Essay: Mid Leader project: evidence-based research – setting homework

Mid Leader project: evidence-based research
Introduction
In order to explore the project, I will first give background to how this particular project came to be. To inform of the research, some background of the school is essential. The school I currently work in is a coastal secondary in a socioeconomically deprived area.  The school is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted and progress is generally great.
Homework however, is a recurring issue around the school. Current school policy dictates that departments should be setting ‘meaningful’ homework every two weeks. This is a very common policy around secondary schools but where my school differs is that there are no consequences to students not completing. Therefore, homework completion in my department and around the school is very poor; residing at around 19%. Due to poor completion because of school policy, most staff feel it is a waste of time to set the homework, which is understandable.
One of my first jobs after taking my role as 2nd in department was to increase the setting of homework in the science department. My first course of action was to introduce a homework suite that allowed easy setting of homework and comprehensive analysis of setting and completion rates. Every half term a report was presented to the department showing the current situation of homework setting and how we could improve. From the autumn to summer term there was an increase in homework setting of 278%(!), resulting in the science department becoming the school leader in setting homework.
My second course of action is where my research comes in. Now that homework was being set regularly, the next task was to improve the completion of homework and this will form the basis of my evidence-based research. The project will focus on the effect of positive and negative consequences on homework completion, hoping to answer the question ‘Can we increase homework completion by awarding positive behaviour points (rewards) for completed homework and negative behaviour points (sanctions) for incomplete?’. To answer this, I read around leadership in education and studies on homework.
Background
Leadership is the action of leading a group or organisation, or the ability to do this. It is an influence process over a group of individuals, workers or employees aimed at gaining their commitment to shared values and goals and subsequent goal achievement. Liethwood and Riehl (2005) have defined leadership as the work of ‘mobilising and influencing others to articulate and achieve the school’s shared intentions and goals’. Liethwood and Riehl (2005) go further than this and set out five conditions for leadership: leadership exists within social relationships and serves social ends, leadership involves purpose and direction, leadership is an influence process- such influence may be direct or indirect, leadership is a function and leadership is contextual and contingent- most contemporary perspectives of leadership suggest there is no one best way of exercising it for all contexts. Dimmock (2012) gives a concise definition that I prefer; ‘Leadership is a social influence process guided by a moral purpose with the aim of building capacity by optimising available resources towards the achievement of shared goals’.
Bush (2015) characterises leadership into six models, which will be discussed and contextualised into the aim of this project. The six models are: formal, collegial, political, subjective, ambiguity and cultural.
Formal models assume that organisations are hierarchical systems in which managers use rational means to pursue agreed goals. Headteachers possess authority legitimised by their formal positions within the organisation and are accountable to governors for the activities of their institutions.
Collegial models depend on organisations to determine policy and make decisions through a process of discussion leading to a consensus. Power is shared among some or all members of the organisation who are thought to have shared understanding about the aims of the institution.
Political models assume that in organisations, policy and decisions emerge through a process of negotiation and compromise. Groups form alliance in pursuit of particular policy objectives. Conflict is viewed as natural and power is gained by the dominant faction.
Subjective models have the approach that institutions are the creations of the people within them.  The people within them are thought to interpret situations in different ways and these individual opinions are derived from their background.
Ambiguity models assume that turbulence and unpredictability are dominant features of institutions. There is no clarity over the objectives of the organisation and its processes. Participation in leadership is fluid as members opt in and out of decisions.
Cultural models assume that beliefs, values and ideology are at the heart of the institutions. These values become shared traditions which are communicated and reinforced around the institution. (Bush 2013)
As with most leadership roles, this project involved a combination of the aforementioned models. The political model was employed through negotiation to allow a change in school policy for the project to be carried out, namely the changing to allow the praise and consequence of homework completion. Formal model was used as the authority of my position in the department allowed me to work autonomously. The collegial model was employed when negotiating with year leaders who were responsible for pastoral needs and cultural came from changing the ideology of homework within the institution. Overall, the elements of leadership I displayed were explaining my vision and strategies effectively to others; checking on people understanding of my vision and strategies; mobilising others in support of my ideas; consistently leading improvement because I maintain a current understanding, drawn from research, of teaching and learning of the highest quality andworking with senior members of staff to incorporate and improve school policy.
According to the EEF, ‘Homework refers to tasks given to pupils by their teachers to be completed outside of usual lessons. Common homework activities may be reading or preparing for work to be done in class or practising and completing tasks or activities already taught or started in lessons, but it may include more extended activities to develop inquiry skills or more directed and focused work such as revision for exams.’ Although an established an accepted part of school life, research on the impact of homework is mixed.
On average, most homework in Ks4 is thought of positively. With attainment 5 months greater on average. At KS2, research shows homework may be in fact detrimental to the student. This study is therefore interested in looking at KS3 where less research has been carried out. The type of homework set is also important. Studies show more routinely set homework shows an average increase in attainment less than the average of 5 months. Homework seems to be more effective where it is set as a one-off project of specific learning with average attainment greater than the average 5 months.
When considering a homework-based intervention, the EEF have a guidance which has been summarised below:
1. Planned and focused activities are more beneficial than homework which is more regular but may be routine or not linked with what is being learned in class.
2. It should not be used as a punishment or penalty for poor performance.
3. A variety of tasks with different levels of challenge is likely to be beneficial.
4. The quality of homework is more important than the quantity. Pupils should receive specific and timely feedback on homework.
5. Have you made the purpose of homework clear to children (e.g.to increase a specific area of knowledge, or fluency in a particular area)? (Gustafsson 2013)
Positive and negative…
In order to get the go ahead, I discussed my plans with SLT as the project is against current school policy. Coincidentally, SLT were aware of the poor homework completion and had decided that the policy must change. Therefore, the project was timely and encouraged by the Deputy Headteacher
Method
To make the data as reliable and accurate as possible, two classes were chosen of similar ability (similar current data and KS2 data). They were two Y8 classes, which will hereby referred to as 8X and 8Y. As mentioned previously, the project will explore the impact on positive and negative feedback on the completion of homework. 8X will be placed on the new intervention policy, while 8Y will remain on the normal homework policy, just like the rest of the school.
Homework, which is set every two weeks in the science department, will continue to be set as usual. However, after the homework due date, the students in 8X will receive the intervention. The intervention will take the form of positive and negative behaviour points. In the institution the project is based, behaviour works on a point scale. If a student displays positive behaviour traits in lessons they receive positive points, the positive points can be exchanged for rewards that range from 50 points for a bacon sandwich to 2500 points for an Xbox One. The negative points work in the same way, if there is an accrual of negative points the students will find themselves under scrutiny, which if things don’t turn around, can find themselves permanently excluded.
This approach, according to Ullmand and Krasner (1965), is very common in most UK secondary behavioural policies and mostly all schools use some basis of rewards and sanctions for modifying behaviour. Studies show changes in on-task behaviour, rates of positive and negative feedback, disruptive incidents, detentions and the use of merits across time. (Swinson 2010)
The intervention will compromise of 3 positive points for completed homework and 1 negative point if the homework is late or missed completely. At the end of every two-week cycle, the students will be shown the spreadsheet of who has completed and who has not and will watch as the points are attributed to each student. Over the course of the intervention there will be time for 3 cycles, resulting in a six-week project.
Data will be captured of  percentage completion from the intervention class (8X) and the control group (8Y), this will be analysed over the six weeks for any change in completion.
Findings
Table 1, table to show the percentage completion rates of classes 8X and 8Y and different data collection dates.
Class Percentage completion of homework (%)
2.5.2018 18.5.2018 11.6.2018
8X 76.7 76.7 96.7
8Y 19.2 7.7 23.1
As seen in Table 1, 8X had a starting percentage of 76.7 on the first data collection on the 2nd of May, this stayed at 76. 7% on the 18th of May collection. For the final collection this rose to 96.7% of the class completing the homework. 8Y had a starting percentage completion of 19.2% on the 2nd of May. This dropped to 7.7% homework completion on the 18th of May and rose to 23.1% on the final capture on the 11th of June.
Looking at the data individually on a student to student basis, which can be seen in appendices 1 and 2, we see student 2 going from very rarely completing homework to completing it by the final data capture and getting a relatively high sore. From the raw data, it can be seen that before the intervention 19 out of 30 students did not complete homework. This went down to 7 students not completing in the first data capture of the project and finally only 1 student not completing by the final data capture. 8Y before the project had 21 out of 26 students not completing their homework. The first data capture of the project saw the non-completing members of the class at 23 out of 26, this rose to 24 in the second data capture and finally dropped to 20 in the final data capture.