Homework’s Implications for the Well-Being of Primary School Pupils—Perceptions of Children, Parents, and Teachers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for the opportunity to read and review the paper entitled: “Homework implications for the well-being of primary school pupils - Perceptions of children, parents and teachers”.
I liked this article and I think it could be publishable after couple of minor changes. In the introduction, the authors need to give the same amount of space to teachers, parents, and students experience with the homework. As it stands, teachers position only has been emphasized.
I would also like to read more about schooling system in Romania, how it is organized etc. Thus, the part in “The study context” needs to be more expanded so the reader has a fuller picture on elementary education system in Romania. I think the authors did a fine job in grouping the statements into themes.
Also, I would like to see from the researchers how easy it was to conduct interviews with children, especially with first and second grade students. How long are interviews with students, and how long with parents and teachers? Were there significant differences between the time of the interviews with the respondents?
The authors need to add the section about the study limitations. Could there be different results with different sample, why?.
Finally, check the references as some are misspelled. Make sure the references are written correctly.
No comments.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article aims to identify practices in homework provision, delivery, and assessment that positively impact children's well-being, and its main contribution lies in presenting views and observations from teachers, parents, and children to clarify the relationship between homework and children's well-being; its strengths are the focus on multiple perspectives and the inclusion of primary school students' statements.
The introduction gives an exciting introduction to the topic, which is very interesting and important. The introduction should describe the research gap the study contributes to more clearly, and there should be a more coherent review of previous research more directly related to how homework can be effective also when considering students' well-being. The introduction leads to two research questions that don’t fit the results presented later.
The method section presents how the study was carried out except for how the participants were recruited and relevant background information about the participants like, educational background and gender for the parents, gender and achievement level of the students, and gender, years of experience, and which topic the teachers teach for the teachers. The description of the analyzing procedures needs an example of how themes were driven from an interview.
The results could be more logically presented to answer the research questions and force the reader to work hard to find out what the results are and how they might relate to the research questions in the article. The results are presented as is or like quantifications of how it is, more than actual analysis results.
As a result of the presentation of the results, the discussion section also becomes more referring to results and mentioning literature than discussing.
The conclusions do not help the reader identify the main takeaways from this study because it is too long, too detailed, and leads in too many directions.
The article's aim should be clarified because it goes in three directions. After reading the whole paper, I have the impression that the authors argue that homework can have adverse effects on students' well-being, and that is why it is crucial to find out how homework can be provided in a way that prevents this from happening. The study they have conducted addresses how homework can harm students' well-being and how homework can be positive for their well-being. I recommend that the authors consider changing the research questions to fit this purpose and, if not, leave out the results about how homework harms well-being and concentrate on what is being told about how homework works well.
The results indicate that homework as part of deductive teaching methods like mimicking is riskier to students' well-being than homework as part of more inductive teaching methods like engaging, involving, experiencing, and inquiring using real-life occasions. If the authors agree with this, it can be used to lift the analysis and the discussions.
A natural way to organize the presentation of findings will then be to present tables 5 and 6 to describe what the results say about how homework can cause harm to students' well-being and then present tables 3, 4, and 8 to show how homework can be given to prevent this or to have a positive impact on well-being. The findings about how support from parents and teachers affects these two different situations can be brought in where relevant and not be presented in separate tables. For instance, the finding that some parents push their children hard without having any concerns about their child's wellbeing is relevant to the finding that some students cry when they experience homework in negative ways. Another example is to link the result of students suggesting different ways of improving their opportunities for participation/making choices and the teacher's detailed description of what kind of homework they experience as positive for student well-being. Organizing it in a way like this will make the main results more transparent and make it easier to discuss and conclude and to see the contribution of this article.
The best part of qualitative research is to read detailed descriptions of reality as the informant has experienced it. I recommend toning down the quantification of themes and presenting more quotes or explanations of how the conversations/interviews went on. I find the use of percentage confusing; what is it a percentage of? Several quotes from different students or several times the theme is mentioned? And what does it mean when you have 16 participants?
As mentioned, I would have found it very interesting if you discussed the main findings related to deductive and inductive teaching as an overall frame and if you could go more in detail with the results that show the importance of student involvement for positive effects and if there is something to be done to prevent parents from going too hard on their children when doing homework. Should parents get involved, or should they not? And is there a safer way?
I recommend keeping the conclusion short to help the reader understand the article's main contribution.
Finally, suppose you think this will help your article, I will recommend you edit the introduction and more directly introduce the problem that homework can be both harmful and positive, and that is why it’s essential to address in your research. When describing well-being and homework, it is also relevant to address sleep deprivation (Holland et al. 2021).
The introduction needs a short and more precise review of the research on how homework can be effective for students learning and well–being.
Homework and Children in Grades 3-6: Purpose, Policy and Non-Academic Impact (2021) Holland et al.
“You need to be more responsible”: The Myth of Meritocracy and Teachers’ Accounts of Homework Inequalities. Calarco et al. 2022.
Developing Self-Regulation Skill: The Important Role of Homework by Ramdass and Zimmerman 2011,
Primary homework in England: The beliefs and practices of teachers in primary schools (2019) by Medwell and Wray.
Student perception of Teacher and parent involvement in Homework and Student engagement: The mediating role of motivation by Nunez et al. 2019.
Specific comments
Line number 7 – remove the date from the abstract and give the exact numbers of participants in each group N= N=
Line number 9 – Romania is enough information.
Line number 10 – Max QDA2022 is a tool for analyzing, not analysis itself. It should be removed from the abstract.
Line number 75-86 – This section ignores relevant research like Hamden and Thompsons' cross-national analysis, which confirms the reactive hypothesis of homework.
Line number 82 refers to a program and not research. That should be transparent.
Line number 202 – 204 A theme or a finding needs more description before using a table as evidence. When the table comes first, the reader has no help.
Line number 230 – 232 The evidence presented is not convincing.
Line number 236 – because homework is s social phenomenon, you should find another term than the nature of homework.
Line number 436 – 441 – this information should be implemented when describing the interview context in the method section.
Line number 465 – This conclusion is problematic, considering the size of the study.
Final comment
This article will be an essential contribution to the educational field about a topic that is very important and often ignored for students' well-being. I hope you find the review helpful and the suggestions relevant when improving the article. I wish you good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read about your research on homework and wellbeing. It is positive and interesting that you collected the views of children, parents and teachers, and I appreciated reading about their insights.
I strongly recommend that you clarify how your research makes a contribution to existing research on both homework and wellbeing. It is not immediately obvious how your research furthers existing understandings. You write on page 3 that: "We will try to contribute to clarifying the issue of the relationship between homework and children's well-being by highlighting the views and observations of teachers, parents and children on their homework and its effects."
It would be very helpful for the reader to know more about what might be unclear about the relationship between homework and wellbeing and why this might be important for educational research and practice. Currently, I feel that the paper sidesteps a discussion of the key premise for homework, namely, to improve students' learning. The paper would benefit from a considersation of how learning connects with wellbeing. You conclude with descriptions of the kinds of homework which makes children 'feel good', but this needs to be more thoroughly explored in terms of learning.
Furthermore, I recommend a more critical discussion of existing attitudes to homework and practices associated with it. You highlight the importance of parent involvement, but have decided not to consider how many children may therefore be disadvantaged when they come from families unable or unwilling to be actively involved.
I am left with the question: is homework worth the effort? Does it help students to learn more and better? Does it help students to feel better about school and want to learn more? Does it contribute to positive relationships between parents, teachers and students? I feel that at least some of these questions need to be addressed in order to elevate the research from a presentation of students likes and dislikes about homework to a more fruitful contribution to ongoing debates about homework and learning.
Quality of the language is generally good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
You have made substantial improvements to the manuscript, and it is now a well-structured article that will be an essential contribution to the educational field. You should probably have an extra look to ensure correct English and to remove repetitive and unnecessary formulations. Well done and congratulations.
Author Response
Our many thanks and gratitude for your consistent support in making the article better. We have revised it from an English perspective, using English language professional. We have reduced some of the repetitions. Thank you!
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the responses to the feedback and for the improvements made. I agree that the relevance and contribution of the research is more clearly stated and the paper is much better overall.
I have two points which I feel should be addressed before the paper can be accepted:
1. The language needs improving, especially in the newly added sections. There are grammar errors and overuse of colloquial language.
2. I feel that an important point is missed about the value of listening to children, parents and teachers on a issue which affects all three parties. What does research conducted in this way tell the research field about the importance of gaining a range of insights? Particularly those of children? By considering this point, the paper has the potential to move beyond informing readers about the kinds of homework practices which are beneficial.
See above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Our many thanks and gratitude for your consistent support in making the article better. Following your recommendations, we have done:
1. We revised from an English language perspective, using the software DeepL Advanced to translate the whole text, which we then revised, and we also turned to English language professional for another revision of the text.
2. Thank you for the suggestion to further enhance the value of listening to children, parents and teachers on an issue which affects all three parties, highlighting the importance of gaining a range of insights. The paragraph added is highlighted in green. We hope it adds consistency to the article and thank you very much for this recommendation.
Thank you once more for your valuable suggestions. Thanks to them, we have been able to progress in refining the article.
With respect and gratitude, the authors.
