Task specific homework turn-in rates

Table 5.2 separates out the weekly homework tasks into maths and spelling for each class, showing the average turn-in rates per week for each subject. The same scoring system used in table 5.1 was used to calculate the percentages. The empty cells in weeks 3 and 8 indicate that there was no homework sheet for maths set or to mark because for those weeks the children were asked to revise for the school wide tables challenge test. Considering all the data together, there is little to separate the performance of each class with relation to the different homework tasks. For maths the Focus class achieved a

R² = 0.5894 R² = 0.1813 50 55 60 65 70 75

WEEK 6 WEEK 7 WEEK 8 WEEK 9 WEEK 10

Term 2 Average weekly homework turn-in rates

Focus Class Comparison Class

mean 59% (sd = 13.31) turn-in rate and the Comparison class a mean of 60% (sd = 9.17) suggesting the Comparison class was a little more consistent than the Focus class in handing in completed maths homework. There is even less difference for the spelling homework as both classes achieved a mean 69% turn-in rate (Focus sd = 8.08; Comparison sd = 6.20), it is not until the data are graphed (figure 5.4) that more information is revealed. WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5 WEEK 6 WEEK 7 WEEK 8 WEEK 9 WEEK 10 Focus maths 78 63 50 37 48 61 61 72 Focus spellings 74 74 72 67 57 54 78 65 76 72 Comparison maths 74 52 62 68 62 60 44 60 Comparison spellings 72 76 72 72 70 68 72 54 64 66

Table 5.2 The average percentage of subject specific homework completed and handed in each week.

The overall numerical data is very similar for both classes but the graph (figure 5.4) suggests that something around week 5 influenced the Focus class’ behaviour as both the maths and spelling lines create a pronounced V around this point. The Comparison class does not respond in a similar way so we might conclude this is a result of introducing ClassDojo. For a closer analysis, the terms are separated and shown on figure 5.5 (term 1) and 5.6 (term 2).

Figure 5.4 Percentage of maths and spelling homework completed and turned in each week for the Focus and Comparison classes. Trendlines added for overall direction of behaviour.

In Term 1 (figure 5.5) the Focus class showed a strong drop-off in homework turn-in rate for both maths (mean 57%, sd = 17.57, r2 = 0.9746) and spelling (mean 69%, sd = 7.19, r2 = 0.8129). The Comparison class produced a slightly higher average turn-in rate

R² = 0.0017 R² = 0.0004 R² = 0.2288 R² = 0.4655 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5 WEEK 6 WEEK 7 WEEK 8 WEEK 9 WEEK 10

Percentage Homework turn-in rates for maths and

spellings for comparison class and focus class

Focus maths Focus spellings Comparison maths Comparison spelling Linear (Focus maths) Linear (Focus spellings) Linear (Comparison maths) Linear (Comparison spelling)

for maths (mean 64%, sd = 9.38, r2 = 0.0015) and spelling (mean 72%, sd = 2.24, r2 = 0.333), but were more consistent across the term. If this behaviour is a reflection of parental involvement and influence in the homework process (see section 2.3; Wingard and Forsberg, 2009; Cooper et al 2001; Thirumurthy, 2014; Şad & Gürbüztürk, 2013) this would support the class teacher’s observation that her class’ parents were more ‘obstructive’ and ‘unsupportive’ in nature than those of the Comparison class. Both classes contained a similar mix of pupil ability and the homework tasks were differentiated to accommodate the different levels of capability so that the activities could be done with the minimum of parental involvement. The resulting homework turn-in rates were not then due to pupil ability to do the tasks but a measure of their engagement and motivation to produce the work.

Figure 5.5 Homework turn-in rate for term 1, by subject, for the Focus and Comparison classes.

In Term 2 (figure 5.6) after ClassDojo was introduced to the Focus class, some interesting changes occurred. The first thing to notice is, like term 1 (figure 5.5) the overall shapes of the data lines are similar, so the Comparison spelling lines are similarly shaped to the Focus spelling lines and the same with the maths. This might

R² = 0.9746 R² = 0.8129 R² = 0.0015 R² = 0.3333 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5

Term 1 percentage homework turn-in rates by subject

Focus maths Focus spellings

Comparison maths Comparison spellings

Linear (Focus maths) Linear (Focus spellings) Linear (Comparison maths) Linear (Comparison spellings)

reflect the content difficulty of the task or some environmental issue, however the effect seems to be the same for both classes and cannot be attributed to ClassDojo. The second thing to notice is the Focus class’ lines are now higher than the Comparison class’ meaning they are now handing in more homework each week.

The Comparison class demonstrated a lower homework turn-in rates for maths (mean 57%, sd = 8.41, r2 = 0.1896) and spelling (mean 65%, sd = 6.72, r2 = 0.0796) in term 2 than they did in term 1; dropping an average of 7% in both subjects. This decrease in homework turn-in rate is consistent with the general findings of the background data (figure 1.1) and can therefore be considered normal behaviour.

The Focus class behaved quite differently. They improved their average percentage homework turn-in rate for maths (mean 61%, sd = 9.69, r2 = 0.7972) by 4% and kept their spelling average the same (mean 69%, sd = 9.75, r2 = 0.3042). This also equates to an average 11% increase in maths and a 10% increase in spelling homework relative to the Comparison class, which supports the positive effects of using ClassDojo. However, the graph (figure 5.4) forms a V shape for both subjects suggesting the use of ClassDojo engaged and motivated pupils to change their behaviour. If we can suggest the Focus class’ homework turn-in rates measured to some extent parental influence and involvement in term 1, and we might reasonably assume nothing much changed based on the evidence and experience of the class teacher and the head teacher, we can conclude that not only did the use of ClassDojo have a positive effect on homework turn-in rates it also went some way to mitigating the negative influences of the home environment. The extent to which individuals changed their behaviour is examined in section 5.2.4.

Figure 5.6 Homework turn-in rate for term 2, by subject, for the Focus and Comparison classes.