskolan
Dalarna.
Patall, A. E., H. Cooper, and J. C. Robinson. 2008. “Parent involvement in homework: A research
synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 78: 1039–101.
Rampdass, D., and B. Zimmerman. 2011. “Developing self-regulation skills: The important role
of homework.” Journal of Advanced Academics 22 (2): 194–218.
Resnick, L., and B. Resnick. 1977. “The nature of literacy: An historical exploration.” Harvard
Education Review 47: 370–85.
Sadler, D. R. 1989. “Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.” Instructional
Science 18: 119–44.
Simmons, C. 1922. Homework. In The encyclopaedia and dictionary of education 2 (4), ed. F.
Watson. Bristol: Thoemmes Press (reprinted 2003).
Solomon, Y., J. Warin, and C. Lewis. 2002. “Helping with homework? Homework as
a site of tension for parents and teenagers.” British Educational Research Journal 28 (4):
603–22.
Stigler, J. W., and J. Hiebert. 1999. The teaching gap. Best ideas from the world’s teachers for
improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
Strandberg, M., and V. Lindberg. 2012. “Feedback in a multiethnic classroom discussion. A case
study.” Journal of Intercultural Education 23 (2): 75–88.
Ståhle, Y. 2006. Pedagogiken i tiden. Om framväxten av nya undervisningsformer under tidigt
2000-tal exemplet Kunskapsskolan [On the development of new teaching methods during the
early 2000’s. A case study of Kunskapsskolan]. Doctoral thesis, Studies in educational sci-
ences 84. Stockholm: HLS förlag.
Symeou, L. 2009. “Mind the gap! Greek-Cypriot parents and their children’s homework.” In
International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family–school–community part-
nerships, edited by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge.
The State of Queensland, Department of Education and the Arts. 2004. Homework literature
review summary of key research findings. http://education.qld.gov.au/review/pdfs/homework-
text-for-web.pdf
Trautwein, U., O. Lüdtke, I. Schnyder, and A. Niggli. 2006. “Predicting homework effort: Support
for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model.” Journal of Educational Psychology 98
(2): 438–56.
US Department of Education. 1983. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. A
nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/SOT-
W_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf
Vallberg Roth, A.-C. 2010. ‘Stödja och styra: Om bedömning av yngre barn’ [Supporting and reg-
ulating: On assessment of younger children]. In Perspektiv på barndom och barns lärande. En
kunskapsöversikt om lärande i förskolan och grundskolans tidigare år [Perspectives on child-
hood and children’s learning. A review of learning in pre- and primary school], ed.
Skolverket (Swedish National Agency of Education). Stockholm: Fritzes.
346 M. Strandberg
Vallberg Roth, A.-C., and A. Månsson. 2008. Individuella utvecklingsplaner som uttryck för
reglerad barndom Likriktning med variation [Individual plans as an expression for regulated
childhood. Uniformity with variation]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 13 (2): 81–102.
Van Voorhis, F. L. 2001. Teachers’ use of interactive homework and its effect in family
involvement and science achievement of middle grade students. Paper presented at The
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, 10–14
April.
Van Voorhis, F. L. 2004. “Reflecting on the homework ritual: Assignments and designs.” Theory
into Practice 43 (3): 205–12.
Van Voorhis, F. L. 2009. “Does family involvement in homework make a difference? Investigating
the longitudinal effects on math and language art interventions.” In International perspectives
on student outcomes and homework family–school–community partnerships, edited by R. De-
slandes. Routledge: London.
Van Voorhis, F. L. 2011. “Costs and benefits of family involvement in homework.” Journal of
Advanced Academics 22 (2): 220–49.

Walker, J., K. Hoover-Dempsey, C. L. Ice, and M. Whitaker. 2009. “Parental involvement sup-
ports better student learning.” In International perspectives on student outcomes and home-
work family–school–community partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge.
Warton, P. W. 2001. “The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students.” Educational
Psychologist 36 (3): 155–65.
Vatterott, C. 2011. “Making homework central to learning. If grading homework sends the wrong
signal about its purpose, what can teachers do instead?” Educational Leadership 69: 360–4.
Westlund, I. 2004. Läxberättelser: läxor som tid och uppgift [Homework stories: homework as
time and assignment]. Doctoral thesis: Department of Behavioural Sciences, Linköping Uni-
versity.
Westlund, I. 2007. “Reconstructed task orientation and local time governance in compulsory
schools: The Swedish case.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (6): 783–96.
Wilson, J., and J. Rhodes. 2010. “Students perspectives on homework.” Education 131 (2):
351–358.
Xu, J., and R. Yuan. 2003. “Doing homework: Listening to students’, parents’ and teachers’
voices in one urban middle school community.” The School Community Journal 13 (2):
25–44.
Xu, J. 2005. “Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high school students.” The
Journal of Educational Research 99 (1): 46–55.
Xu, J. 2007. “Middle-school homework management: More than just gender and family
involvement.” Educational Psychology 27 (2): 173–89.
Xu, J. 2009. Homework management reported by secondary school students. A multilevel
analysis. In International perspectives on student outcomes and homework family–school–
community partnerships, edited by R. Deslandes. London: Routledge.
Ziegler, S. 1992. Homework. In Encyclopaedia of educational research, 6th ed., edited by M. C.
Alkin. New York: Maxwell Macmillan International.
Digital references
http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Post-Primary_Education/Junior_-
Cycle/Assessment_for_Learning_AfL_/Homework/
http://www.skatteverket.se/download/18.b7f2d0103e5e9ecb08000100/folkboforin-
gens_historia.html
http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf
View publication stats

Lxartiklenpublicerari PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Lxartiklenpublicerari PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lxartiklenpublicerari PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from

Article in Educational Research · December 2013

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Homework – is there a connection with

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844936

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Homework – is there a connection with classroom assessment?

Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

reviewed articles, doctoral theses, reviewed anthologies, encyclopaedias, international

searched on EBSCO in order to investigate their publication histories. By reading jour-

Figure 1. Columns used to classify journal articles, theses, reports.

Linking homework to formative assessment

Connections between homework and assessment

ment in relation to homework is explicitly mentioned. One characteristic for quantitative

Teachers’ response and use of assessment on homework

Quality of teachers’ feedback on homework

Attitudes and scripts in feedback

Implicit relations between assessment and homework

Homework: purposes and functions

positive effects of homework (Cooper 1989) have to do with learning of a speciﬁc

ancy between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of student homework behaviours is

Homework as a self-disciplining technology

around, lacking self-discipline and purposefulness. According to the teachers described

Although there is no explicit Swedish homework policy, through parental involvement in

In interviews with students in two low-income schools, Bempechat et al. (2011)

(Bempechat et al. 2011, 273).

Swedish research on homework connected to assessment

There is research, which is explicitly and implicitly connected to assessment and to

3. Elton B. Stevens COmpany, http://wwwabbriviations.com/EBSCO. EBSCOhost is a search

Löfgren R. and V. Lindberg. 2010. Bedömningshandlingar i två klassrum Likartat kemiinnehåll

school. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087057-en

Advanced Academics 22 (2): 220–49.

View publication stats

You might also like