the teacher checking the homework

Your browser is not supported

Sorry but it looks as if your browser is out of date. To get the best experience using our site we recommend that you upgrade or switch browsers.

Find a solution

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation
• Macmillan English
• Onestopenglish
• Digital Shop

• Back to parent navigation item
• Sample material
• Amazing World of Animals
• Amazing World of Food
• Arts and Crafts
• Mathematics
• Transport and Communication
• Teaching Tools
• Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship
• Support for Teaching Children
• Vocabulary & Phonics
• Spelling Bee Games
• Phonics & Sounds
• The Alphabet
• Onestop Phonics: The Alphabet
• Alphabet Booklet
• Interactive Flashcards
• Warmers & Fillers
• Young Learner Games
• Stories and Poems
• Fillers & Pastimes
• Fun Fillers
• Ready for School!
• Topics & Themes
• Young Learner Topics
• Young Learner Festivals
• Festival Worksheets
• Art and Architecture
• Business and Tourism
• Geography and the Environment
• Information Technology
• Science and Nature
• Topic-based Listening Lessons
• Cambridge English
• Cambridge English: Preliminary (PET)
• Cambridge English: First (FCE)
• Cambridge English: Proficiency (CPE)
• Cambridge English: Advanced (CAE)
• General English
• News Lessons
• Topics and Themes
• Beyond (BrE)
• Beyond: Arts and Media
• Beyond: Knowledge
• Go Beyond (AmE)
• Go Beyond: Arts & Media
• Go Beyond: Knowledge
• Impressions
• Macmillan Readers
• A Time to Travel
• Life & School
• Skills for Problem Solving
• Digital Skills for Teens
• Support for Teaching Teenagers
• Games Teaching Materials
• Business and ESP
• Business Lesson Plans
• Business Skills Bank
• Business Top Trumps
• Elementary Business Lessons
• HR Management
• Let's Talk Business
• Business News Lessons
• ESP Lesson Plans
• Career Readiness
• Professional Communication Skills
• Cambridge English: Business (BEC)
• Everyday Life
• Celebrations
• Live from...
• Live from London
• Discussion Cards
• Writing Lesson Plans
• Life Skills
• Support for Teaching Adults
• Vocabulary Lesson Plans
• Language for...
• Vocabulary Teaching Materials
• Macmillan Dictionary Blog
• Vocabulary Infographics
• Kahoot! Quizzes
• Blog Articles
• Professional Development
• Lesson Share
• Methodology: Projects and Activities
• Methodology: Tips for Teachers
• Methodology: The World of ELT
• Advancing Learning
• Online Teaching
• More from navigation items

Teaching approaches: First lessons

• 1 Teaching approaches: First lessons
• 2 Teaching approaches: checking-homework Challenge
• 3 Teaching approaches: computer assisted language learning
• 4 Teaching approaches: content-based teaching
• 5 Teaching approaches: functional approaches in EFL/ ESOL
• 6 Teaching approaches: task-based learning
• 7 Teaching approaches: the communicative classroom
• 8 Teaching approaches: the grammar-translation method
• 9 Teaching approaches: the negotiated syllabus
• 10 Teaching approaches: total physical response
• 11 Teaching approaches: translation as a language learning tool
• 12 Teaching approaches: using L1 in class
• 13 Teaching approaches: What is "suggestopedia"?
• 14 Teaching approaches: what is audiolingualism?
• 15 Teaching approaches: what is the silent way?

Teaching approaches: checking-homework Challenge

By Jane Sjoberg

• No comments

These are just a few ideas of how to make the whole-class correction of homework less of a chore and more of an active challenge. The suggestions given are specifically geared to be used when correcting exercises set from a workbook or worksheet as homework but some ideas may also be used when giving feedback for tasks set in class.

• Give students a chance to compare their answers in pairs. Students can then correct/ change/ complete their own answers before a whole class check. This puts students at the centre of the correction process from the start and asks them to reflect upon their own and each other’s answers with a greater degree of learner autonomy.
• Take names out of a hat at random to nominate the students who are to supply answers (make sure this is done in a ‘fun’ way, explaining to students that they have an opportunity to PASS if their name is called).
• Use a ball or a scrunched up ball of newspaper weighted with a thick rubber band (lightweight balls that don’t bounce are best – bouncy balls have a tendency to get lost in the darkest corners of the classroom) to throw at random around the class to see who gets to give their answer to questions. Whoever gets the ball throws it to the next student. Again, give students an opportunity to pass if necessary.
• Alternate between asking for answers to be volunteered and calling on specific students to answer questions. Where the teacher is unfamiliar with the various ability groups in a class, nominating students can be a nightmare, especially if weaker or less confident learners are inadvertently asked to provide their answer to more complex questions. However, nominating is a way of ensuring the participation of those who are less likely to volunteer. Alternating between volunteers and nominated students solves this problem in part, but nominees should always be given the chance to pass if they prefer.
• To ensure that all students participate in the correction process, pre-prepare a grid that includes the question numbers for the various exercises that are to be corrected. Leave a space next to each question number. At the beginning of the lesson, get students to put their name down to answer the various questions. Tell students that, even if they did not do the homework they can still try to answer a question of their choice but do not force students to put their names down. When all the students who wish to participate have put their names down for at least one question, take the list in and use it to call on the students to answer the questions in turn. This ensures that the students called upon will be answering questions they themselves feel confident about (or else questions for which they would prefer individual feedback). If this process is repeated over several lessons, it also gives the teacher a chance to see whether there are students who repeatedly prefer not to be involved in the homework correction process. These students and their individual problems regarding homework can then be dealt with on a one-to-one basis.
• For fill-in-the-gaps exercises or simple one- or two-word answers present feedback in power point or on an OHP. Go through answers one by one giving time for students to check their own work. At the end of each exercise, stop and give students a chance to query, provide alternatives, or request further information regarding specific answers.
• Ask the class to do a quick survey in groups ranking exercises from the most to least difficult, the most to least interesting, the most to least useful etc.. Use student feedback to decide which exercise to correct together first and then give exercises ranked by the majority as the least interesting/difficult on OHP/power point as above to speed up the correction process. This ensures that students will be more alert during the correction of what they perceived to be the most problematic areas of their homework. Homework ranking tasks also provide important feedback to the teacher who may use the data provided to check on the cause of problems areas at a later date. Students may perceive certain exercises as difficult for different reasons – length, typology, unclear instructions, vocabulary density of exercise, grammatical problems, uninteresting topic etc.. A further analysis of these issues may help the teacher to decide which exercises to set or dedicate more time to in the future. Remember to check your students’ ranking of difficult exercises after correction – what students may have originally perceived as problematic may not actually correspond to their own performance. This again may be something that can be discussed and analyzed further at a later date.
• For teachers in a hurry to get correcting out of the way – simply vary the order in which exercises are corrected. This ensures that students are alert and are following the correction process.
• Get students to check through answers in pairs by photocopying the key (readymade or produced by the teacher) or displaying answers on an OHP. Set aside time at the end of the lesson for individual students to discuss problem areas or organize a tutorial session where students can come and discuss problems individually with the teacher while the group works on another task/project work.
• Change the time of the lesson in which homework is corrected. Most students expect homework corrections to come right at the beginning of a lesson and, let’s face it, it’s not the best or most enjoyable way to start off! Try checking homework as a way of ‘calming down’ after a boisterous group-work session or leave it till the end of the lesson. Incidentally, this also works with setting homework. Try varying the point of the lesson at which homework is set to ensure that all the students are paying attention!
• Take in students’ workbooks occasionally or provide photocopies of exercises that can be handed in. Though this does add to the teacher’s workload, it is worth taking a look at how students deal with more mechanical exercises that differ from extended written work which necessarily requires individual marking and feedback. Taking a look at a workbook can provide an idea of problem areas for individual students, again with a view to diagnosing problem areas in structures/ vocabulary or assessing difficulties that may be based on other factors such as lack of interest in the topic, unclear instructions etc.. It may also allow the teacher to gain insight into how much (or how little) homework an individual student is regularly putting in. Following the teacher’s appraisal of the students’ workbooks individual tutorials may be arranged to discuss issues as appropriate.
• Provide mini keys of individual exercises to distribute to pairs. Students then take it in turns to ‘play the teacher’ and check each other’s answers. Where more than two exercises need checking pairs can exchange keys and repeat the process as many times as necessary. The teacher can circulate and deal with queries as pairs are checking. However, remember to provide an opportunity for the discussion of problem areas at the end of the pair-work session or at the end of the lesson.
• Most workbook exercises that need to be checked are not specifically designed to practise pronunciation. Where pronunciation exercises are set make sure that adequate time is given to teacher modelling and student production of target items. In the majority of cases, i.e. where structures, vocabulary and functions are being practised, vary the correction procedure by taking time out along the way to focus on pronunciation/ intonation issues. Even the most boring feedback sessions can be livened up by a rousing choral repetition session!
• Spot check on lexis by occasionally eliciting synonyms/ antonyms/ similar expressions/ analogous idioms of items taken from the exercises being corrected. This also provides an added opportunity for those who did not do the homework to participate in the correction process and allows those who did not necessarily provide a correct answer in an exercise to regain their confidence in being able to answer extra questions. This technique is also useful for involving more competent or confident students. Spot check questions should therefore be carefully gauged to include the whole ability range. Extra questions can also include pronunciation issues by eliciting word stress, number of syllables, homophones etc. The teacher is obviously free to ask spot check questions at any point during the correction process. However, it may be worth just taking a quick look at the exercises that are to be corrected beforehand so that appropriate extra questions may be devised in advance.
• Using photocopies or an OHP transparency, create a multiple choice answer key for a few exercises where three possible answers to each question are provided, only one of which is correct. Students then compare their own answers with the alternatives given. They then choose the answer that they consider correct (which may or may not correspond with their own original answer). This activity gives students a chance to rethink their own answers before the teacher finally provides the key. It also gives less confident students and those who may not have completed the task an opportunity to take part in the correction process.
• Play the ‘Who wants to be a millionaire?’ game when correcting. In this case, students are placed in two teams. Students from each team are called upon alternately to provide answers to each question. Each team has a set number of ‘ask a friend’, ‘fifty-fifty’ and ‘pass’ cards which they can use at their discretion. (Numbers can be decided on the basis of how many students there are in each team. For a class of 12 students with teams of 6 players each, one card of each type should be ample. The ‘cards’ do not have to be made as such. They may be simply registered on the board for each team and rubbed off as they are used). For ‘ask-a-friend’ a student may ask another member of his/her team to provide the answer. For ‘fifty-fifty’ the teacher gives two alternative answers and the student must choose which he/she considers correct. (This may need some prior preparation, depending on the teacher’s ability to come up with sneaky alternatives!) If the student passes, the answer is given by the teacher and no points are scored. One word of warning – as this game has a strong competitive element, please make sure that an equal number of questions is given to each team and that a variety of exercises is ensured. It is a good idea to split individual exercises into two halves and give teams an equal number of questions each. If an exercise has an odd number of answers, the teacher can simply provide the answer to the first question as an example.
• Finally, be upbeat about homework correction. Camp up the performance if necessary with a round of applause for correct answers. Sound effects for applause can be recorded or included in power point presentations or the students themselves can be encouraged to clap when correct answers are given. With younger students, take care that clapping does not turn to booing wrong answers, however. If this is a risk, you might consider a collective round of applause at the end of each exercise corrected. Also remember that homework feedback which involves student participation may be an intense source of satisfaction when students are able to provide the right answer but it can also be a source of embarrassment for those who are unable to do so. Make sure lots of praise and encouragement is given for answers that are even partly correct and, where possible, give positive feedback for areas that are not necessarily the focus of the exercise (such as good pronunciation in the case of grammatical errors or wrong answers in comprehension exercises).

Remember: students quickly tune in to the mood of their teacher. If the teacher presents homework correction as a valid and interesting part of the learning process it will be infectious and homework corrections need never be boring again!

• British English
• Intermediate
• Pre-Intermediate
• Reference Material
• Upper-Intermediate

Teaching approaches: computer assisted language learning

Teaching approaches: content-based teaching, teaching approaches: functional approaches in efl/ esol.

Teaching approaches: task-based learning

Teaching approaches: the communicative classroom

Teaching approaches: the grammar-translation method, teaching approaches: the negotiated syllabus, teaching approaches: total physical response, teaching approaches: translation as a language learning tool, teaching approaches: using l1 in class, teaching approaches: what is "suggestopedia", teaching approaches: what is audiolingualism, teaching approaches: what is the silent way, related articles, first steps into …classroom technologies.

By Daniel Barber and Brian Bennett

How do you know which classroom technologies to choose? Daniel Barber and Brian Bennett suggest a framework for assessing what’s right … and what’s just hype.

First steps into ...student collaboration in and out of the classroom

How can you encourage students to collaborate both in and outside the classroom? Daniel Barber and Brian Bennett suggest building online communities for project work.

First steps into ...making digital work for you

There are a plethora of digital tools available to help you manage your classes and the tasks you have to do outside of the classroom. Where do you begin? Daniel Barber provides some tips on making digital work for you.

No comments yet

Only registered users can comment on this article., more from methodology: the world of elt.

Communicative Language Teaching

By Judson Wright

Read about the benefits and the practice of Communicative Language Teaching.

How to write

Learn new skills with this series of articles from the  Learn to Write ELT materials course.

Applied linguistics: Research methods for language teaching

By Netta Avineri

Netta Avineri, Assistant Professor of TESOL at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, offers a step-by-step guide to conducting research in the language classroom.

Join onestopenglish today

With more than 700,000 registered users in over 100 countries around the world, Onestopenglish is the number one resource site for English language teachers, providing access to thousands of resources, including lesson plans, worksheets, audio, video and flashcards.

• Connect with us on Facebook
• Connect with us on Twitter
• Connect with us on Youtube

Onestopenglish is a teacher resource site, part of Macmillan Education, one of the world’s leading publishers of English language teaching materials.

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie policy
• Manage cookies

©Macmillan Education Limited 2023. Company number: 1755588 VAT number: 199440621

Site powered by Webvision Cloud

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

“homework feedback is…”: elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback.

• 1 Departamento de Psicologia Aplicada, Escola de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
• 2 Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

This study explored mathematics teachers’ conceptions of the homework feedback focusing on four key aspects: definition, purpose, types, and perceived impact. Forty-seven teachers from elementary and middle schools participated in six focus groups. Data were analyzed using content analysis. To enhance the trustworthiness of findings, classroom observations were used for triangulation of data. Participants conceptualized homework feedback in three directions (i.e., teachers’ feedback provided to students, students’ feedback provided to teachers, and homework self-feedback), being teachers’ monitoring of students’ learning the purpose reported by most teachers. Participants also reported the types of homework feedback more frequently used in class (e.g., checking homework completion, checking homework on the board), and their perceived impact on students. Findings provide valuable information to deepen the understanding of the homework feedback process, which may help develop new avenues for future research.

Introduction

Homework may be defined as tasks assigned by teachers to be completed in non-instructive time ( Cooper, 2001 ), and has proved to enhance students’ academic achievement when endowed with particular characteristics (e.g., short, purposeful, frequent assignments, high quality) (e.g., Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ; Rosário et al., 2015a ).

In addition, the homework feedback provided by the teacher in class is an important tool to increase the impact of homework on students’ learning and academic achievement (e.g., Walberg and Paik, 2000 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ; Rosário et al., 2015b ), and a crucial aspect of the quality of homework ( Cooper, 2001 ). However, detailed information on elementary and middle school teachers’ perspectives about their practices and on the reasons why teachers choose and use particular types of homework feedback in class is still scarce ( Bang et al., 2009 ; Deslandes, 2009 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). Investigating teachers’ conceptions of the homework feedback, particularly in elementary and middle school, may provide new insights into research on homework (e.g., helping further explain previous quantitative results; improving homework feedback measures), as well as into educational practices (e.g., teachers getting training on homework feedback practices).

Teachers’ Role on the Homework Feedback Process

Teachers play an important role in the first phase of the homework process by setting up the objectives of homework assignments and designing tasks, and also in the final phase by implementing classroom follow-up practices ( Cooper, 2001 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ; Rosário et al., 2015a , b ). The latter includes, among other practices, homework feedback provided in class: oral or written praise, criticism, written comments (highlighting right and wrong answers), rewards, general review of homework in class, and grading (i.e., teachers giving numerical grades) (e.g., Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Murphy et al., 1987 ; Corno, 2000 ; Cooper, 2001 ). These homework feedback practices are an important instructional tool for teachers in their teaching process (e.g., helping identify students’ difficulties, errors or misconceptions in homework; approaching the learning contents to accommodate students’ lack of prior knowledge, and redesigning homework to match students’ needs) ( Corno, 2000 ; Walberg and Paik, 2000 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ; An and Wu, 2012 ; Bang, 2012 ).

Extant research lacks studies which have focused specifically on each of the above-mentioned types of homework feedback; still, some studies have shed some light on the usage and benefits of the various types of homework feedback. For example, Murphy et al. (1987 , p. 68) found that “class discussion on homework,” and grading and commenting on homework were the practices most frequently used by high school teachers (i.e., English, mathematics, science, and social science) to monitor students’ completion of homework. Focusing on mathematics, Kaur (2011) explored the nature of homework tasks assigned by three 8th grade mathematics teachers (e.g., types of homework, sources of homework tasks), and found that teachers provided feedback on errors by grading assignments, orienting discussions and checking homework on the board when needed. Using the TIMSS 2003 data set, Zhu and Leung (2012) found that a high percentage of 8th grade mathematics teachers reported checking homework completion (85%), providing feedback regularly (i.e., at least “sometimes”, 100%), and discussing homework in class (96%). Nevertheless, none of these studies deeply explored the process of homework feedback.

Students’ Role on the Homework Feedback Process

Students engaging in school tasks with autonomy and responsibility are expected to develop a sense of personal agency for self-managing their behaviors ( Zimmerman, 1989 ). Besides, students who proactively manage their behaviors to attain self-set goals are likely to self-regulate their learning efficiently ( Zimmerman, 1989 ). From a social cognitive perspective, self-regulated learning (SRL) may be defined as an active learning process whereby students self-set goals that direct their cognitions, motivations and behaviors toward those goals ( Zimmerman, 1989 ; Núñez et al., 2013 ; Rosário et al., 2013 ). For example, robust self-efficacy and autonomy, good study skills, commitment to self-set goals, and positive academic attitudes are examples of core elements of academic self-regulation which are necessary to complete homework ( Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005 ; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Schmitz and Perels, 2011 ; Núñez et al., 2015c ). Regarding the latter, extant literature highlighted self-regulation competencies as essential tools not only to help students complete their homework, but also use the homework feedback delivered with efficacy and responsibility ( Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ; Xu and Wu, 2013 ). In fact, students are given homework feedback in class and play an important role deciding what to do next with the information given (e.g., ignoring feedback, self-evaluating their homework performance, using SRL learning strategies).

However, to authors’ knowledge, research has not yet provided information to contribute to understanding how teachers’ homework feedback may promote students’ active role in the homework feedback process. As Corno (2000) reported, teachers are expected to promote students’ capacity to self-evaluate their homework, which would involve addressing important self-regulatory processes. Otherwise, homework feedback may fail to benefit students ( Zhu and Leung, 2012 ).

The Benefits of Homework Feedback

Research has analyzed the effect of specific types of homework feedback provided by teachers on students’ academic performance in a particular subject (e.g., Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ), and also the relationships between homework variables (e.g., homework feedback perceived by students, students’ interest, homework management) using non-subject-centered designs ( Xu, 2012 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ). Focusing on the former (i.e., investigating homework feedback in a particular subject), Cardelle and Corno (1981) examined the effect of three types of written homework feedback (i.e., praise, constructive criticism, and constructive criticism plus praise) on college students’ written performance in a second language. Findings showed that students under the constructive criticism plus praise condition achieved a better written performance than their counterparts. Moreover, irrespective of performance levels (i.e., high, middle, and low), participants reported their preference for the constructive criticism plus praise condition. Elawar and Corno (1985) conducted a similar study in mathematics with 6th grade students. Findings showed that students under the constructive criticism plus praise condition showed better achievement and a more positive attitude toward mathematics (e.g., enthusiasm for mathematics) than students of the control group.

The synthesis by Walberg et al. (1985) , and also recent findings by Rosário et al. (2015b) , indicated that specific and individual feedback (i.e., giving written comments or grading homework) positively impacts students’ academic achievement. However, checking homework, grading, and providing individual feedback on homework assignments for every single student in class may not always be feasible because of teacher’s heavy workload (e.g., large numbers of students per class, large numbers of classes to teach, many school meetings per week) ( Cooper, 2001 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). This educational constraint may help explain why checking homework on the board and checking homework orally are among the homework follow-up practices most frequently used by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers ( Rosário et al., 2015b ). These practices are useful to teachers because they allow providing feedback to the whole class (e.g., Brookhart, 2008 ) with less effort than that needed to grade homework or comment on students’ assignments.

Moreover, homework feedback perceived by students was also investigated using non-subject-centered designs (e.g., Xu, 2011 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ; for exceptions see Tas et al., 2016 ; Xu et al., 2017 ). In general, findings showed some of the benefits of homework feedback for students. For example, Xu’s studies using multilevel designs found that at student level teachers’ homework feedback reported by 8th and 11th grade students was positively associated with students’ interest in homework ( Xu, 2008 ), students’ reasons for doing homework ( Xu, 2010 ), students’ homework management ( Xu and Wu, 2013 ; Xu et al., 2017 ), and students’ homework motivation management ( Xu, 2014 ).

Analyzing students’ homework completion at 8th and 11th grade levels, Xu (2011) found a positive association with teacher homework feedback at both student level and class level. The explained variance was higher at class level. The author concluded that students’ homework completion is related to teachers’ provision of homework feedback ( Xu, 2011 ). This proposition is further substantiated by the findings by Bang (2011) , showing that high school immigrant students perceived teachers’ feedback as a facilitating factor, and the lack of it as an obstacle to homework completion.

More recently, Núñez et al. (2015b) conducted a study with students from various school years (grades 5–12) and concluded that the stronger the teachers’ homework feedback is perceived by students, the greater the amount of homework completed and the better the quality of homework time management (e.g., how well students managed time devoted to homework and avoided distractions). Moreover, these authors found that students’ academic achievement is indirectly and positively associated with homework feedback through students’ homework behaviors (i.e., amount of homework completed) and self-regulation (i.e., quality of homework time management), highlighting the importance of student engagement in the homework process ( Núñez et al., 2015b ). The results of Tas et al. (2016) are consistent with those, showing that middle school students’ homework self-regulation (e.g., orientation goals, learning strategies) mediated the relationship between perceived homework feedback and science achievement.

Bang (2012) reported that teachers acknowledged homework feedback (i.e., grading homework) as an important tool to motivate immigrant students to complete homework. Still, teachers admitted the educational challenge of providing homework feedback because of the time-consuming nature of this strategy. In fact, Rosário et al. (2015b) also reported the difficulties faced by EFL teachers to collect and grade homework on a regular basis. Both studies ( Bang, 2012 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ) called for further research on teachers’ perspectives about homework feedback.

In spite of the benefits of homework feedback for students previously reported, the literature has shown that teachers’ support in homework perceived by students decreases from elementary to middle school ( Katz et al., 2010 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ), without specifying in what aspects. Moreover, Kukliansky et al. (2016) recently observed middle school teachers’ behaviors in science classes (3–5 consecutive times) and found that in-class instructional feedback was not always provided, even when demanded by students. However, the authors did not explore the reasons why teachers did not provide feedback in this situation.

In sum, extant research on homework feedback has been conducted on controlled domain-centered contexts (e.g., Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ), on single grade levels (e.g., Kaur, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ; Xu et al., 2017 ), is non-subject-centered (e.g., Xu, 2011 ), or explored specific populations (e.g., teachers of immigrant students, Bang, 2012 ) (cf. Table 1 ), thus further research is needed to deepen the understanding of the homework feedback process.

TABLE 1. Summary of studies that focus homework feedback.

The Present Study

Teachers are an important source of information in the study of the homework feedback process because they actually manage feedback in class ( Cooper, 2001 ). Still, little is known about how mathematics teachers of different school levels perceive homework feedback. Examining elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of the homework feedback is expected to reveal useful information on the homework process, especially teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning homework feedback (cf. Irving et al., 2011 ). The model of teachers’ conceptions of assessment and feedback ( Irving et al., 2011 ; see also Peterson and Irving, 2008 ) provides a relevant theoretical framework for the current research, and guided the research questions, data collection and analysis. This model addresses four key aspects of assessment and feedback: definition, purpose, personal response (i.e., types of assessment and feedback used) and perceived impact. Analyzing these key aspects focused on the homework feedback may provide data to help explain previous findings showing small effect sizes or low explained variances (see Zhu and Leung, 2012 ; Xu, 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ; Rosário et al., 2015b ), and design future studies, homework policies or school-based interventions.

The following research questions guided the current study:

What are elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback?

How do the four key aspects of the homework feedback relate to each other?

The current study explores the conceptions of teachers of two school levels for two reasons. Firstly, there are some differences as to the educational goals of those school levels; while teachers at elementary school focus on working on the foundations of mathematics (e.g., giving support in the development of number sense), middle school students are expected to learn high-level concepts (e.g., application of proportional relationships). Secondly, homework research found that the characteristics of the homework assigned (e.g., amount of homework assigned, homework purposes) vary for elementary and middle school. For example, Mullis et al. (2004) found that middle school students are expected to do larger amounts of homework than elementary school students. Besides, the purposes of assignments may also vary for both school grades. While homework purposes for middle school may be more related to school contents assessed in tests, homework purposes for elementary school are more likely to aim at developing personal skills such as time management (e.g., Muhlenbruck et al., 1999 ; Cooper and Valentine, 2001 ). Notwithstanding, the recent meta-analysis focused on mathematics and science by Fan et al. (2017) included a study in which elementary school teachers reported to assign homework to practice basic mathematics skills (see Bedford, 2014 ). Those differences (e.g., amount of homework assigned, homework purposes) may help explain the differential results regarding the benefits of homework in elementary and middle school (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ). Hence, elementary and middle school teachers were invited to talk about homework feedback in order to learn their conceptions and reported practices.

The current study focuses on mathematics (see Trautwein et al., 2006 on the importance of focusing homework research on a specific domain). The reason is threefold: students’ achievement levels, educational relevance of the subject, and previous research findings on homework. There is a global educational concern about students’ poor performance in mathematics. The PISA 2012 report indicates that students from 35 countries show a mathematics performance below the OECD average ( OECD, 2014 ). This worrying educational scenario raises serious challenges for some countries (among which is Portugal), given the fundamental role played by mathematics in other subjects (e.g., biology, physics) and in the development of life and citizenship skills (e.g., Reyna and Brainerd, 2007 ; OECD, 2014 ; Hagger et al., 2015 ). Moreover, mathematics was chosen because of the great amount of homework that is regularly set by teachers (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Schmitz and Perels, 2011 ; Xu, 2015 ).

Materials and Methods

School and participants characteristics.

The last 2 years of elementary school in the Portuguese educational system encompass 5th and 6th grades (10 and 11 years old), while middle school includes 7th, 8th, and 9th grade (12–14 years old). Students have 270 min of mathematics per week in 5th and 6th grade, and 225 min per week in each of the three middle school years. At the end of 6th and 9th grade students complete a final exam that counts toward 30% of the overall grade.

Homework is an educational tool often used by Portuguese teachers as part of their lessons; still, there are no formal homework policies for Portuguese public schools (e.g., characteristics of homework assignments, homework follow-up practices; Rosário et al., 2015b ).

In the current study, participants were involved in focus group discussions and some of them in classroom observations.

Participants in Focus Groups

Six focus group discussions were conducted in this study, each of which comprised 7–9 mathematics teachers. Three focus groups were set up with elementary school teachers (5th and 6th grade) and three focus groups with middle school teachers (7th, 8th, and 9th grade). Following Morgan (1997) , homogeneity of groups was ensured in order to encourage participation among participants and minimize inhibition. Participating teachers met the following criteria: (i) having experience in teaching mathematics at elementary or middle school for at least 2 years, and (ii) assigning homework and providing homework feedback regularly (at least once a week). These requirements aimed to guarantee participants’ ability to generate ideas and opinions to share in their focus group.

The school administrators from the pool of schools which had previously enrolled in other university research projects were contacted by the authors. From those schools who agreed to participate, 20 public schools (approximately 25%) were randomly selected, and 75 mathematics teachers (approximately 25% of the pool of available elementary and middle school teachers) were randomly selected. Teachers were e-mailed about the purposes and procedures of the study (e.g., duration of the session, videotaping of the session) and invited to participate. To encourage participation (see Krueger and Casey, 2010 ), teachers were offered a participation reward (i.e., gift card), free baby-sitting services and a 3-h seminar on homework process and SRL to be held after the study had concluded.

In the end, 47 mathematics teachers (an acceptance rate of 63%) from 12 schools agreed to participate in the present study. The first author phoned the volunteer teachers to schedule the focus group meeting. Then, teachers were distributed into the various groups considering criteria such as: school, school level, and preferred scheduled time. Teachers with a hierarchical relationship were not allocated in the same focus group because this might affect their responses and the dynamics of the discussion ( Kitzinger, 1995 ; Irving et al., 2011 ). In order to encourage attendance, all participants were reminded of the focus group session 1 week before and were asked to arrive 10 min early. A map with the location was sent to all participants.

All teachers attended the focus group discussions on the scheduled day (see Table 2 for focus group demographics). Twenty-four teachers (51.1%) were teaching at elementary school level, and 23 (48.9%) at middle school level. In general, participating teachers had 21 years of teaching experience ( SD = 6.11); taught students from middle-class families, as evidenced by the low percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch (19.7%, data collected from the secretary’s office of the participating schools).

TABLE 2. Summary of demographic information of the focus groups.

Participants in Classroom Observations

Given the time-consuming nature of observational studies, of these 47 teachers, 25% of the participants were randomly selected and asked to be observed in their mathematics classes. Finally, six teachers of each school level ( N = 12; four males) were observed in their classrooms. These teachers had been teaching between two to five classes and they had an average of 19 years of teaching experience ( SD = 6.93).

Data Collection

Data was collected from two data sources: focus groups and classroom observations. The research team had previously enrolled in a qualitative research course offered by the University of Minho. Following a hands-on approach, the course training addressed topics including the following: how to lead focus group discussions (e.g., encouraging participation) and observations, and how to ensure the quality and credibility of a qualitative study.

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the ethics committee of the University of Minho. All subjects gave written informed consent to the different phases of the research (i.e., focus groups and classroom observations) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Focus Group Discussions

Focus group interviews allow for in-depth exploration of meanings, attitudes, and personal experiences of participants about a particular topic during an informal, but structured, group discussion ( Kitzinger, 1995 ; Krueger and Casey, 2010 ). This method of data collection helps capture teachers’ tacit knowledge in order to fill research gaps ( Ryan et al., 2014 ). The focus group interviews were conducted by two members of the research team as facilitators while a third member filmed the sessions. To meet teachers’ availability requirements to participate, four focus group discussions were held at the end of the school year (July), and two at the beginning of the following school year (October). Each focus group session lasted approximately 60 min and took place in a room with appropriate light and sound conditions. To create a friendly environment, snacks and refreshments were offered to participants before and after the discussion. The chairs were arranged in a half circle to allow participants to see each other and to facilitate the filming of everyone in the room.

Prior to the discussions, teachers filled in a socio-demographic questionnaire (e.g., gender, years of teaching experience) and signed the written informed consent form. Then, the facilitators introduced themselves, read aloud the study purpose and the basic rules of the focus group discussion, and ensured confidentiality of participants’ responses (i.e., any information that may identify participants or their schools was eliminated at the end of the study).

To facilitate the interaction between participants, all focus group sessions started with a warm-up activity. Then, the facilitators started the discussion with general questions (e.g., the importance of homework) and, following Peterson and Irving (2008) and Irving et al. (2011) , specific questions related to the four key aspects of homework feedback were asked: definition, purpose, types of homework feedback, and perceived impact (see Table 3 ). This set of questions was previously asked to two teachers in order to ensure comprehensibility. These teachers did not participate in the focus group discussions.

TABLE 3. Key areas and guiding questions used in teachers’ focus groups.

Classroom Observations

Classroom observations were conducted to capture teachers’ spontaneous behaviors regarding the homework feedback process. All invited teachers were informed that they would be observed five times on average (see Kukliansky et al., 2016 ), in a period of 3 weeks in the middle of the school year (March). Teachers were blind to the exact date or timetable of the observations (dates of the mathematics assessment tests were excluded from the observations schedule) and all agreed to participate acknowledging these requirements. Two other members of the research team, who were knowledgeable about homework research, conducted the classroom observations. These observations incorporated a structured content based on previous homework research to direct researchers’ attention to teacher’s responses to students’ homework completion (see Choo et al., 2015 ). The instrument used to collect data included the five homework feedback types reported in the literature (e.g., Rosário et al., 2015b ). Additionally, researchers took field notes independently on the homework feedback process (e.g., time spent and how homework feedback was delivered), cross-checked and expanded upon their notes as promptly as possible. In the end, each teacher was observed on average five times, thus gathering a total of 64 h of classroom observations.

Data Analysis

Transcriptions of focus group discussions and observation field notes were analyzed using content analysis ( Bardin, 1996 ). The latter is a qualitative research technique used to search for and identify categories, following systematic procedures ( Bardin, 1996 ).

The researchers who conducted the focus groups carried out the data analysis. Content analysis followed three main steps ( Bardin, 1996 ): (i) reading the focus groups’ verbatim transcriptions to get an overview of the data (pre-analysis), (ii) coding (exploration of data), and (iii) treatment (e.g., percentages) and interpretation of data (e.g., comparing frequencies of coded categories). The organization, management, coding, and querying process of the data were conducted using the QSR International’s NVivo 10 software (e.g., Richards, 2005 ).

The extensiveness of comments (i.e., number of participants who convey an idea, Krueger and Casey, 2000 ) in the current study was the criterion used to identify categories. The identification of categories followed a deductive and inductive iterative process ( Bardin, 1996 ). The categories were organized a priori in a coding scheme based on the theoretical model by Irving et al. (2011) , and on the homework research (e.g., Walberg et al., 1985 ; Cooper, 2001 ; Xu, 2011 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). For example, the categories “definition,” “purposes,” “types,” and “perceived impact” of homework feedback were driven by the Irving et al. (2011) theoretical model, while each type of homework feedback (e.g., subcategory “checking homework on the board”) was driven by homework research (e.g., Rosário et al., 2015b ). New categories were added during the analysis using participants’ words ( Bardin, 1996 ). For example, the subcategories “homework feedback provided to teacher,” “self-esteem,” “homework self-feedback” were subcategories build upon teachers’ words. In the end, all transcripts were reviewed in order to check whether the already coded material fit the new subcategories.

Finally, the two researchers reviewed all the categories and sub-categories and discussed the differences found in order to reach a consensus (e.g., elimination of the subcategory “teachers assess students’ progress” because it was highly related to the subcategory “teachers monitor students’ learning”). After the data analysis of four focus group discussions (two from each school level), the researchers coded the two other focus group discussions and no new information was added. To ensure the reliability of findings, the Kappa value was calculated using the Coding Comparison Queries in the Navigation View of the NVivo software. The Kappa value was 0.86, which may be considered “almost perfect” according to Landis and Koch (1977 , p. 165). Then data from the elementary and middle school teachers were analyzed separately conducting a matrix-coding query, crossing nodes with attributes (i.e., school level). The number of participants for each subcategory was converted into a percentage.

The two researchers who conducted the classroom observations coded independently the process of homework feedback delivery described in the field notes according to the codebook used in the focus groups. No new categories or subcategories were identified or redefined. Data from the elementary and middle school teachers were analyzed separately following the procedure used in focus groups, and the number of participants for each subcategory was converted into a percentage. To avoid bias on the Kappa value in NVivo, due to different numbers of characters of the researchers’ field notes ( Kim et al., 2016 ), data was exported and IBM SPSS was used to calculate Cohen’s Kappa for nominal variables. The Cohen’s Kappa value for each subcategory ranged between 0.81 and 1.0, which indicates high agreement across observers.

To answer the second research question (i.e., How do the four key aspects of the homework feedback relate to each other?), data analysis followed two steps using the same software. First, a Cluster Analysis Wizard by word similarity between nodes was conducted to explore patterns and connections between nodes in an initial phase of data analysis ( Bazeley and Jackson, 2013 ). Second, a case-by-nodes matrix was conducted to explore the relationships between each category in the focus group discussion transcripts as suggested by Bazeley and Jackson (2013) .

Specific quality procedures were used to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings of the current study ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ): investigator triangulation (i.e., several investigators were involved in the analysis process), methodological triangulation (i.e., patterns in data from focus groups and classroom observations were compared using a matrix-coding query, crossing nodes with classified sources – focus group and observations), and a member checking run at the University facilities. The researchers randomly selected and invited 25% of the participants of each grade level to do a member check ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ). Ten teachers agreed to participate (six from elementary school and four from middle school) (response rate of 83%). Member checking session lasted approximately 2 h. Firstly, participants were informed of the findings (approximately 45 min). Afterward, they were given a copy of the findings and asked to analyze and discuss whether the description was an authentic representation of the topics covered during the focus group interviews. The participants also analyzed whether the description of the homework feedback types provided to students was an authentic representation of what usually happens in class. Participants were invited to critically analyze the findings and comment on them ( Creswell, 2007 ).

Data were organized and reported according to each of the key aspects of teachers’ conceptions of the homework feedback (see Peterson and Irving, 2008 ): definition, purpose, types of homework feedback practices, and perceived impact of homework feedback (see Figures 1 , 2 ). Furthermore, the relationships between these four aspects were presented (see Figure 3 ). Teachers’ verbatim quotes were introduced to illustrate the categories and conversations held in the focus group discussions (see also Table 4 ). In addition, whenever possible, data from classroom observations were included to illustrate findings. Categories were reported using the criteria by Hill et al. (2005 , p. 16) as follows: general (i.e., categories include all, or all but one, of the cases), typical (i.e., categories include more than half of the cases) and variant (i.e., categories include more than three cases or up to half of the cases). For reasons of parsimony, rare categories (two or three cases) were not reported.

FIGURE 1. Elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback for each key aspect.

FIGURE 2. Observed elementary and middle school teachers’ homework feedback practices.

FIGURE 3. Relationships among teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback.

TABLE 4. Summary of findings.

Initial Data Screening

All participants reported assigning homework regularly and considered homework feedback as an important element for homework effectiveness. Data showed that, for each homework assignment, 96% of the elementary school teachers and 52% of the middle school teachers reported spending approximately 30 min giving homework feedback in class. Moreover, 48% of the middle school teachers spent on average 15 min giving homework feedback in class. Classroom observations provided precise information on the time spent in class giving homework feedback: 3–80 min in elementary school classes ( M = 32.75; SD = 19.91), and 5–55 min in middle school classes ( M = 29.89; SD = 17.36).

Definitions of Homework Feedback

When teachers were asked about their definition of homework feedback, the majority said they “had never thought about it” (F1P1). Still, elementary and middle school teachers elaborated on homework feedback differently (see Figure 1 ). Teachers from elementary school proposed two meanings for homework feedback: (i) homework feedback provided by the teacher and (ii) students’ homework self-feedback. For middle school teachers, homework feedback was conceptualized as threefold): (i) homework feedback provided by the teacher; (ii) homework feedback provided by the student; and (iii) students’ homework self-feedback. The analysis of the frequency labels for each category revealed no general categories, which allows concluding that definitions of homework feedback vary among teachers, irrespective of the grade level. Moreover, while “homework feedback provided to students” is a variant category in elementary school, in middle school is a typical category (see Figure 1 ).

For elementary school teachers in one focus group discussion and for middle school teachers in two focus groups, homework feedback provided by teachers was defined as a message provided to students with information concerning their homework behaviors (i.e., completion, effort), and comprehension of homework tasks and performance (e.g., how well students answered, why answers are wrong).

Middle school teachers in all focus groups conceptualized homework feedback in the reverse direction (i.e., from the students to the teacher), as the following statement illustrates:

F5P2: Some weeks ago, I noticed that several students in class had not understood some homework exercises. I asked the whole class and found out that no one had understood. Two or three students said: Sir, these exercises were a bit complicated… We did not understand what we were expected to do, how to start… This was the homework feedback they gave me.

The remaining teachers nodded their heads in agreement and added that this piece of information gathered at the beginning of a lesson helps them choose the type of homework feedback to give to students.

Lastly, elementary school teachers of two focus groups, and middle school teachers of one focus group (see Figure 1 ) proposed another meaning for homework feedback: “homework self-feedback” (typical category in elementary school and variant category in middle school). The following utterance illustrates this conceptualization:

F2P3: Homework feedback is when students can explain or reflect upon what they are doing…or checking from their seats when we check homework on the board.

Another elementary school teacher elaborated on students’ homework self-feedback:

F4P4: Homework feedback is also related to students’ homework completion. All my students draw a grid in their notebooks and devote one row to homework. Every day they write 1 for “completed” homework and 0 for “missing.” At the end of the term they have a score. I believe this to be self-feedback because students know their score and link it to school grades. They know that those who complete homework are likely to achieve better results. The opposite is also true….

This type of homework feedback (i.e., self-feedback) is more focused on students’ homework behaviors than on students’ homework performance. Still, other teachers from the same focus group reported that they do not use this strategy with their students.

Purposes of Homework Feedback

The homework feedback purposes identified by teachers at both school levels were similar. Teachers enthusiastically talked about homework feedback as a “working tool” serving three main purposes (see Figure 1 ): (i) teachers monitor students’ learning and behavior (typical category in both school levels); (ii) students monitor their own learning (typical category in elementary school and variant category in middle school); and (iii) promotion of students’ self-esteem (variant category in both school levels).

When asked to expand on this idea, participants explained that homework feedback helps teachers identify students’ difficulties and monitor their content knowledge, which provides information to self-evaluate the instruction process and introduce changes if necessary. In fact, some students struggle to learn and show difficulties to understand and complete homework. To promote students’ motivation to do homework, teachers agreed on the need – “after charging our batteries of patience” (F6P3) – to explain in class how to do homework exercises. Besides, teachers exemplified the usefulness of homework feedback for monitoring students’ homework behaviors (e.g., checking whether students have completed their homework, whether they have copied the solutions from a textbook). This category emerged in all focus group discussions, and was consensual among participants. Teachers emphatically agreed on the examples discussed and expanded on others’ ideas. The following statements illustrate some of the conversations held:

F2P4: Homework feedback is important in order to learn about what is happening on earth [some teachers laughed], to learn whether most students do their homework, whether they manage to do it alone or need some help, but also to learn about their difficulties during the learning process and act upon their mistakes.

F2P1: To know whether I delivered the message well or not so… Homework feedback should make us change our instruction methodologies. If the message was not properly delivered, it’s necessary to change the course of action…

Moreover, many elementary and some middle school teachers in all focus groups mentioned students’ monitoring of their own learning as an important purpose of homework feedback, as illustrated by the following opinion:

F5P3: With the help of homework feedback, students can learn what is right or wrong in their homework. If the homework assignment is correct, they get some positive reinforcement. If it is not correct, they learn that they have to study more and do additional exercises.

Some points made by participants focused exclusively on one of the two previous purposes (see Figure 1 ). However, some teachers in all focus groups irrespective of grade level considered homework feedback a purposeful tool for teachers or students to monitor progress in learning. In sum, teachers admitted that homework feedback provides on-task opportunities for teachers and students to monitor the teaching and learning process.

Moreover, teachers from five focus groups pointed at the promotion of students’ self-esteem as another purpose of homework feedback (see Figure 1 ). Elementary and middle school teachers supported this idea, showing concern about students’ wellbeing, mainly of low achievers:

F5P6: When they [students] realize that they are capable of doing homework exercises, they feel very happy and proud of themselves. When they fail to complete or feel frustrated because they couldn’t find a way to do the exercises, I try to make positive comments, highlighting what they did well in order to make them feel confident. It is crucial to give them positive reinforcements to improve their self-esteem.

Types of Homework Feedback Practices

Going further in the discussion, teachers identified the most frequently used homework feedback practices: (i) checking homework completion; (ii) checking homework on the board; (iii) testing related content; (iv) considering homework in the overall grade; (v) informing parents of their children’s homework non-compliance (homework feedback to parents); and (vi) giving written comments (see Figure 1 ).

The two types of homework feedback practices first mentioned in all focus group discussions were: checking who completes homework and checking homework on the board. The classroom observations (see Figure 2 ) provided information on the classroom routines and, with some exceptions, allowed concluding that classes usually begin with similar routines: checking who did homework and then checking homework on the board.

As Figure 1 shows, checking homework completion is a general and typical category among elementary and middle school teachers, respectively. When discussing this practice (see Table 4 ), some of the elementary and middle school teachers argued that they simply ask who completed homework. On the other hand, most elementary and some middle school teachers explained that they walk around the class having a glance at students’ notebooks in order to check homework completion. This strategy allows noting who actually did their homework and gathers information on how students did it (e.g., whether students followed all the steps to solve a problem). In this process, teachers reported that they try to understand the reasons why students did not complete homework (e.g., is failing to complete homework a class problem or is it only associated with a particular student?). The participating teachers considered this type of homework feedback useful because it gives information on the process and allows them to respond to students’ maladaptive homework behaviors (e.g., missing homework, copying solutions from peer students, writing down results without checking). Teachers from both school levels reported using logs in class to record who missed homework, and data from the classroom observations corroborated this finding. When asked how they usually deal with maladaptive homework completion behaviors, some teachers at both school levels reported criticizing students who repeatedly fail to complete homework or copy answers from the textbook, as the following utterance illustrates:

F6P5: Where is your homework? Oh, I see. Keep working like this and you will get far… [ironic tone]

The use of public criticism and irony in response to maladaptive homework behaviors was observed sometimes in elementary school classes, and often in middle school classes.

When discussing the best practice regarding homework, participants at both school levels named checking homework on the board as a practice that “reaches all students” (F6P4). All teachers were very emphatic about the importance and usefulness of this type of feedback. As Figure 1 shows, this practice is the most frequently used by elementary and middle school teachers. Moreover, present data (i.e., focus group discussions and classroom observations) suggest several ways in which this type of homework feedback may be put into practice. For example, some teachers reported that they check homework on the board; others mentioned writing on the board the answers dictated by students from their seats; while others explained that they randomly choose one or more students to do homework exercises on the board. Elementary and middle school teachers further explained additional homework feedback practices adopted after displaying the solution for the exercise on the board: (i) whole-class discussion led by the teacher; (ii) further explanation provided by the teacher or by the students on what is written on the board; (iii) teachers’ praise for students’ efforts in learning or good performance, or (iv) general incentives encouraging students to persist when doing homework. The observations conducted in the classrooms provided data that showed that all these strategies were used in class when teachers were checking homework on the board. Still, frequency and sequence of the strategies used by teachers (e.g., students check homework on the board, teacher explains problem solving procedures, class discussion) varied according to the needs and characteristics of the class. Moreover, classroom observations revealed that when students ask teachers for help, some teachers provide individual explanations while checking homework on the board. For example, when students raise their hand to show a lack of understanding while checking homework on the board, some teachers go to the student’s desk to answer their question individually.

Teachers at both school levels also emphasized checking homework on the board as a way of giving feedback to the whole class with minimum time and effort:

F1P1: When homework is being checked on the board by a student, I identify what is incorrect and explain how the exercise may be approached. Still, this feedback is very general because I cannot check every single assignment that students hands in. I simple cannot do it!

However, some participating teachers alerted that students who check homework on the board get a more detailed type of feedback than those who passively watch from their seats or do not pay attention to the checking process.

Moreover, many elementary and some middle school teachers in all focus group discussions mentioned asking questions, or assigning exercises similar to those of previous homework assignments (see Figure 1 , Testing of related content). Data from the classroom observations confirmed this practice. Participants stressed that this practice provides students with a new feedback event centered on the level of accuracy of their responses and on their ability to transfer the knowledge learned to new tasks. However, despite the general agreement regarding this homework feedback practice, some middle school teachers admitted that they only check students’ ability to transfer knowledge in assessment tests and claimed that this practice should not be considered homework feedback – “This is assessment, not feedback! [Emphatic tone]” (F1P5).

Most participants at both school levels reported following their school’s assessment criteria regarding homework. Generally, homework completion counts for 2–5% of the overall grade in mathematics. When asked to be more specific, several teachers explained that they use information on homework completion recorded in class logs, while others declared using information on students’ performance when checking homework on the board. Teachers admitted that they do not examine the quality of all homework assignments given in class because of the heavy workload they faced on a daily basis. During classroom observations, teachers registered who did not complete homework and sometimes they referred that this behavior would decrease their overall grade. Most teachers in all focus groups reported including information on homework completion in the overall mathematics grade; still, less than half identified this practice as a type of homework feedback.

Furthermore, some of the elementary and middle school teachers in all focus groups mentioned sending parents a message when their children miss homework three times as a type of homework feedback. This practice was confirmed by data from classroom observations. Interestingly, participants did not mention reporting children’s progress on homework to parents during the focus group discussions, and accordingly this practice was not observed in class.

Finally, a few elementary school teachers in two focus group discussions and a few middle school teachers in one focus group reported commenting on students’ homework regularly. Comments address the strengths and weaknesses of homework, pointing out the topics that need to be improved, as the following quotation exemplifies:

F4P1: I comment on what is done well, but I also point out mistakes and suggest ways to improve what is wrong or not so well done. For example, I’d write: “Great line of reasoning but try to do x so you’ll only have to do two calculations and you’ll finish the exercises faster.” Unfortunately, sometimes I have to write other kinds of comments such as “What a coincidence, your answer is exactly the same as Joana’s or Catarina’s … and the three of you have made exactly the same mistakes…”

These few participants were asked by their focus group peers how they managed to comment on students’ homework regularly. A teacher answered that she could do it because she had been assigned only one class; still, “I spent my lunch hour and some of my free time at school working on this” (F3P3). Another teacher explained that she provides this type of homework feedback weekly, except for those weeks when students have assessment tests. According to this last participant, the negative side of this practice, “frustrating I should say” (F4P1), is when students copy homework answers from another student. Commenting on students’ homework is a very time-consuming practice, and this participant expressed feeling discouraged when such maladaptive behaviors occur in class. To overcome the “very time-consuming obstacle,” another teacher who also claimed to use this practice explained that he usually asks the whole class to complete homework on a separate sheet – “I choose only one good exercise which reflects the material covered in class” (F5P7). In the next lesson, and without prior notice, he collects four or five homework assignments, which are returned with feedback comments in the following class. Participants in the three focus group discussions agreed that this type of homework feedback is very useful, but also stressed the unlikelihood of giving it in class because of the heavy workload they as teachers have to bear (e.g., teachers have to teach five or six classes at different grade levels, each of them with over 25 students, heavy curriculums). In this context, one participant complained: “I’m not a rubber band that may be stretched [endlessly]” (F5P5).

Perceived Impact of Homework Feedback

As Figure 1 shows, elementary and middle school teachers highlighted the positive impact of homework feedback on content learning, self-esteem, and homework completion (some categories are typical and others are variant).

The following dialog among elementary school teachers illustrates their conceptions on the impact of homework feedback:

F4P9: Students who complete homework regularly are more willing to understand the contents covered.

F4P2: …and they complete homework more often… At least I notice more effort.

Moreover, both elementary and middle school teachers related homework feedback to class participation (variant category in both school levels), as the following participant argued:

F4P5: Yes…they [students who complete homework regularly] follow classroom instructions and participate in class more actively, for example, by asking me questions and answering mine more frequently…

Only elementary school teachers in two focus group discussions related homework feedback to students’ achievement, while none of the middle school teachers did so (see Figure 1 ). In fact, some of the middle school teachers in all the focus group discussions defended the need for students to play an active role in their learning, arguing that homework feedback is not worthwhile for those who are not interested in learning.

Relationships between Teachers’ Conceptions of Homework Feedback

The second research question aimed to examine how the four key aspects of the homework feedback are related. Figure 3 provides a graphical model of teachers’ most salient conceptions of homework feedback and the relationships among them. The bold solid lines represent typical cases (more than 50%), the thinner solid lines represent variant categories (between 25 and 50% cases), and the dotted lines represent variant categories (between 17 and 24% cases). All lines represent the conceptions of both elementary and middle school teachers except for the lines with an asterisk, which refer to a specific school level (see legend of Figure 3 ).

As Figure 3 shows, the definitions of homework feedback provided by elementary and middle school teachers differ regarding the purposes for giving homework feedback. The middle school teachers perceived homework feedback as the feedback provided by the teacher to their students about their homework. The purpose for this homework feedback was described by teachers as twofold: help teachers monitor students’ learning and help students monitor their own learning. The latter was mentioned less often by middle school teachers. Besides, the middle school teachers conceptualized homework feedback provided to teachers by their students with the purpose of helping teachers monitor students’ learning.

In turn, elementary school teachers perceived homework feedback mainly as self-feedback and, accordingly, conceptualized students’ monitoring of their learning as the main purpose for giving homework feedback. While discussing, these teachers highlighted students’ active role in self-regulate their learning during and after homework completion (e.g., students checking their answers when solutions are written on the board). Still, the elementary school teachers did not explain how they promote these self-regulation skills in class. Moreover, the second set of relationships (i.e., purposes and homework feedback types) reveals a different pattern of results as described below.

Interestingly, the participating teachers operationalized both homework purposes (i.e., teachers monitoring students learning and students’ monitoring their own learning, the latter less often; see Figure 3 ) through the “checking homework on the board” homework feedback type. Teachers’ arguments were twofold: this practice allows checking students’ level of understanding of content (e.g., students solving exercises autonomously on the board), and students can learn about their skills while checking their answers with those written on the board.

The homework feedback practice testing related contents was also linked to both purposes but only by elementary school teachers. These teachers argued that providing students with similar exercises to those previously set as homework helps teachers monitor their students’ learning and students to monitor their own learning.

The purpose “teachers’ monitoring their students’ learning” was linked to the practice “checking homework completion” by elementary and middle school teachers. This homework feedback practice helps teachers learn who completed homework and collect information on the content with which students are struggling the most. This information is expected to help teachers meet their students’ needs.

Finally, the various types of homework feedback were associated with various perceived impacts. Teachers at both school levels converged in the fact that checking homework completion impacts students’ homework completion positively. In general, teachers mentioned that some students are “immature” and their lack of active involvement and strong volition prevent them from completing homework. Thus, most of the teachers at both school levels anticipated that external control is needed to help students complete homework. Checking homework completion was referred to as an important tool for encouraging students to do homework.

As Figure 3 depicts, teachers described checking homework on the board as the homework feedback practice that most benefits students. According to participants, this practice fosters self-esteem (only reported by elementary school teachers), homework completion (reported by some teachers at both school levels), class participation (reported by some teachers at both levels), and learning of the content taught in class (reported by most of the teachers from both levels). Teachers explained that praising students on their good performance while doing exercises on the board is likely to increase their self-esteem. Furthermore, teachers said that this practice encourages homework completion and increases class participation because it provides students with specific information on how to solve exercises.

Some elementary school teachers reported that testing related content helps students participate more in class (e.g., answering teacher’s questions, asking more questions) and be more engaged in their learning.

A few teachers at both school levels (see Figure 3 ) mentioned counting homework in the overall grade, and communicating with parents when their children miss homework three times as two types of homework feedback with impact on students’ homework completion. Counting homework completion in the overall grade was referred to as a direct incentive for students to complete homework. However, some teachers alerted that this practice may not always be effective because of the time gap between students’ homework behaviors and the end of term when they get their final grade report. Thus, all agreed that teachers should respond to students’ homework behaviors (e.g., missing homework or doing assignments correctly) as soon as possible. Participants highlighted the importance of communicating with families about children’s homework behaviors. However, teachers alerted that this type of homework feedback may not be effective without the implication of the family in the learning process; “if the family is aware of the importance of this type of practice, then it will be effective, otherwise it will have no effect” (F3P4).

As reported previously, 17% of the elementary and middle school teachers claimed to make written comments on students’ homework assignments (see Figure 1 ). However, when discussing the possible impact of the various types of homework feedback, more teachers (than that 17%) agreed that written comments on students’ assignments would improve students’ learning of content (see Figure 3 ). These teachers mentioned that personalized homework feedback would help students correct their mistakes and might provide guidance on the topics that need to be further studied. As a result, students were likely to improve their grades.

The discussion of the current study is organized according to each key aspect of teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback. Regarding the first key aspect of homework feedback, teachers proposed a multifaceted definition of homework feedback: (i) homework feedback provided by the teacher, (ii) homework feedback provided by the student, and (iii) homework self-feedback. The latter extends the definition of Cooper (2001) , who defined homework feedback as the teachers’ responses to students’ homework completion as a follow-up (e.g., comments, incentives, grades). The definition of homework self-feedback is linked to the internal feedback or self-feedback proposed by Butler and Winne (1995) and Hattie and Timperley (2007) , respectively. According to these authors, students are expected to display self-regulatory skills to self-evaluate their performance in homework assignments (see Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ). Interestingly, this category is typical in elementary school, but variant in middle school. This is an important finding because the generation of internal feedback requires knowledge on strategies and standards, as well as the capacity to judge the quality of a task in relation to standards, which not all students are capable of, especially those at lower grade levels ( Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990 ; Butler and Winne, 1995 ; Rosário et al., 2016 ). Moreover, low achievers struggling to learn often fail to activate and control the SRL process ( Núñez et al., 2015a ). In fact, these students are likely to fail to monitor their homework behaviors because they do not know “whether they are on the right track” (F4P8).

Consistently with literature, teachers’ major conceptions of homework feedback purposes addressed monitoring students’ learning, either focusing on teachers’ or on students’ role ( Corno, 2000 ; An and Wu, 2012 ; Bang, 2012 ). This may be particularly important in mathematics where contents are organized so as to follow a continuous progression and lower levels prepare the foundations of subsequent levels ( Pijls and Dekker, 2011 ). Teachers’ monitoring provides the opportunity for teachers to change their teaching practices in response to students’ needs ( Walberg and Paik, 2000 ; Kralovec and Buell, 2001 ), which may be understood as a “student-centered” approach (see Sheridan, 2013 ). The conception of homework feedback purposes focused on students’ monitoring their work emphasizes students’ active role during the homework process and the use of SRL competencies such as self-monitoring and self-reflection (e.g., Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ). The last purpose of homework feedback proposed by participants is to “promote self-esteem.” This purpose is not mentioned in homework literature; however, in the study by Irving et al. (2011) , teachers mentioned the need to inform students about the positive aspects of their performance, thus incentivizing their progress, especially among low achievers showing low self-esteem.

Regarding the third topic of homework feedback (homework feedback types), findings in the current study are consistent with literature ( Cooper, 2001 ; Mullis et al., 2004 ; Kaur, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ; Kukliansky et al., 2016 ). However, despite the similarity of the homework feedback practices reported by elementary and middle school teachers, the percentages of each reported category vary. For example, checking homework completion and checking homework on the board are general categories in elementary school and typical categories in middle school; while testing of related content is a typical category in elementary school and a variant category in middle school. These findings are consistent with students’ reports on their teachers’ support in homework ( Katz et al., 2010 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ). A decrease in teachers’ support in homework at middle school level is expected because older students are likely to be more autonomous. However, Katz et al. (2010) found that the middle school students who perceived low teachers’ homework support reported high psychological needs and low intrinsic motivation. Other important finding to note is the use of criticism observed in elementary and middle school classrooms which may have the opposite effect of teachers’ intentions (e.g., reduce homework non-compliance). In fact, being criticized in class is likely to be non-constructive because it may reduce students’ willingness to accept criticism and result in low favorable responses toward homework. On the contrary, criticism delivered in private is likely to lead to better responses (see Leung et al., 2001 ).

According to participants, homework feedback impacts in the following aspects: content learning, self-esteem, homework completion, class participation, and achievement. Globally, this finding is consistent with previous research (e.g., Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2009 ; Xu, 2011 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ), except for class participation and self-esteem which have not yet been studied. It is interesting to note, however, that despite most teachers reported spending 30 min or more providing homework feedback in each class (see Initial Data Screening subsection); about one third of elementary school teachers related homework feedback to students’ achievement, while none of the middle school teachers did so. However, prior research has evidenced the positive impact of homework feedback on students’ academic achievement ( Núñez et al., 2015b ), especially when teachers provide suggestions on how to improve learning (see Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Walberg et al., 1985 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ).

Moreover, middle school teachers added that when students do not play an active role in their learning, feedback is not likely to have any impact. This conception is consistent with the SRL approach to the homework process (e.g., Xu and Wu, 2013 ; Xu, 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ) which stresses, for example, the role that teachers may play in helping students define their own homework goals and reflect on the relationship between homework completion and achieving self-set learning goals (e.g., Núñez et al., 2015b ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). As Labuhn et al. (2010) observed, the feedback provided by teachers may not impact students’ learning and behaviors if students do not understand what is intended with homework feedback.

Findings gathered from relationships between teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback provide additional useful insights. Interestingly, the two most frequently reported types of homework feedback (i.e., checking homework completion and checking homework on the board) in both school levels are more linked to the purpose “teachers monitoring students’ learning” than to the purpose “students monitoring their own learning.” This data may suggest that teachers may not be fully aware of the importance of promoting students’ SRL competencies to increase the benefits of homework feedback or they may lack the knowledge to promote these skills in class (see Spruce and Bol, 2015 ).

Practical Implications

The current study provides four major findings of relevance for educational practice: (i) decrease of teachers’ reported homework feedback practices from elementary to middle school level; (ii) a few teachers from elementary school and none from middle school level perceive homework feedback impacting on students’ academic achievement; (iii) usage of public criticism in class, especially in middle school; and (iv) teachers’ lack of awareness on SRL strategies.

First, teachers and school administrators with the help of school psychologists could examine homework practices delivered in class, namely homework feedback, to analyze whether they are set to be responsive to students’ educational needs. As found in the current study, there is a decrease of the homework feedback from elementary to middle school; however, this finding should be considered by teachers because, according to literature, many middle school students still report the need of teachers’ homework support (e.g., Katz et al., 2010 ).

Data also showed that both elementary and middle school teachers spend around 30 min providing homework feedback in class, but the perceived impact of this school practice on students’ achievement was barely mentioned in the focus groups. This data merit reflection within the school context to understand whether homework feedback is being used with efficacy. For example, school-based training for teachers’ on homework models (e.g., Cooper, 2001 ; Trautwein et al., 2006 ) could theoretically ground their homework practices in schools. This training would also help teachers understand that criticism and irony in class may discourage homework compliance, but it also may lead to undesirable outcomes such as children homework disengagement.

Finally, data (e.g., elementary school teachers believe that students generate homework self-feedback; the homework feedback practices most used in class are more closely related to the purpose “teachers monitoring students’ learning” than to the purpose “students monitoring their own learning”) suggest the need to set school-based training for teachers on SRL strategies. This training could consider addressing the homework process in relation with SRL to promote students’ agency and sense of responsibility over homework and homework feedback in particular. For example, teachers are expected to learn and practice how to model the use of SRL strategies in class ( Rosário et al., 2013 ; Spruce and Bol, 2015 ). In fact, students lacking SRL skills may fail to use the homework feedback delivered in class, which may compromise the impact of this instructional tool on students learning and achievement (see Corno, 2000 ; Peterson and Irving, 2008 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ). To promote the development of students SRL competencies and increase the benefits of homework feedback, teachers may also consider using “diary tasks” to promote students’ homework self-reflection in class (see Ferreira et al., 2015 ).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

To authors’ knowledge, this study was the first to map mathematics teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback and examine the relationships between teachers’ definitions, purposes, types, and perceived impact of homework feedback. The analysis of these relationships focusing on a specific content domain at two school levels showed which categories were linked, and how, by the participating teachers. This study extended previous research conducted with mathematics teachers from a single grade level (see Kaur, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ).

According to the current findings, elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback vary, as well as the time spent in class providing feedback. Moreover, in spite of the fact that the types of homework feedback practices are the same, the type of categories (i.e., general vs. typical and typical vs. variant) varies in the two school levels, and the dynamic of providing homework feedback at those school levels is diverse and complex (e.g., usage of various strategies to provide some types of homework feedback, even by the same teacher). These findings may help understand why the relationship between homework and academic achievement reported in the literature varies from elementary to middle school (see Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ).

Furthermore, the complexity of the homework feedback process reflected by the collected data may not be captured by extant instruments that examine teachers’ homework feedback practices. To some extent, this may contribute to understand the low effect sizes and explained variances found in the homework feedback research (e.g., Xu, 2014 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). This finding reinforces the need for future studies collect data using more than one method to capture and better understand the phenomenon of the homework process and its influence on students’ academic outcomes (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ). Furthermore, findings showed positive relationships between some types of homework feedback practices and perceived impact on students’ variables that have not yet been examined in homework research (e.g., checking homework on the blackboard and class participation). Future studies may consider further examining these relationships.

The present study followed methodological procedures to enhance trustworthiness of findings such as random sampling, investigator and methodological triangulation, provision of direct quotations, and member checking ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ; Shenton, 2004 ; Elo et al., 2014 ). Results from member checking were very positive. The majority of the participants agreed that the description of the findings was a genuine reflection of the topics covered in the focus group discussions, and of the homework routines in the classroom. No suggestions were made to change the description of data. Such data have strengthened present findings. In addition, teachers highlighted that they usually choose types of homework feedback that reach all students because of the professional constraints they experience daily (i.e., heavy workload). This topic was mentioned during the discussions and may merit further investigation because it may be an important factor compromising the homework feedback process.

Notwithstanding the strengths of the current study, there are also some limitations that need to be addressed. Classroom observations helped strengthen findings, nevertheless only 25% of the participating teachers were observed in a limited period of time. Moreover, most of the participants have extensive experience in teaching, which may have contributed to the results. As Hattie (2003) reported, expert teachers are more capable of seeking and giving feedback, and also monitoring their students’ learning than novice teachers. Conducting studies on novice teachers would help identify their specific needs for training on instructional variables, and design school-based interventions to meet these professionals’ needs.

Elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback were mapped, but the role of students in the homework feedback process should be further researched. Further investigation may want to explore elementary and middle school students’ conceptions of homework feedback and compare their responses with current findings. The information provided would be useful to learn how students understand (e.g., in what ways students perceive teachers’ homework feedback practices as helpful, see Xu, 2016 ) and cope with the homework feedback given in class. Examining the (mis)alignment of both conceptions of homework feedback (elementary and middle school teachers and students) may help deepen the understanding of the impact of homework feedback and further examine the differential relationship between doing homework and academic achievement at these two school levels (see Cooper et al., 2006 ). The results, although promising, should be further investigated in different school grades and subjects. At this level, however, they may be useful to researchers looking for an in-depth understanding of homework feedback and willing to explore new research topics on the “last but not least” aspect of the homework process.

Ethics Statement

This study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the University of Minho. All research participants provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Author Contributions

JC and PR substantially contributed to the conception and the design of the work. JC was responsible for the literature search. JC, AN, TM, JN, and TN were responsible for the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work. PR was also in charge of technical guidance. JN made important intellectual contribution in manuscript revision. JC wrote the manuscript with valuable inputs from the remaining authors. All authors agreed for all aspects of the work and approved the version to be published.

This study was conducted at Psychology Research Centre (UID/PSI/01662/2013), University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education through national funds and co-financed by FEDER through COMPETE2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007653). JC was supported by a Ph.D. fellowship from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT – SFRH/BD/95341/2013).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank Sofia Kirkman and Fuensanta Monroy for the English editing of the manuscript.

An, S., and Wu, Z. (2012). Enhancing mathematics teachers’ knowledge of students’ thinking from assessing and analyzing misconceptions in homework. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 717–753. doi: 10.1007/s10763-011-9324-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bang, H. (2012). Promising homework practices: teachers’ perspectives on making homework work for newcomer immigrant students. High Sch. J. 95, 3–31. doi: 10.1353/hsj.2012.0001

Bang, H., Suárez-Orozco, C., Pakes, J., and O’Conner, E. (2009). The importance of homework in determining immigrant students’ grades in schools in the USA context. Educ. Res. 51, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/00131880802704624

Bang, H. J. (2011). What makes it easy or hard for you to do your homework? An account of newcomer immigrant youths’ afterschool academic lives. Curr. Issues Educ. 14, 1–26.

Google Scholar

Bardin, L. (1996). The Content Analysis. Paris: PUF.

Bazeley, P., and Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.

Bedford, P. D. (2014). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Regarding Homework: An Examination of the Cognitive Domain Embedded in Third Grade Mathematics Homework. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI.

Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Butler, D. L., and Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 65, 245–281. doi: 10.3102/00346543065003245

Cardelle, M., and Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in written feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Q. 15, k251–261. doi: 10.2307/3586751

Choo, E. K., Garro, A. C., Ranney, M. L., Meisel, Z. F., and Morrow Guthrie, K. (2015). Qualitative research in emergency care part I: research principles and common applications. Acad. Emerg. Med. 22, 1096–1102. doi: 10.1111/acem.12736

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cooper, H. (2001). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for Administrators, Teachers, and Parents , 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cooper, H., Robinson, J., and Patall, E. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 76, 1–62. doi: 10.3102/00346543076001001

Cooper, H., and Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework. Educ. Psychol. 36, 143–153. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_1

Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elem. Sch. J. 100, 529–548. doi: 10.1086/499654

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Method: Choosing Among Five Approaches , 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deslandes, R. (2009). “Elementary school teachers’ views of homework and parents - school relations,” in Perspectives on Student Outcomes and Homework: Family-School-Community Partnerships , ed. R. Deslandes (New York, NY: Routledge), 128–140.

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kunter, M., and Baumert, J. (2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 467–482. doi: 10.1037/a0018453

Elawar, M. C., and Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’ written feedback on student homework: changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. J. Educ. Psychol. 77, 162–173. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.2.162

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., and Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: a focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open 4, 1–10. doi: 10.1177/2158244014522633

Epstein, J. L., and Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than ten minutes: teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educ. Psychol. 36, 181–193. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4

Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J., and Fan, X. (2017). Homework and students’ achievement in math and science: a 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015. Educ. Res. Rev. 20, 35–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003

Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz, J. (2015). Adolescents’ homework performance in mathematics and science: personal factors and teaching practices. J. Educ. Psychol. 107, 1075–1085. doi: 10.1037/edu0000032

Ferreira, P. C., Simão, A. V., and Silva, A. L. (2015). Does training in how to regulate one’s learning affect how students report self-regulated learning in diary tasks? Metacogn. Learn. 10, 199–230. doi: 10.1007/s11409-014-9121-3

Hagger, M., Sultan, S., Hardcastle, S., and Chatzisarantis, N. (2015). Perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation toward mathematics activities in educational and out-of-school contexts is related to mathematics homework behavior and attainment. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 41, 111–123. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.002

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Hattie, J. A. (2003). Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence?. Paper Presented at the Building Teacher Quality Research Conference , Melbourne, VIC. Available at: https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_conference_2003

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., and Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: an update. J. Couns. Psychol. 52, k196–205. doi: 10.1037/a0033361

Irving, S., Harris, L., and Peterson, E. (2011). ‘One assessment doesn’t serve all the purposes’ or does it? New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 12, 413–426. doi: 10.1007/s12564-011-9145-1

Katz, I., Kaplan, A., and Gueta, G. (2010). Students’ needs, teachers’ support, and motivation for doing homework: a cross-sectional study. J. Exp. Educ. 78, 246–267. doi: 10.1080/00220970903292868

Kaur, B. (2011). Mathematics homework: a study of three grade eight classrooms in Singapore. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 9, 187–206. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9237-0

Kim, S. Y., Graham, S. S., Ahn, S., Olson, M. K., Card, D. J., Kessler, M. M., et al. (2016). Correcting biased Cohen’s Kappa in NVivo. Commun. Methods Meas. 10, 217–232. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2016.1227772

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 311, 299–302. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299

Kralovec, E., and Buell, J. (2001). End homework now. Educ. Leadersh. 58, 39–42.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.1037/10518-189

Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A. (2010). “Focus group interviewing,” in Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation , 3rd Edn, eds K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, and J. S. Wholey (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 506–534.

Kukliansky, I., Shosberger, I., and Eshach, H. (2016). Science teachers’ voice on homework: beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 14, 229–250. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9555-8

Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., and Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: the influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards. Metacogn. Learn. 5, 173–194. doi: 10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2

Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310

Leung, K., Su, S., and Morris, M. W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Hum. Relat. 54, 1155–1187. doi: 10.1177/0018726701549002

Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Group as Qualitative Research , 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412984287

Muhlenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B., and Lindsay, J. J. (1999). Homework and achievement: explaining the different strengths of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Soc. Psych. Educ. 3, 295–317. doi: 10.1023/A:1009680513901

Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., and Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Murphy, J., Decker, K., Chaplin, C., Dagenais, R., Heller, J., Jones, R., et al. (1987). An exploratory analysis of the structure of homework assignments in high schools. Res. Rural Educ. 4, 61–71.

Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., and González-Pienda, J. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring program in middle school. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 38, 11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.10.002

Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Cerezo, R., González-Pienda, J., Rosário, P., Mourão, R., et al. (2015a). Homework and academic achievement across Spanish compulsory education. Educ. Psychol. 35, 726–746. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.817537

Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., and Valle, A. (2015b). Teachers’ feedback on homework, homework-related behaviors, and academic achievement. J. Educ. Res. 108, 204–216. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.878298

Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A., and Epstein, J. L. (2015c). Relationships between parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students. Metacogn. Learn. 10, 375–406. doi: 10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5

OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-Year-Olds Know and what they can do with what they know, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Peterson, E., and Irving, S. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learn. Instr. 18, 238–250. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001

Pijls, M., and Dekker, R. (2011). Students discussing their mathematical ideas: the role of the teacher. Math. Educ. Res. J. 23, 379–396. doi: 10.1007/s13394-011-0022-3

Ramdass, D., and Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: the important role of homework. J. Adv. Acad. 22, 194–218. doi: 10.1177/1932202X1102200202

Reyna, V. F., and Brainerd, C. J. (2007). The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn. Individ. Diff. 17, 147–159. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.010

Richards, L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications.

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Valle, A., González-Pienda, J., and Lourenço, A. (2013). Grade level, study time, and grade retention and their effects on motivation, self-regulated learning strategies, and mathematics achievement: a structural equation model. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28, 1311–1331. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0167-9

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Azevedo, R., Pereira, R., et al. (2016). Promoting Gypsy children school engagement: a story-tool project to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 47, 84–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.005

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Mourão, R., et al. (2015a). Does homework design matter? The role of homework’s purpose in student mathematics achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 43, 10–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Suárez, N., et al. (2015b). The effects of teachers’ homework follow-up practices on students’ EFL performance: a randomized-group design. Front. Psychol. 6:1528. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528

Ryan, K. E., Gandha, T., Culbertson, M. J., and Carlson, C. (2014). Focus group evidence: implications for design and analysis. Am. J. Eval. 35, 328–345. doi: 10.1177/1098214013508300

Schmitz, B., and Perels, F. (2011). Self-monitoring of self-regulation during math homework behaviour using standardized diaries. Metacogn. Learn. 6, 255–273. doi: 10.1007/s11409-011-9076-6

Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ. Inf. 22, 63–75. doi: 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

Sheridan, L. D. (2013). Changes in pre-service teachers perceptions’ of teacher qualities: development from egocentric to student centric. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 38, 55–75. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2013v38n9.2

Spruce, R., and Bol, L. (2015). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated learning. Metacogn. Learn. 10, 245–277. doi: 10.1007/s11409-014-9124-0

Tas, Y., Sungur, S., and Oztekin, C. (2016). Development and validation of science homework scale for middle-school students. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 14, 417–444. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9582-5

Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: the role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learn. Instr. 19, 243–258. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., and Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 438–456. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438

Walberg, H. J., and Paik, S. J. (2000). Effective Educational Practices. Brussels: International Academy of Education & International Bureau of Education.

Walberg, H. J., Paschal, R. A., and Weinstein, T. (1985). Homework’s powerful effects on learning. Educ. Leadersh. 42, 76–79.

Xu, J. (2008). Models of secondary school students’ interest in homework: a multilevel analysis. Am. Educ. Res. J. 45, 1180–1205. doi: 10.3102/0002831208323276

Xu, J. (2010). Homework purposes reported by secondary school students: a multilevel analysis. J. Educ. Res. 103, 171–182. doi: 10.1080/00220670903382939

Xu, J. (2011). Homework completion at the secondary school level: a multilevel analysis. J. Educ. Res. 104, 171–182. doi: 10.1080/00220671003636752

Xu, J. (2012). Predicting students’ homework environment management at the secondary school level. Educ. Psychol. 32, 183–200. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2011.635639

Xu, J. (2014). Regulation of motivation: predicting students’ homework motivation management at the secondary school level. Res. Pap. Educ. 29, 457–478. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2013.775324

Xu, J. (2015). Investigating factors that influence conventional distraction and tech-related distraction in math homework. Comput. Educ. 81, 304–314. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.024

Xu, J. (2016). A study of the validity and reliability of the teacher homework involvement scale: a psychometric evaluation. Measurement 93, 102–107. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2016.07.012

Xu, J., Du, J., and Fan, X. (2017). Self-regulation of mathematics homework behavior: an empirical investigation. J. Educ. Res. 110, 467–477. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2015.1125837

Xu, J., and Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior: homework management at the secondary school level. J. Educ. Res. 106, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2012.658457

Zhu, Y., and Leung, F. (2012). Homework and mathematics achievement in Hong Kong: evidence from the TIMSS 2003. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 907–925. doi: 10.1007/s10763-011-9302-3

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 81, 329–339. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329

Zimmerman, B. J., and Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: the mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30, 397–417. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003

Zimmerman, B. J., and Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 51–59. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51

Keywords : homework feedback, teachers’ conceptions, homework feedback purposes, perceived impact, focus group, classroom observations

Citation: Cunha J, Rosário P, Núñez JC, Nunes AR, Moreira T and Nunes T (2018) “Homework Feedback Is…”: Elementary and Middle School Teachers’ Conceptions of Homework Feedback. Front. Psychol. 9:32. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00032

Received: 13 September 2017; Accepted: 10 January 2018; Published: 06 February 2018.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2018 Cunha, Rosário, Núñez, Nunes, Moreira and Nunes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Pedro Rosário, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Smart Classroom Management

A Simple, Effective Homework Plan For Teachers: Part 1

So for the next two weeks I’m going to outline a homework plan–four strategies this week, four the next–aimed at making homework a simple yet effective process.

Let’s get started.

Homework Strategies 1-4

The key to homework success is to eliminate all the obstacles—and excuses—that get in the way of students getting it done.

Add leverage and some delicately placed peer pressure to the mix, and not getting homework back from every student will be a rare occurrence.

Here is how to do it.

1. Assign what students already know.

Most teachers struggle with homework because they misunderstand the narrow purpose of homework, which is to practice what has already been learned. Meaning, you should only assign homework your students fully understand and are able to do by themselves.

Therefore, the skills needed to complete the evening’s homework must be thoroughly taught during the school day. If your students can’t prove to you that they’re able to do the work without assistance, then you shouldn’t assign it.

It isn’t fair to your students—or their parents—to have to sit at the dinner table trying to figure out what you should have taught them during the day.

2. Don’t involve parents.

Homework is an agreement between you and your students. Parents shouldn’t be involved. If parents want to sit with their child while he or she does the homework, great. But it shouldn’t be an expectation or a requirement of them. Otherwise, you hand students a ready-made excuse for not doing it.

You should tell parents at back-to-school night, “I got it covered. If ever your child doesn’t understand the homework, it’s on me. Just send me a note and I’ll take care of it.”

Holding yourself accountable is not only a reminder that your lessons need to be spot on, but parents will love you for it and be more likely to make sure homework gets done every night. And for negligent parents? It’s best for their children in particular to make homework a teacher/student-only agreement.

3. Review and then ask one important question.

Set aside a few minutes before the end of the school day to review the assigned homework. Have your students pull out the work, allow them to ask final clarifying questions, and have them check to make sure they have the materials they need.

And then ask one important question: “Is there anyone, for any reason, who will not be able to turn in their homework in the morning? I want to know now rather than find out about it in the morning.”

There are two reasons for this question.

First, the more leverage you have with students, and the more they admire and respect you , the more they’ll hate disappointing you. This alone can be a powerful incentive for students to complete homework.

Second, it’s important to eliminate every excuse so that the only answer students can give for not doing it is that they just didn’t care. This sets up the confrontation strategy you’ll be using the next morning.

4. Confront students on the spot.

One of your key routines should be entering the classroom in the morning.

As part of this routine, ask your students to place their homework in the top left-hand (or right-hand) corner of their desk before beginning a daily independent assignment—reading, bellwork , whatever it may be.

During the next five to ten minutes, walk around the room and check homework–don’t collect it. Have a copy of the answers (if applicable) with you and glance at every assignment.

You don’t have to check every answer or read every portion of the assignment. Just enough to know that it was completed as expected. If it’s math, I like to pick out three or four problems that represent the main thrust of the lesson from the day before.

It should take just seconds to check most students.

Remember, homework is the practice of something they already know how to do. Therefore, you shouldn’t find more than a small percentage of wrong answers–if any. If you see more than this, then you know your lesson was less than effective, and you’ll have to reteach

If you find an assignment that is incomplete or not completed at all, confront that student on the spot .

Call them on it.

The day before, you presented a first-class lesson and gave your students every opportunity to buzz through their homework confidently that evening. You did your part, but they didn’t do theirs. It’s an affront to the excellence you strive for as a class, and you deserve an explanation.

It doesn’t matter what he or she says in response to your pointed questions, and there is no reason to humiliate or give the student the third degree. What is important is that you make your students accountable to you, to themselves, and to their classmates.

A gentle explanation of why they don’t have their homework is a strong motivator for even the most jaded students to get their homework completed.

The personal leverage you carry–that critical trusting rapport you have with your students–combined with the always lurking peer pressure is a powerful force. Not using it is like teaching with your hands tied behind your back.

Homework Strategies 5-8

Next week we’ll cover the final four homework strategies . They’re critical to getting homework back every day in a way that is painless for you and meaningful for your students.

I hope you’ll tune in.

If you haven’t done so already, please join us. It’s free! Click here and begin receiving classroom management articles like this one in your email box every week.

What to read next:

• A Powerful Way To Relieve Stress: Part One
• A Simple Exercise Program For Teachers
• The Best Time To Review Your Classroom Management Plan
• Why Your New Classroom Management Plan Isn't Working
• 27 Things That Make Your Classroom Management Plan Work

21 thoughts on “A Simple, Effective Homework Plan For Teachers: Part 1”

Good stuff, Michael. A lot of teachers I train and coach are surprised (and skeptical) at first when I make the same point you make about NOT involving parents. But it’s right on based on my experience as a teacher, instructional coach, and administrator the past 17 years. More important, it’s validated by Martin Haberman’s 40 years of research on what separates “star” teachers from “quitter/failure” teachers ( http://www.habermanfoundation.org/Book.aspx?sm=c1 )

I love the articles about “homework”. in the past I feel that it is difficuty for collecting homework. I will try your plan next year.

I think you’ll be happy with it, Sendy!

How do you confront students who do not have their homework completed?

You state in your book to let consequences do their job and to never confront students, only tell them the rule broken and consequence.

I want to make sure I do not go against that rule, but also hold students accountable for not completing their work. What should I say to them?

They are two different things. Homework is not part of your classroom management plan.

Hi Michael,

I’m a first-year middle school teacher at a private school with very small class sizes (eight to fourteen students per class). While I love this homework policy, I feel discouraged about confronting middle schoolers publicly regarding incomplete homework. My motive would never be to humiliate my students, yet I can name a few who would go home thinking their lives were over if I did confront them in front of their peers. Do you have any ideas of how to best go about incomplete homework confrontation with middle school students?

The idea isn’t in any way to humiliate students, but to hold them accountable for doing their homework. Parts one and two represent my best recommendation.:)

I believe that Homework is a vital part of students learning.

I’m still a student–in a classroom management class. So I have no experience with this, but I’m having to plan a procedure for my class. What about teacher sitting at desk and calling student one at a time to bring folder while everyone is doing bellwork or whatever their procedure is? That way 1) it would be a long walk for the ones who didn’t do the work :), and 2) it would be more private. What are your thoughts on that? Thanks. 🙂

I’m not sure I understand your question. Would you mind emailing me with more detail? I’m happy to help.

I think what you talked about is great. How do you feel about flipping a lesson? My school is pretty big on it, though I haven’t done it yet. Basically, for homework, the teacher assigns a video or some other kind of media of brand new instruction. Students teach themselves and take a mini quiz at the end to show they understand the new topic. Then the next day in the classroom, the teacher reinforces the lesson and the class period is spent practicing with the teacher present for clarification. I haven’t tried it yet because as a first year teacher I haven’t had enough time to make or find instructional videos and quizzes, and because I’m afraid half of my students will not do their homework and the next day in class I will have to waste the time of the students who did their homework and just reteach what the video taught.

Anyway, this year, I’m trying the “Oops, I forgot my homework” form for students to fill out every time they forget their homework. It keeps them accountable and helps me keep better track of who is missing what. Once they complete it, I cut off the bottom portion of the form and staple it to their assignment. I keep the top copy for my records and for parent/teacher conferences.

Here is an instant digital download of the form. It’s editable in case you need different fields.

Thanks again for your blog. I love the balance you strike between rapport and respect.

Your site is a godsend for a newbie teacher! Thank you for your clear, step-by-step, approach!

I G+ your articles to my PLN all the time.

You’re welcome, TeachNich! And thank you for sharing the articles.

Hi Michael, I’m going into my first year and some people have told me to try and get parents involved as much as I can – even home visits and things like that. But my gut says that negligent parents cannot be influenced by me. Still, do you see any value in having parents initial their student’s planner every night so they stay up to date on homework assignments? I could also write them notes.

Personally, no. I’ll write about this in the future, but when you hold parents accountable for what are student responsibilities, you lighten their load and miss an opportunity to improve independence.

I am teaching at a school where students constantly don’t take work home. I rarely give homework in math but when I do it is usually something small and I still have to chase at least 7 kids down to get their homework. My way of holding them accountable is to record a homework completion grade as part of their overall grade. Is this wrong to do? Do you believe homework should never be graded for a grade and just be for practice?

No, I think marking a completion grade is a good idea.

I’ve been teaching since 2014 and we need to take special care when assigning homework. If the homework assignment is too hard, is perceived as busy work, or takes too long to complete, students might tune out and resist doing it. Never send home any assignment that students cannot do. Homework should be an extension of what students have learned in class. To ensure that homework is clear and appropriate, consider the following tips for assigning homework:

Assign homework in small units. Explain the assignment clearly. Establish a routine at the beginning of the year for how homework will be assigned. Remind students of due dates periodically. And Make sure students and parents have information regarding the policy on missed and late assignments, extra credit, and available adaptations. Establish a set routine at the beginning of the year.

Thanks Nancie L Beckett

Dear Michael,

I love your approach! Do you have any ideas for homework collection for lower grades? K-3 are not so ready for independent work first thing in the morning, so I do not necessarily have time to check then; but it is vitally important to me to teach the integrity of completing work on time.

Also, I used to want parents involved in homework but my thinking has really changed, and your comments confirm it!

Hi Meredith,

I’ll be sure and write about this topic in an upcoming article (or work it into an article). 🙂

Overall, this article provides valuable insights and strategies for teachers to implement in their classrooms. I look forward to reading Part 2 and learning more about how to make homework a simple and effective process. Thanks

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Privacy Policy

• Our Mission

Rethinking Homework for This Year—and Beyond

A schoolwide effort to reduce homework has led to a renewed focus on ensuring that all work assigned really aids students’ learning.

I used to pride myself on my high expectations, including my firm commitment to accountability for regular homework completion among my students. But the trauma of Covid-19 has prompted me to both reflect and adapt. Now when I think about the purpose and practice of homework, two key concepts guide me: depth over breadth, and student well-being.

Homework has long been the subject of intense debate, and there’s no easy answer with respect to its value. Teachers assign homework for any number of reasons: It’s traditional to do so, it makes students practice their skills and solidify learning, it offers the opportunity for formative assessment, and it creates good study habits and discipline. Then there’s the issue of pace. Throughout my career, I’ve assigned homework largely because there just isn’t enough time to get everything done in class.

A Different Approach

Since classes have gone online, the school where I teach has made a conscious effort as a teaching community to reduce, refine, and distill our curriculum. We have applied guiding questions like: What is most important? What is most transferable? What is most relevant? Refocusing on what matters most has inevitably made us rethink homework.

We have approached both asking and answering these questions through a science of learning lens. In Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning , the authors maintain that deep learning is slow learning. Deep learning requires time for retrieval, practice, feedback, reflection, and revisiting content; ultimately it requires struggle, and there is no struggle without time.

As someone who has mastered the curriculum mapping style of “get it done to move on to get that next thing done,” using an approach of “slow down and reduce” has been quite a shift for me. However, the shift has been necessary: What matters most is what’s best for my students, as opposed to my own plans or mandates imposed by others.

Listening to Students

To implement this shift, my high school English department has reduced content and texts both in terms of the amount of units and the content within each unit. We’re more flexible with dates and deadlines. We spend our energy planning the current unit instead of the year’s units. In true partnership with my students, I’m constantly checking in with them via Google forms, Zoom chats, conferences, and Padlet activities. In these check-ins, I specifically ask students how they’re managing the workload for my class and their other classes. I ask them how much homework they’re doing. And I adjust what I do and expect based on what they tell me. For example, when I find out a week is heavy with work in other classes, I make sure to allot more time during class for my tasks. At times I have even delayed or altered one of my assignments.

To be completely transparent, the “old” me is sheepish in admitting that I’ve so dramatically changed my thinking with respect to homework. However, both my students and I have reaped numerous benefits. I’m now laser-focused when designing every minute of my lessons to maximize teaching and learning. Every decision I make is now scrutinized through the lens of absolute worth for my students’ growth: If it doesn’t make the cut, it’s cut. I also take into account what is most relevant to my students.

For example, our 10th-grade English team has redesigned a unit that explores current manifestations of systemic oppression. This unit is new in approach and longer in duration than it was pre-Covid, and it has resulted in some of the deepest and hardest learning, as well as the richest conversations, that I have seen among students in my career. Part of this improved quality comes from the frequent and intentional pauses that I instruct students to take in order to reflect on the content and on the arc of their own learning. The reduction in content that we need to get through in online learning has given me more time to assign reflective prompts, and to let students process their thoughts, whether that’s at the end of a lesson as an exit slip or as an assignment.

Joining Forces to Be Consistent

There’s no doubt this reduction in homework has been a team effort. Within the English department, we have all agreed to allot reading time during class; across each grade level, we’re monitoring the amount of homework our students have collectively; and across the whole high school, we have adopted a framework to help us think through assigning homework.

Within that framework, teachers at the school agree that the best option is for students to complete all work during class. The next best option is for students to finish uncompleted class work at home as a homework assignment of less than 30 minutes. The last option—the one we try to avoid as much as possible—is for students to be assigned and complete new work at home (still less than 30 minutes). I set a maximum time limit for students’ homework tasks (e.g., 30 minutes) and make that clear at the top of every assignment.

This schoolwide approach has increased my humility as a teacher. In the past, I tended to think my subject was more important than everyone else’s, which gave me license to assign more homework. But now I view my students’ experience more holistically: All of their classes and the associated work must be considered, and respected.

As always, I ground this new pedagogical approach not just in what’s best for students’ academic learning, but also what’s best for them socially and emotionally. 2020 has been traumatic for educators, parents, and students. There is no doubt the level of trauma varies greatly ; however, one can’t argue with the fact that homework typically means more screen time when students are already spending most of the day on their devices. They need to rest their eyes. They need to not be sitting at their desks. They need physical activity. They need time to do nothing at all.

Eliminating or reducing homework is a social and emotional intervention, which brings me to the greatest benefit of reducing the homework load: Students are more invested in their relationship with me now that they have less homework. When students trust me to take their time seriously, when they trust me to listen to them and adjust accordingly, when they trust me to care for them... they trust more in general.

And what a beautiful world of learning can be built on trust.

• Math Careers

Search form

• MAA Centennial
• Spotlight: Archives of American Mathematics
• MAA Officers
• MAA to the Power of New
• Council and Committees
• MAA Code of Conduct
• Policy on Conflict of Interest
• Statement about Conflict of Interest
• Recording or Broadcasting of MAA Events
• Policy for Establishing Endowments and Funds
• Avoiding Implicit Bias
• Copyright Agreement
• Principal Investigator's Manual
• Planned Giving
• The Icosahedron Society
• Our Partners
• Advertise with MAA
• Employment Opportunities
• Staff Directory
• 2022 Impact Report
• In Memoriam
• Membership Categories
• Become a Member
• Membership Renewal
• MERCER Insurance
• MAA Member Directories
• New Member Benefits
• The American Mathematical Monthly
• Mathematics Magazine
• The College Mathematics Journal
• How to Cite
• Communications in Visual Mathematics
• About Convergence
• What's in Convergence?
• Convergence Articles
• Mathematical Treasures
• Portrait Gallery
• Paul R. Halmos Photograph Collection
• Other Images
• Critics Corner
• Problems from Another Time
• Conference Calendar
• Guidelines for Convergence Authors
• Math Horizons
• Submissions to MAA Periodicals
• Guide for Referees
• Scatterplot
• Math Values
• MAA Book Series
• MAA Press (an imprint of the AMS)
• MAA Library Recommendations
• Additional Sources for Math Book Reviews
• About MAA Reviews
• Mathematical Communication
• Information for Libraries
• Author Resources
• MAA MathFest
• Proposal and Abstract Deadlines
• MAA Policies
• Invited Paper Session Proposals
• Contributed Paper Session Proposals
• Panel, Poster, Town Hall, and Workshop Proposals
• Minicourse Proposals
• MAA Section Meetings
• Virtual Programming
• Joint Mathematics Meetings
• Calendar of Events
• MathFest Programs Archive
• MathFest Abstract Archive
• Historical Speakers
• Information for School Administrators
• Information for Students and Parents
• Registration
• Getting Started with the AMC
• AMC Policies
• AMC Administration Policies
• Important AMC Dates
• Competition Locations
• Invitational Competitions
• Putnam Competition Archive
• AMC International
• Curriculum Inspirations
• Sliffe Award
• MAA K-12 Benefits
• Mailing List Requests
• Statistics & Awards
• Submit an NSF Proposal with MAA
• MAA Distinguished Lecture Series
• Common Vision
• CUPM Curriculum Guide
• Instructional Practices Guide
• Möbius MAA Placement Test Suite
• META Math Webinar May 2020
• Progress through Calculus
• Survey and Reports
• "Camp" of Mathematical Queeries
• DMEG Awardees
• National Research Experience for Undergraduates Program (NREUP)
• Neff Outreach Fund Awardees
• Tensor SUMMA Grants
• Tensor Women & Mathematics Grants
• Grantee Highlight Stories
• "Best Practices" Statements
• CoMInDS Summer Workshop 2023
• MAA Travel Grants for Project ACCCESS
• 2024 Summer Workshops
• Minority Serving Institutions Leadership Summit
• Previous Workshops
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Course Resources
• Industrial Math Case Studies
• Participating Faculty
• 2020 PIC Math Student Showcase
• Previous PIC Math Workshops on Data Science
• Dates and Locations
• Past Programs
• Leadership Team
• Support Project NExT
• Section NExT
• Section Officers Meeting History
• Preparations for Section Meetings
• Bylaws Template
• Editor Lectures Program
• MAA Section Lecturer Series
• Officer Election Support
• Section Awards
• Section Liaison Programs
• Section Visitors Program
• Expense Reimbursement
• Guidelines for Bylaw Revisions
• Guidelines for Local Arrangement Chair and/or Committee
• Guidelines for Section Webmasters
• MAA Logo Guidelines
• MAA Section Email Policy
• Section Newsletter Guidelines
• Statement on Federal Tax ID and 501(c)3 Status
• Communication Support
• Guidelines for the Section Secretary and Treasurer
• Legal & Liability Support for Section Officers
• Section Marketing Services
• Section in a Box
• Subventions and Section Finances
• Web Services
• Joining a SIGMAA
• Forming a SIGMAA
• History of SIGMAA
• SIGMAA Officer Handbook
• MAA Connect
• Meetings and Conferences for Students
• Opportunities to Present
• Information and Resources
• MAA Undergraduate Student Poster Session
• Undergraduate Research Resources
• MathFest Student Paper Sessions
• Research Experiences for Undergraduates
• Student Poster Session FAQs
• High School
• A Graduate School Primer
• Reading List
• Student Chapters
• Awards Booklets
• Carl B. Allendoerfer Awards
• Regulations Governing the Association's Award of The Chauvenet Prize
• Trevor Evans Awards
• Paul R. Halmos - Lester R. Ford Awards
• Merten M. Hasse Prize
• George Pólya Awards
• David P. Robbins Prize
• Beckenbach Book Prize
• Euler Book Prize
• Daniel Solow Author’s Award
• Henry L. Alder Award
• Deborah and Franklin Tepper Haimo Award
• Certificate of Merit
• Gung and Hu Distinguished Service
• JPBM Communications Award
• Meritorious Service
• MAA Award for Inclusivity
• T. Christine Stevens Award
• Dolciani Award Guidelines
• Morgan Prize Information
• Selden Award Eligibility and Guidelines for Nomination
• Selden Award Nomination Form
• AMS-MAA-SIAM Gerald and Judith Porter Public Lecture
• Etta Zuber Falconer
• Hedrick Lectures
• James R. C. Leitzel Lecture
• Pólya Lecturer Information
• Putnam Competition Individual and Team Winners
• D. E. Shaw Group AMC 8 Awards & Certificates
• Maryam Mirzakhani AMC 10 A Awards & Certificates
• Two Sigma AMC 10 B Awards & Certificates
• Jane Street AMC 12 A Awards & Certificates
• Akamai AMC 12 B Awards & Certificates
• High School Teachers
• MAA Social Media

You are here

Teaching time savers: reviewing homework, by jane murphy wilburne.

The classroom practice of assigning homework is a necessity to reinforce the topic of the day's lesson, review skills and practice them in a variety of problems, or challenge students' thinking and application of the skills. Effective mathematics teachers know how to choose worthwhile assignments that can significantly impact students' learning and understanding of the mathematics. The challenge, however, is how to manage and review the assignments in a manner that will benefit students' learning, and use classroom time effectively.

Over the years, I have tried various approaches to reviewing and assessing students' homework. Collecting and grading every students' homework can be very time consuming, especially when you have large classes and no graduate assistants to help review students' work. On the other hand, while it is important to provide students with immediate feedback on their homework, it does not benefit them much to have the professor work out each problem in front of the class.

I believe it is important for college students to take responsibility for their learning. By promoting opportunities for them to communicate with and learn from each other, we can help students come to rely less on the professor to provide them with all the answers, and teach them to pose questions that enhance each others' understanding.

One technique that has been effective in my classes is to assign homework problems that vary in concept application and level of difficulty. The students were instructed to solve each problem and place a check (’) next to any problem they could not solve. As the students entered class the next day, they would list the page number and problem number of the problems they could not solve, on the front board in a designated area. If the problem was already listed, they placed a check (’) next to it. Once the class started, they were not allowed to record problem numbers at the board. Other students, who were successful in solving these problems, immediately went to the board when they entered the class, indicated that they would solve one of the listed problems, and worked it out in detail. When they finished they signed their name to the problem.

By the time I entered the classroom, students were busy solving problems at the board while others were checking their homework at their seats. If there were any questions about the problems, the student who solved the problem at the board would explain his work to the class. If there was a problem in which no one was able to solve, I would provide a few details about the problem and reassign it for the next class. In a short period of time, all homework was reviewed, and I recorded notes as to which students posted solutions on the board. Rather than collecting every student's homework, I noted the problems that gave most students difficulty and would assign similar problems in a future assignment. Students who listed the problems they had difficulty with were not penalized. Instead, those who solved the problems would receive a plus (+) in my grade book. A series of five pluses (+) would earn them a bonus point on a future exam.

My classroom quizzes would always include several homework problems to help keep students accountable for completing their assignments and motivate them to review problems they had difficulty with. Those who did typically received an A!

Time spent in class: approximately 5-12 minutes reviewing the homework. Time saved: about 30 minutes per class

Jane M. Wilburne is assistant professor of mathematics at Penn State Harrisburg.

Teaching Time Savers Archives

Teaching Time Savers are articles designed to share easy-to-implement activities for streamlining the day-to-day tasks of faculty members everywhere. If you would like to share your favorite time savers with the readers of FOCUS, then send a separate email description of each activity to Michael Orrison at [email protected] . Make sure to include a comment on "time spent" and "time saved" for each activity, and to include pictures and/or figures if at all possible.

Dummy View - NOT TO BE DELETED

• Curriculum Resources
• Outreach Initiatives
• Professional Development
• MAA History
• Policies and Procedures
• Support MAA
• Member Discount Programs
• Periodicals
• MAA Reviews
• Propose a Session
• MathFest Archive
• Putnam Competition
• AMC Resources
• Communities

Connect with MAA

Mathematical Association of America P: (800) 331-1622 F: (240) 396-5647 Email: [email protected]

Copyright © 2024

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Mobile Version

• Professional development
• Managing resources

The role of homework

Homework seems to be an accepted part of teachers’ and students’ routines, but there is little mention of it in ELT literature.

The role of homework is hardly mentioned in the majority of general ELT texts or training courses, suggesting that there is little question as to its value even if the resulting workload is time-consuming. However, there is clearly room for discussion of homework policies and practices particularly now that technology has made so many more resources available to learners outside the classroom.

Reasons for homework

• Attitudes to homework
• Effective homework
• Types of homework
• Homework is expected by students, teachers, parents and institutions.
• Homework reinforces and helps learners to retain information taught in the classroom as well as increasing their general understanding of the language.
• Homework develops study habits and independent learning. It also encourages learners to acquire resources such as dictionaries and grammar reference books. Research shows that homework also benefits factual knowledge, self-discipline, attitudes to learning and problem-solving skills.
• Homework offers opportunities for extensive activities in the receptive skills which there may not be time for in the classroom. It may also be an integral part of ongoing learning such as project work and the use of a graded reader.
• Homework provides continuity between lessons. It may be used to consolidate classwork, but also for preparation for the next lesson.
• Homework may be used to shift repetitive, mechanical, time-consuming tasks out of the classroom.
• Homework bridges the gap between school and home. Students, teachers and parents can monitor progress. The institution can involve parents in the learning process.
• Homework can be a useful assessment tool, as part of continual or portfolio assessment.

Attitudes to homework Teachers tend to have mixed feelings about homework. While recognising the advantages, they observe negative attitudes and poor performance from students. Marking and giving useful feedback on homework can take up a large proportion of a teacher’s time, often after school hours.

• Students themselves complain that the homework they are given is boring or pointless, referring to homework tasks that consist of studying for tests, doing workbook exercises, finishing incomplete classwork, memorising lists of vocabulary and writing compositions. Where this is actually the case, the negative effects of homework can be observed, typified by loss of interest and a view of homework as a form of punishment.
• Other negative effects of poorly managed homework include lack of necessary leisure time and an increased differential between high and low achievers. These problems are often the cause of avoidance techniques such as completing homework tasks in class, collaborating and copying or simply not doing the required tasks. In turn, conflict may arise between learners, teachers, parents and the institution.

Effective homework In order for homework to be effective, certain principles should be observed.

• Students should see the usefulness of homework. Teachers should explain the purpose both of homework in general and of individual tasks.
• Tasks should be relevant, interesting and varied.
• Good classroom practice also applies to homework. Tasks should be manageable but achievable.
• Different tasks may be assigned to different ability groups. Individual learning styles should be taken into account.
• Homework should be manageable in terms of time as well as level of difficulty. Teachers should remember that students are often given homework in other subjects and that there is a need for coordination to avoid overload. A homework diary, kept by the learner but checked by teachers and parents is a useful tool in this respect.
• Homework is rarely co-ordinated within the curriculum as a whole, but should at least be incorporated into an overall scheme of work and be considered in lesson planning.
• Homework tends to focus on a written product. There is no reason why this should be the case, other than that there is visible evidence that the task has been done.
• Learner involvement and motivation may be increased by encouraging students to contribute ideas for homework and possibly design their own tasks. The teacher also needs to know how much time the students have, what facilities they have at home, and what their preferences are. A simple questionnaire will provide this data.
• While homework should consolidate classwork, it should not replicate it. Home is the outside world and tasks which are nearer to real-life use of language are appropriate.
• If homework is set, it must be assessed in some way, and feedback given. While marking by the teacher is sometimes necessary, peer and self-assessment can encourage learner independence as well as reducing the teacher’s workload. Motivating students to do homework is an ongoing process, and encouragement may be given by commenting and asking questions either verbally or in written form in order to demonstrate interest on the teacher’s part, particularly in the case of self-study and project work.

Types of homework There are a number of categories of useful and practicable homework tasks.

• Workbook-based tasks Most published course materials include a workbook or practice book, mainly including consolidation exercises, short reading texts and an answer key. Most workbooks claim to be suitable for both class and self-study use, but are better used at home in order to achieve a separation of what is done in class and at home. Mechanical practice is thus shifted out of class hours, while this kind of exercise is particularly suited to peer- or self-checking and correction.
• Preparation tasks Rarely do teachers ask learners to read through the next unit of a coursebook, though there are advantages in involving students in the lesson plan and having them know what is coming. More motivating, however, is asking students to find and bring materials such as photographs and pictures, magazine articles and realia which are relevant to the next topic, particularly where personalisation or relevance to the local context requires adaptation of course materials.
• Extensive tasks Much can be gained from the use of graded readers, which now often have accompanying audio material, radio and TV broadcasts, podcasts and songs. Sometimes tasks need to be set as guidance, but learners also need to be encouraged to read, listen and watch for pleasure. What is important is that learners share their experiences in class. Extensive reading and listening may be accompanied by dictionary work and a thematic or personalised vocabulary notebook, whereby learners can collect language which they feel is useful.
• Guided discovery tasks Whereas classroom teaching often involves eliciting language patterns and rules from learners, there is also the option of asking learners to notice language and make deductions for themselves at home. This leads to the sharing of knowledge and even peer teaching in the classroom.
• Real-world tasks These involve seeing, hearing and putting language to use in realistic contexts. Reading magazines, watching TV, going to the cinema and listening to songs are obvious examples, offering the option of writing summaries and reviews as follow-up activities. Technology facilitates chat and friendship networks, while even in monolingual environments, walking down a shopping street noticing shop and brand names will reveal a lot of language. As with extensive tasks, it is important for learners to share their experiences, and perhaps to collect them in a formal or informal portfolio.
• Project work It is a good idea to have a class or individual projects running over a period of time. Projects may be based on topics from a coursebook, the locality, interests and hobbies or selected individually. Project work needs to be guided in terms of where to find resources and monitored regularly, the outcome being a substantial piece of work at the end of a course or term of which the learner can claim ownership.

Conclusion Finally, a word about the Internet. The Web appears to offer a wealth of opportunity for self-study. Certainly reference resources make project work easier and more enjoyable, but cutting and pasting can also be seen as an easy option, requiring little originality or understanding. Conferring over homework tasks by email can be positive or negative, though chatting with an English-speaking friend is to be encouraged, as is searching for visual materials. Both teachers and learners are guilty of trawling the Net for practice exercises, some of which are untried, untested and dubious in terms of quality. Learners need guidance, and a starting point is to provide a short list of reliable sites such as the British Council's  LearnEnglish  and the BBC's Learning English  which provide a huge variety of exercises and activities as well as links to other reliable sources. Further reading Cooper, H. Synthesis of Research on Homework . Educational Leadership 47/3, 1989 North, S. and Pillay, H. Homework: re-examining the routin e. ELT Journal 56/2, April 2002 Painter, L. Homework . English Teaching Professional, Issue 10, 1999 Painter, L. Homework . OUP Resource Books for Teachers, 2003

First published in October 2007

Mr. Steve Darn I liked your…

Mr. Steve Darn I liked your method of the role of the homework . Well, I am one of those laggard people. Unfortunately, when it comes to homework, I definitely do it. Because, a student or pupil who understands new topics, of course, does his homework to know how much he understands the new topic. I also completely agree with all of Steve Darn's points above. However, sometimes teachers give a lot of riff-raff homework, just like homework is a human obligation. This is a plus. But in my opinion, first of all, it is necessary to divide the time properly, and then to do many tasks at home. Only then will you become an "excellent student" in the eyes of the teacher. Although we live in the age of technology, there are still some people who do not know how to send homework via email. Some foreign teachers ask to send tasks by email. Constant email updates require time and, in rare cases, a fee. My above points have been the cause of constant discussions.

• Log in or register to post comments

exam and certificate

Setting homework, setting homework.

Research and insight

Browse fascinating case studies, research papers, publications and books by researchers and ELT experts from around the world.

See our publications, research and insight

Collecting Homework in the Classroom

Tips and Ideas for Collecting Homework

• Tips & Strategies
• An Introduction to Teaching
• Policies & Discipline
• Community Involvement
• School Administration
• Technology in the Classroom
• Teaching Adult Learners
• Issues In Education
• Teaching Resources
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Special Education
• Homeschooling
• M.Ed., Curriculum and Instruction, University of Florida
• B.A., History, University of Florida

The purpose of homework is to help reinforce what was taught in class or to have students gather extra information beyond what was demonstrated in class.

Homework is one part of daily classroom management that can cause many teachers problems. Homework must be assigned, collected, reviewed and assessed. That amount of work means homework must be designed to serve an academic purpose, otherwise, the results may be a great waste of student and instructor time.

Here are a few tips and ideas that can help you create an effective method for collecting homework every day.

Physical Homework

New teachers find out very quickly that day-to-day instruction is made much more effective when there are organized daily housekeeping routines. In developing these routines, if there is homework to collect, the best time to collect it for use in instruction is at the beginning of the period.

Methods you can use to accomplish this include:

• Station yourself at the door as students walk into your room. Students are required to hand you their homework. This greatly reduces the time it takes to complete this task because it is mostly finished before the bell even rings.
• Have a designated homework box. Explain to students how they are to turn in their homework each day. To keep track, you might remove the homework box after the bell rings and class begins. Anyone who does not get it in the box will have their homework be marked late. Many teachers find it a good idea to give students a three to a five-minute window after the bell rings to avoid possible confrontations and to keep things fair.

Digital Homework

If the technology is available, in school and at home, teachers may prefer to give a digital homework assignment. They may use a course platform like Google Classroom, Moodle, Schoology, or Edmodo.

Students may be asked to complete homework individually or collaboratively. In this cases, the homework will be time-stamped or a digital student is associated with the work. You may use that time stamp to show the homework has been completed on time.

Digital homework may include programs that provide immediate feedback, which will make assessing much easier. On some of these platforms, there may be an opportunity for a student to repeat an assignment. Digital platforms allow teachers to keep an assignment inventory or student portfolios to note student academic growth.

You may choose to use a “flipped classroom” model. In this model, the instruction is assigned as the homework in advance of class, while the hands-on practice takes place in the classroom. The central idea with this kind of digital homework is similar. In a flipped classroom, the homework serving as the teaching tool. There may be videos or interactive lessons to provide the instruction that happens in class. A flipped learning model allows students to work through problems, suggest solutions, and engage in collaborative learning.

Homework tips

• When it comes to daily housekeeping chores like collecting homework and taking roll, creating a daily routine is the most effective tool. If students know the system and you follow it every day, then it will take up less of your valuable teaching time and give students less time to misbehave while you are otherwise occupied.
• Come up with a quick system to mark an assignment as late. You might have a brightly colored highlighter which you use to make a mark on the top of the paper. You could also mark it with the number of points that you will be taking off the paper. Whatever your method, you will want to make it something you can do quickly and efficiently. See How to Deal with Late Work and Makeup Work
• Return homework within 24 hours for optimum effect.
• The flipped homework in class as part of instruction. The homework is not assessed, but the students are.

Ultimately, it is not the assigning or collecting of homework that is important. What is important is understanding the purpose of homework, and that purpose can help you determine the kind of homework, be it physical or digital, that works best for your students.

• How to Deal With Late Work and Makeup Work
• Teacher Housekeeping Tasks
• Methods for Presenting Subject Matter
• How Scaffolding Instruction Can Improve Comprehension
• Classroom Procedures
• Top Concerns of Science Teachers
• Classroom Rules for High School Students
• Homework Guidelines for Elementary and Middle School Teachers
• Creating a Homework Policy With Meaning and Purpose
• Write IEP Goals for Healthy Student Work Habits
• 8 Things Teachers Can Do to Help Students Succeed
• Organize Your Homework With Color Coded Supplies
• Tips for Teaching Multiple Preps
• How Much Homework Should Students Have?
• Appropriate Consequences for Student Misbehavior
• 6 Teaching Strategies to Differentiate Instruction

• Articles / Homework

Smart Homework: How to Manage & Assess It

by MiddleWeb · Published 08/20/2014 · Updated 12/14/2019

In the first installment of our smart homework series from author & teaching consultant Rick Wormeli, he made the case for take-home assignments that matter for learning and engage student interest . In Part 2 , Rick suggested 13 guiding principles to help teachers create homework challenges that spark deeper learning. In this final article, Rick suggests some good ways to assess homework and manage the workload .

These articles are adapted with permission from Rick’s seminal book about teaching in the middle grades, Day One & Beyond: Practical Matters for New Middle Level Teachers (Stenhouse, 2005). Rick continues to offer great advice about homework, differentiation, assessment and many other topics in workshops and presentations across North America.

Fresh approaches to middle grades homework have many benefits, but how does all this play out as we manage homework in our classrooms? How do we assess homework effectively? How do we handle the paperwork? How do we guard against homework becoming just busywork again?

Here are some ideas:

▶ For big projects with multiple weeks of student responses, such as a science learning log or a reader’s response journal, skim every page students have written, but have students select one entry for a letter grade by placing a star on the intended page. The entry should demonstrate outstanding thinking, science protocol, plot analysis, personal response, or whatever you’re emphasizing with the unit. If you’re worried about having a large enough sample, grade two or three entries.

▶ When checking a list of problems, sentences, or answers to questions, have students work in groups of four or five to confirm answers with one another. If someone gets the wrong answer and doesn’t understand why, the rest of the group explains. If the student or group is stuck in understanding how an answer was achieved, they identify that one problem/sentence/question to the teacher when she calls the groups back to the whole class. The teacher reviews only identified problems.

▶ While groups are meeting to review homework, the teacher circulates from group to group, recording evidence of successful collaborations (to be shared later with the whole group), answering questions, correcting misconceptions, facilitating student conversations, and identifying areas to reteach. The great thing about this method is found in the value of conversation, not just the assessment the teacher does. Students who “talk math” (or English, history, science, art, PE, technology, drama, or music) learn those subjects.

▶ Don’t grade everything. Some assignments can be marked with a check or a zero for having done it. Spot-check problems two, nine, and seventeen because they represent different concepts you were worried about students understanding.

▶ Keep the student’s effort in doing the homework from diluting the grade that indicates mastery of content. That is, separate work habits from the letter grade if you can. Even though I know that good work habits usually yield high achievement, as a parent I don’t want my son’s grade to be based on anything but mastery of content and skills. If the grade’s validity reflects good effort but not mastery, then my son isn’t held accountable for learning, I don’t have a valid judgment of his learning, and he doesn’t have the required knowledge.

In the real world, we do not pay a carpet layer for the job until the job is done, regardless of how many hours or days it took, or how hot it was. The degree of his effort is not relevant, just that the job is done well (the standard of excellence was achieved). High-tech-industry workers may work all night long preparing a proposal for a client, but their efforts are irrelevant to the client who accepts and reviews all proposals equally that cross her desk by 10:00 a.m. the next morning.

Revising and Redoing Homework

The teacher is an expert and a coach. Students are not penalized for multiple attempts and revisions, or for not understanding the first time around. The focus is on achieving the standard of excellence. The feedback to the student is clear: If they don’t achieve, they are not given master craftsman status (an A), nor can they set up a practice. They have not yet met the rigorous criteria (standards) for mastery. We can see the revision of important homework tasks in the same way—students do it until they get it right.

Consider the reflections of middle school educator Nancy Long: “We have experimented with dozens of rubric styles over the last few years, and my favorite still is the one that lists all of the content criteria and all of the quality criteria on the left side and has two columns on the right side: YES and NOT YET. Check marks are used in the appropriate column to show which criteria have been met and which still need work.”

Nancy continues: “I try to schedule deadlines for assignments far enough ahead of the end of the grading period so there is time for everyone to get the papers back and do over what was not right before I must assign a grade ‘in concrete.’ . . . (like) in most things in our adult lives, we can mess up and still get another chance to get it right without too large a penalty!”

Another successful educator, Bill Ivey, says this about redoing homework assignments:

“It is exactly what we want our children to do. We had an English teacher who, by taking her sixth-grade class carefully through draft after draft, helped them create poetry that was more powerful than many of the poetry contest winners at our high school, where the poetry program is considered to be quite strong. The principle here can apply to any subject and any learning.”

Punishing Students Who Don’t Do Homework

Homework’s objective is to be instructional, not punitive. It would be wrong to fail a student for not doing homework when he had mastered all I had to teach. It would, however, indicate that I must not be doing my job very well. If my course is too easy for the student, then I need to make it more challenging for him or pursue placing him in a more advanced course.

Some argue against assessing homework in light of out-of-school pressures affecting a student’s ability to do schoolwork. We need to remember that our first task is to teach so that students will learn. Punishing a kid who cannot complete an assignment due to something beyond his control is abusive. We can’t just shrug our shoulders and say that a child has to do the homework and if he doesn’t, that’s just tough, regardless of the child’s situation.

We can work with families to find a satisfactory way in which to complete the work. I had a student who worked approximately four hours after school every day of the week in order to help support his family. Yes, I could have told him and his family that it is illegal to work at his age. Yes, I could have told him and the family that school is his job and it should come first. But food, medicine, and shelter were more basic needs. Completing a worksheet on objective pronouns pales in comparison.

If the student masters the material, then why should I fail him for not doing homework in the midst of such struggles? We should do the most effective thing for students, not the easiest thing for teachers. Many of our students live in harsh realities. Our compassion and alternative structuring of homework assignments will prepare those students for adult success far better than the punishment for not doing a set of 20 math problems ever will.

Is homework a necessary evil?

It’s troubling that many of today’s homework assignments and practices parallel those from the turn of the last century. Today’s middle schools require innovative and developmentally responsive homework based on what we now know about the human brain and young adolescents. One of the pluses of teaching and using these sanity-saving, creative approaches is that we get to experience the inspiring products our students create.

▶ Bonus idea: Homework reprieve

If you’re looking for ways to reward and motivate students and integrate homework into the regular work flow of your classroom, try a “Homework Deadline Extension Certificate.” I used these every quarter in my own classroom. Students really compete for them.

On the day an assignment is due, students can submit the certificate instead of their homework and they are automatically allowed to turn in the assignment one, two, or three days late, according to your comfort level, for full credit. If we reward those who’ve earned these certificates by extending the deadline but not voiding the need to complete the assignment, we haven’t diminished the assignment’s importance. ( Make your own certificate .)

Of course, students learn to be judicious in their use—if the assignment was to study for tomorrow’s test, it won’t help them to use their deadline extension certificate. If they’re working on a complicated project, they’d be wise to have their certificate in reserve.

His books include Meet Me in the Middle ; Day One and Beyond ; Fair Isn’t Always Equal: Assessment and Grading in the Differentiated Classroom ; Differentiation: From Planning to Practice; Metaphors & Analogies: Power Tools for Teaching Any Subject, and Summarization in Any Subject , plus The Collected Writings (So Far) of Rick Wormeli: Crazy Good Stuff I Learned about Teaching Along the Way .

He is currently working on his first young adult fiction novel and a new book on homework practices in the 21 st century.

Share this:

Tags: Day One & Beyond grading homework homework homework guidelines homework policies middle school Rick Wormeli why homework

MiddleWeb is all about the middle grades, with great 4-8 resources, book reviews, and guest posts by educators who support the success of young adolescents. And be sure to subscribe to MiddleWeb SmartBrief for the latest middle grades news & commentary from around the USA.

• Pingbacks 0

Home work extension certificates…what things did students do to have to earn them?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Recent Comments

Articles / The Teaching Life

What Makes Some Teachers So Memorable?

Articles / Leadership

Continuous Learning: Develop Your Own PLN

Book Reviews / mathematics

What MATH-ish Can Add to Your Math Classes

Articles / Managing Time

3 Tips Help Teachers Make Good Use of Time

Articles / Motivation

Value and Success Can Build Student Motivation

Articles / Writing

Give Students Writing Feedback That Works

Book Reviews / Gifted Education

Coaching That Builds GT Teacher Capacity

Articles / Deeper Learning

Try This UDL Higher Order Thinking Strategy

Articles / Picture Books

What Picture Books Add to a Middle School Class

Collaboration / Making Questions Count

Nurturing Students As Collaborative Contributors

Articles / Mathematics

Math: the Perfect Place to Teach Character

• Anne Jolly says: Did I really neglect to thank you for this comment, Cody?...
• Robert Hornik says: I liked your process and result. Excellent writing feedback system!
• Karin Hess says: This approach provides a needed balance between decoding words to get...
• Sunday Cummins says: So helpful! Thank you!

Sign Up & Receive the Latest News about Our Content…

Email address:

First Name:

Read our Privacy Policy

BOOK REVIEWS

Building Skills in the World Language Class

Mapping Out Diverse Gifted Programs

Using 100-Word Stories for Expansive Writing

What to Expect from AI in Class and Beyond

Strategies for Teaching Against Disinformation

The Democratic Roots Essential to Literacy

How to Reclaim Your Energy, Passion, & Time

A Leadership Blueprint for Growth and Success

A How-to Guide to Better Engage Your Students

10 Tools to Help Kids Develop Their Talents

The Reading Strategies Book Gets an Update

Opportunities for Swift Achievement Gains

Teaching for Retention, Application and Transfer

Strategies to Adjust ‘Up’ What Students Know

Assuring Just, Inclusive Learning for Newcomers

Building Bridges That Cultivate Teacher Growth

SEL, Civic Engagement, & a Healthy Democracy

An Enhanced Edition of ‘When Kids Can’t Read’

15 Ideas for Checking Answers

Checking answers (to homework, as well as exercises done during the lesson) is a part of class often described by teachers and students as boring, slow and not all that engaging for anyone. Naturally, we check these answers for a variety of reasons, such as for marking, for noting student progress, and in order to check if the students have understood the language point in question. However, in my experience both as a teacher and as an observer, the time spent checking answers in class is often the part of the lesson where a lot of time is spent that is of no benefit to any of the learners. In short, the teacher is checking answers just because it is expected that the teacher will check the answers.

I don’t want to get too deep into methodology here, but rather to dispel the notion that it is our duty as teachers to check every answer to every exercise the students have done, and also to offer a few suggestions as to how we can make this whole process more engaging and beneficial for the learners.

1. Let the learners compare their answers first.

Speaking from experience as a language learner, I always appreciated the opportunity to have a look at my partner’s answers to make sure I wasn’t completely off the mark (and so didn’t have to worry so much about making a fool of myself when called upon).  By letting the students compare their answers, it means they’ll have more confidence in them (and so they will be more likely to volunteer them) and also gives them an opportunity for the learners to use English to explain why they chose answer A instead of B, etc.

This is, for me, the golden rule of checking answers in class:  we want to get the learners to use English in their discussions / comparisons of their answers. In general, students are often resistant to this at first, but if we can get them use to it then comparing answers later becomes an opportunity for the students to speak and use many of the language structures they’ve learned in class (e.g. modals: “the answer must be A”).

2. Alternate between asking for volunteers and nominating students to give the answer.

We’ve all taught classes with students who dominate question / answer time.  This is a way to simply get more (if not all) of the students involved in the process of checking answers.

3. Random Order

Instead of just going through the questions linearly (i.e. 1,2,3,4,5), elicit the answers to the questions randomly.  This will hopefully keep the students alert, and helps prevent them from simply anticipating what question they are likely to get.

4. Let the students decide which questions to answer

A variation of the above- nominate a student and let them decide which question to answer.  This is good for weaker students, as it allows them to answer questions that they are more confident they have correct.

5. ‘Randomly’ call on students with correct answers

For activities done in class, you can walk around the class, monitoring and offering help, then ‘randomly’ call on the students who have the correct answers.  This, again, is nice for giving students confidence in speaking and offering up their answers in class.

6. Let students nominate each other

Easy and fun to do- nominate the first student, then allow this student to choose who will answer the next question.  Variations of this include using a ball in class (the student throws the ball to the student they want to answer next).

7. Read out the questions randomly at normal speed.

After the learners have completed the exercises and compared their answers,  you can give the learners a bit of authentic listening practice by reading out the questions randomly, but at your normal speed.  This makes the process at bit more different (naturally) for the learners, but if done regularly could help them become more aware of features of natural speech, such as weak forms, connected speech, etc.

8. Hold off on confirming if an answer is correct or incorrect

I think it’s a teacher’s instinct to tell a student if their answer is correct or incorrect straightaway, but discussion in class among the students can be generated by simply waiting a bit (thus giving the other students a chance to agree or disagree) or by nominating another student in the class and asking “do you agree?.”

9. Just give the students the answers

When I first started teaching, I considered this to be the ‘lazy-way’ to check answers, but it’s what I do most of the time now.  Simply give the students the answers on a handout or put it on the blackboard or OHP, and give the students time to check their answers and ask questions.  If there are no questions, then move on.

When I taught in a private language school (where marks were not given) I would often give the students the answers to the homework and set aside a few minutes at the start of class for questions or problems with the homework.

10. Put the answers on the board or OHP in the wrong order

When dealing with a relatively low number of multiple-choice questions (I certainly wouldn’t do this with 50 answers)to check , you can simply put the answers (not the numbers of course) on the board in a random order and let the students work out in groups.  If you wanted to turn this into a full-speaking activity then you could also put a few functional phrases (such as modals “Number 5 could be A” or even basic conditional structures “If 5 is A, then 6 must be C” etc. )on the board for the students to use in their groups as they work out which answer goes with which question.

11. Easy-First Game

A Variation of number 4 above.  Put the groups into teams.  The teams first compare their answers, then, in turn, each team gets to choose one of the questions to answer.  If they answer correctly, they get a point, if they answer incorrectly then the next team has an opportunity to answer.

12. Snake game

Put numbers of questions on board in rows and/or columns as shown below.  You could even put the numbers randomly if you want.

Again, the students work in teams.  This time, the goal of the game is for each team to have the longest ‘snake.’  So, for example, in the first round a team answers number 1 correctly.  In the next round, if they answered number 2 or 6 or 7 correctly (the snake can only move 1 space vertically or diagonally) then these two numbers would be connected.

This game is nice with competitive groups as a bit of strategy is involved in blocking the other teams movement, etc.

The problem, for me, is often keeping track of which snake belongs to which team.  Either different color markers or assigning a different shape (circle, square, triangle) to each team helps keep everything clear.

Again, encourage the students to use English when they’re talking in their groups.

13. Using a copy of a listening tapescript

If checking the answers to a listening task (or reading task), allow the students to read (or read while they listen again) and find / mark the passages in the listening where the answers are.  Following this, the students can compare their answers and, in theory, should be able to explain why the answer they’ve chosen is correct.

A variation of this is to give the students the correct answers and have the students use the text / tapescript to explain why the answers are correct.

14. Exploit the vocabulary in the questions / answers

Ask the students if they know a synonym or antonym of one of the words in the question / answer, or with higher level groups, ask if anyone can rephrase the question or answer in a different way but with the same meaning.

15. Working with mistakes

While part of the job does entail testing the students from time to time, most of the tasks we do in the classroom are not meant to be tests. As such, mistakes shouldn’t be viewed in a negative light, e.g. that the learners have failed to master a particular language point, but instead are a natural part of the learning process.

So anytime we can get the learners to reflect on their mistakes and examine why they got a particular exercise wrong (e.g. due to a difference between their L1 and English, or are they possibly confusing two different structures that are similar in appearance, such as “Used to” and “be used to”, etc), we’re not only helping them notice and internalize the language point in question and approach similar tasks more effectively in the future, but also giving them the tools to become more reflective, autonomous, successful language learners.

You may also like:

• Advantages and Disadvantages of Model Answers
• Ideas to Help Teach IELTS
• Ideas on Classroom Management in YL Classes

I love to play the “fruit cocktail” with my students. 1. You assign a fruit to each student -2. Students need to stand up and find a chair 3. The last one to sit gives the answer. They love it.

Thank you! I had already used some of the technics before I read your ideas, but the other part I found really exciting! Especially the one with answers in random order on the board, or Snake Game.

many of these sound like really interesting ways to go over answers!!!

Made a boring work turned into interesting activities.

I liked them all. Some of them I have been applying in the classroom the rest are new. I will apply them so far as practicabele.

Leave a comment

Email * (not published)

• Coronavirus Updates
• Adult Patient Care
• Children's Health
• Hollings Cancer Center
• Research at MUSC
• Education Innovation
• Checking for Understanding

Fostering learning and effective teaching: Checking for Understanding

By: Lindsey Fuller, M.A.T. College of Pharmacy Educational Technology Consultant

As a high school educator, I found myself feeling pressed for time, pushing to deliver all content to my students during each class. I wondered, “How am I supposed to teach all of this content in this short amount of time?” We had a state test at the end of the year. I was the content expert; I had the answers they needed them. It was my job to prepare them. It was easy to fall into routine with lecture mode, while occasionally asking a few call and response questions to the class. Usually, the same people answered, and I thought, “OK, they are getting it”. When it came time to take a high stakes assessment, I was often baffled by the scores and wondered “How did they get this question wrong?! I went over this so many times!” I knew I taught the material, “I did my job”, or so I thought. I would reflect. I would go back in my head, look at my presentations and notes. I gave great examples, connected the content to real-world examples, modeled what was needed to pass the exam. Why didn’t they learn it? I realized I was only doing part of my job and not allowing the students to do theirs. I did provide the content, but I didn’t leave any facilitated time for the students to interact, practice, reflect, or analyze it. I assumed they were doing this through homework and reading at home. After all they were high schoolers, they should be doing this on their own!

Merriam Webster’s definition of the verb learn is, “to gain knowledge or understanding of a skill in by study, instruction, or experience”.

Read that definition again… “to gain knowledge or understanding of a skill by study, instruction, or experience.” Students must have time to take the content, concepts, and/or skills being taught and do something with it. As educators, we need to allow students a chance to gain understanding by doing. Merriam Webster’s definition of the verb teach is, “to cause to know something”. What a powerful role that is, to cause to know something! Now that I understood where I was in my teaching, I sat down and realized I needed to find out what the students know, what can they do? In my own education in becoming a teacher, I was taught that checking for understanding is a crucial part of teaching. It allows us to ensure their learning is actionable and that our teaching is effective. I was instructed this over and over, yet it wasn’t until my own teaching experience that I actually learned it. See what I did there? We know we need to check for understanding, but how do we do it effectively in higher education? It is easy to name the challenges: large class sizes, classrooms set up for lecture style teaching, limited class time, content overload, unengaged learners, etc. Take a step back and think about things you can control as an educator. Checking for understanding can:

• provide evidence of student learning allowing you to better guide your teaching in real time.
• increase learner engagement with the content and material.
• help you build stronger, more in-tune, relationships with your students.
• help bring a clear picture of the learning objectives to the students.
• provide students a chance to reflect on their own learning through low-stakes assessments and feedback.

When and how should you check for student understanding? Effective teachers use continuous checking for understanding. To do this, it must be in real-time using assessments to measure student learning. Checking for understanding using various questioning techniques should occur at least three times during a class. This should happen at least once before, during, and after class. Best practice would be to check understanding multiple times during class. Remember these do not have to be formal or graded assessments. Do not get overwhelmed! Let’s break it down.

Before Class

Checking student understanding before class helps gage prior knowledge to guide teaching as well as awaken students’ prior knowledge! This decreases the amount of content delivered if students already have a foundational understanding of it.

Example Strategies:

• Pre-quiz: test your students’ knowledge on the material before class. See if there is anything you can cut out, build upon, or further challenge your students on. This can also help you identify common misconceptions, or areas of real strength. This can be done online using Brightspace or Examsoft. Address areas of strength, celebrate knowledge out loud in class.
• Pre-reading with guided questions: Assign students a short reading, video, and/or lecture material before class. The key component here is also assigning them 3-5 guided open-ended questions. Questions that make them pull from the material, challenge their thinking, and guide them toward the learning objective(s). Once in class, start a discussion with these questions. Challenge as many learners to share what they got from the material. Don’t be afraid of the silence during discussion. Allow for “wait time”, give the students time to think and try not to fill in the silence with your thoughts or answers. This was my personal favorite when teaching! You could ask students to submit these answers online as an assignment before the beginning of class.
• Student made questions: Tell students to come up with questions about previous material or pre-class material. Be prepared to ask and share at the beginning of class. Have other students try to answer those questions before you do. Try asking students to raise their hand if they had a similar or the same question.

During Class

Checking for understanding during class keeps learners engaged and accountable for their learning. This provides real time data which is essential for teacher reflection regarding the lesson and students who are excelling or struggling to understand. Additionally, this enables teachers to adapt the lesson during class to meet student needs.

• Peer teaching: Ask students to teach someone they are sitting near a concept from previous material or material learned in class that day. Tell them to teach it in less than 3 minutes. Then have the students switch and teach another concept or add onto the first one. Discuss as a class if someone got a different perspective from their classmate or if they struggled with a certain concept.
• Metacognitive metaphors: During or after the lesson, ask students to come up with an object or animal that represents what they learned. Have the students submit this using something like a virtual word cloud so the objects/animals can appear on the screen in front of the class. Call out a few of them and ask students to explain why they chose the object or animal. This allows students to summarize their learning, dive into their own understanding and thinking on a concept or presented material. Encourage classmates to challenge their peer’s answers. This was one of my favorites when teaching. It is interesting to hear how the students are interpreting your teaching and introduces multiple perspectives and levels of understanding to the class.
• Use PollEverywhere or Nearpod multiple times during class to quickly check knowledge anonymously. Students are more inclined to pay attention and offer up what they think their answer is if they know it is anonymous and if it is happening regularly.
• Solve the question: Give students a solution, or an answer to a question. Give students the opportunity to discuss with a partner or work individually to come up with a question that would have that solution or answer. Then call on students randomly to discuss their ideas. This could be a math problem, lab values, diagnosis, etc.
• Connect to the real word: Ask students to connect content to real-world experiences or problems. This can be through verbal or written form. You could also provide a real-world scenario and ask students to pick out concepts from the taught material and discuss.
• What is missing? Give students a scenario, case, or problem and ask students to apply their knowledge to come up with what is missing. What needed number, history, questions, values etc. are not answered or provided? What do they need before they can solve it or fully understand it? Students could work individually or in groups.
• Physical response: Ask students to give a physical response to questions in class. This could be a thumbs up or down, a number, or a certain color index card. This allows students to show their understanding without speaking up or raising their hand alone. This will quickly show you if you need to further explain or can move forward in teaching. Or even say, “if you have your thumbs down, get with a classmate that has their thumb up. Work together to answer any questions to have”. After a few minutes, ask again and see if the number of thumbs down decreases. You could do this virtually teaching as well, using emojis.
• Gamification: Play a competitive game like bingo, jeopardy, Nearpod’s Time to Climb, Kahoot, 4 corners, role playing, simulations, etc. Allow students to work in groups or individually. Overall, I’ve found students are competitive and usually enjoy gamification review or checking for understanding because it is low-stakes and fun. It keeps them engaged and gives you solid data about their learning.

After Class

At the end of class or after class, allow students an opportunity to reflect on their learning. This type of checking for understanding will allow the instructor and the students to know if the skill or content was mastered. It can also give students time to practice what was learned and/or to prepare for a summative assessment.

• Post-class quiz: Compare to the pre-class quiz. Analyze the performance to guide your teaching. Students can validate their learning through post-class quizzes. 
• Exit ticket: Ask students to quickly write something they didn’t grasp in class or don’t fully understand. Read these and address at the beginning of the next class.
• Student recorded mini lesson - Ask students to record themselves giving a lesson the concept or material taught. Ask how they would teach the more important information/concepts to someone that was absent for that class. They can record and submit this as an assignment on Brightspace.
• Student written exam questions - Ask students to write a few higher-order thinking exam questions from the material they learned. Give them a few examples of good questions they can reference. Give students feedback on any errors you see. Maybe even include a few on your exam.
• Provide the rationale: Provide students with sample exam questions with the correct answers. Ask the students to write rationales for the correct answers and explain why the other answers are incorrect.
• Concept map - Assign students to create a visual concept map of the material learned. Model an example of a concept map during class or attach one to the assignment. This gives students the freedom to put their thinking on paper and form original connections to concepts and ideas. Allow students to be creative.

We know checking for understanding is best practice, we know educators should do it consistently for the benefit of the student and instruction. We also know a few strategies that could work in a higher educational setting. I challenge you to reflect on your own teaching. Ask yourself the following questions and make small goals from there.

• Do I know what my students understand about the content? What are they struggling with?
• Am I giving them facilitated time to engage with the content before a high-stakes assessment?
• Have I used any of the data from my checking for understanding to modify or guide my teaching?
• Have I challenged my students to higher order thinking?
• Have I given them any feedback on their learning before a high-stakes assessment?

In my short time as an Educational Technology Consultant at the College of Pharmacy I have seen a desire to increase active learning and push for higher order thinking from our faculty members. Some of our faculty members feel more comfortable trying innovative ways of teaching than others. I suggest you seek out those individuals you know for the extra push and peer support in trying something new with your teaching. I believe that risk taking, and collaboration are crucial to effective teaching. Let me know if you try a new check for understanding strategy or would like to discuss your successes and/or pain points in the classroom! You can reach me at [email protected] or send me a chat on Teams!

References:

• Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom (2nd ed.). Hawker Brownlow.
• Lumpkin, A. (2022). Checking for understanding strategies using formative assessments for student learning. Global Research in Higher Education, 5(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v5n1p50
• Yale Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Classroom Assessment Techniques. Retrieved from https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/Classroom-Assessment-Techniques

The relationship between teachers' homework feedback, students' homework emotions, and academic self-esteem: A multi-group analysis of gender differences

• Published: 09 March 2024

Cite this article

• Rui Gou   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-0573-6877 1 ,
• Xin Yang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5835-810X 2 ,
• Xiaohui Chen 1 ,
• Chun Cao 2 &
• Ning Chen 3  

257 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Students’ homework emotions greatly influence the quality of homework, learning activities, and even academic achievement and burden. Therefore, encouraging students’ positive homework emotions is essential for their development. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between three types of teachers’ homework feedback (checking homework on the board, grading homework, and constructive comments), students’ positive and negative homework emotions in Chinese subjects while taking into account the mediating effect of academic self-esteem and gender differences in these underlying relationships. 928 elementary school students of 4–6th grade participated in this survey and completed scales. Results showed that (1) checking homework on the board and constructive comments positively impacted students' positive emotions, while checking homework on the board negatively influenced students’ negative emotions. In contrast, constructive comments did not impact students’ negative emotions. Furthermore, grading homework had no significant effect on students’ emotions; (2) academic self-esteem mediated the relationship between teachers' homework feedback and students’ homework emotions, and (3) gender moderated some underlying relationships between teachers’ homework feedback, students’ homework emotions, and academic self-esteem. This study has implications for teachers in designing and choosing high-quality homework feedback, encouraging students’ positive homework emotions, and reducing students’ negative homework emotions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Linking Teachers’ Student-Oriented Goals to Their Emotions in Mathematics Classrooms: The Mediation of Personal Achievement Goals

Influence of Teacher-and-Peer Support on Positive Academic Emotions in EFL Learning: The Mediating Role of Mindfulness

Emotion management in online groupwork reported by Chinese students

Abdel Aal, H. M. M. (2023). Academic self-esteem and its relationship to practicing extracurricular activities among university students. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 18 (1), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v18i1.8306

Article   Google Scholar  

Akhtar, M., & Bilour, N. (2020). State of mental health among transgender individuals in Pakistan: Psychological resilience and self-esteem. Community Mental Health Journal, 56 (5), 626–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-019-00522-5

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Akter, S., Zaman, T., Zaman, F. T. Z. B., & Muhammed, N. (2018). Self-esteem and cognitive emotion regulation of young adults in Bangladesh. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 6 (4), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.25215/0604.101

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.411

Annett, J. (1969). Feedback and human behaviour: The effects of knowledge of results, incentives and reinforcement on learning and performance . Penguin Books.

Google Scholar  

Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). Amos 17.0 User’s Guide . SPSS Inc.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (3), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

Bang, H. (2012). Promising homework practices: Teachers’ perspectives on making homework work for newcomer immigrant students. The High School Journal, 95 (2), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2012.0001

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4 (1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431

Bieleke, M., Goetz, T., Yanagida, T., Botes, E., Frenzel, A. C., & Pekrun, R. (2022). Measuring emotions in mathematics: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire—Mathematics (AEQ-M). ZDM–Mathematics Education, 55 (2), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01425-8

Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students . Alexandria: ASCD.

Brown, C. S., & Stone, E. A. (2016). Gender stereotypes and discrimination: How sexism impacts development. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 50 , 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2015.11.001

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy . Prentice Hall Regents.

Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in written feedback on homework assignments. Tesol Quarterly, 15 (3), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586751

Chennamaneni, P. R., Echambadi, R., Hess, J. D., & Syam, N. (2016). Diagnosing harmful collinearity in moderated regressions: A roadmap. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33 (1), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.08.004

Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents (3rd ed.). Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329420

Book   Google Scholar  

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76 (1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem . Freeman & Company.

Costa, M., Cardoso, A. P., Lacerda, C., Lopes, A., & Gomes, C. (2016). Homework in primary education from the perspective of teachers and pupils. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217 (5), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.047

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108 (3), 593–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.593

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Nunes, A. R., Moreira, T., & Nunes, T. (2018). “Homework feedback is…”: Elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00032

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Martins, J., & Högemann, J. (2019). Does teacher homework feedback matter to 6th graders’ school engagement?: A mixed methods study. Metacognition and Learning, 14 (8), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09200-z

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes and students’ opposition. School misconduct as a reaction to teachers’ diminished effort and affect. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 (6), 860–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.008

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in mathematics: Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36 (1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.001

Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotion regulation across the life span: An integrative perspective emphasizing self-regulation, positive affect, and dyadic processes. Motivation and Emotion, 27 (6), 125–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024521920068

Diseth, A., Meland, E., & Breidablik, H. J. (2014). Self-beliefs among students: Grade level and gender differences in self-esteem, self-efficacy, and implicit theory of intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 35 , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.06.003

Dong, Y., Yu, G., & Zhou, X. (2013). On the factors affecting the academic emotions of adolescents with and without learning disabilities [in Chinese language]. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 4 , 42–47. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-3728.2013.04.009

Doron, J., Thomas-Ollivier, V., Vachon, H., & Fortes-Bourbousson, M. (2013). Relationships between cognitive coping, self-esteem, anxiety and depression: A cluster-analysis approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 55 (5), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.017

Dumani, B., & Gencel, N. (2023). Comparison of face-to-face and distance education: An example of a vocational high school. International Journal of Progressive Education, 19 (1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2023.517.9

Dumont, M., & Provost, M. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28 (3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021637011732

Elawar, M. C., & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’ written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (2), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.2.162

Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2011). Student teacher assessment feedback preferences: The influence of cognitive styles and gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 21 (3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.011

Farkas, G., Grobe, R. P., Sheehan, D., & Shuan, Y. (1990). Cultural resources and school success: Gender, ethnicity, and poverty groups within an urban school district. American Sociological Review, 55 (1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095708

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 (8), 1311–1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00113-6

Goetz, T., Nett, U. E., Martiny, S. E., Hall, N. C., Pekrun, R., Dettmers, S., et al. (2012). Students’ emotions during homework: Structures, self-concept antecedents, and achievement outcomes. Learning and Individual Difference, 22 (2), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.006

Guo, W., & Zhou, W. (2021). Relationships between teacher feedback and student motivation: A comparison between male and female students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 679575. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679575

Habrat, A. (2018). The role of self-esteem in foreign language learning and teaching . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75283-9

Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26 (2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

Harter, S. (1999). Symbolic interactionism revisited: Potential liabilities for the self-constructed in the crucible of interpersonal relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45 (4), 677–703. https://doi.org/10.2307/23093377

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Heimpel, S. A., Elliot, A. J., & Wood, J. V. (2006). Basic personality dispositions, self-esteem, and personal goals: An approach-avoidance analysis. Journal of Personality, 74 (5), 1293–1320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00410.x

Helm, C. (2007). Teacher dispositions affecting self-esteem and student performance. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80 (3), 109–110. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.3.109-110

Hoge, D. R., Smit, E. K., & Hanson, S. L. (1990). School experiences predicting changes in self-esteem of sixth and seventh grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.117

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling- A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0097-y

Irving, S., Harris, L., & Peterson, E. (2011). ‘One assessment doesn’t serve all the purposes’ or does it? New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12 (9), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9145-1

Jiang, L. (2001). A study of optimizing feedback sessions for elementary school students’ out-of-class homework. Education Science, 4 , 31–32.

Kaur, B. (2011). Mathematics homework: A study of three grade eight classrooms in Singapore. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9 (2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9237-0

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Khaleghinezhad, S. A., Shabani, M., Hakimzadeh, R., Nazari Shaker, H., & Amerian, M. (2016). Prediction of high school students’ life satisfaction and academic performance based on locus of control and self-esteem. International Journal of School Health, 3 (3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17795/intjsh-31924

Kline, R. B. (2022). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . Guilford Press.

Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (4), 470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.470

Knollmann, M., & Wild, E. (2007). Quality of parental support and students’ emotions during homework: Moderating effects of students’ motivational orientations. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22 (3), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173689

Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2003). Perceptions of teacher’s feedback and learning environment as predictors of intrinsic motivation in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4 (4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00012-2

Krijgsman, C. (2021). Assessment and motivation: a self-determination theory perspective on performance grading, goal clarification and process feedback in physical education [Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University]. https://doi.org/10.33540/463

Larson, R. W., & Brown, J. R. (2007). Emotional development in adolescence: What can be learned from a high school theater program? Child Development, 78 (4), 1083–1099. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01054.x

Lee, H., & Jung, E. (2023). An analysis of the longitudinal changes in the determining factors for adolescents’ self-esteem with random forests. In J. S. Park, L. T. Yang, Y. Pan, & J. H. Park (Eds.), Advances in Computer science and ubiquitous computing. CUTECSA 2022. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. (Vol. 1028). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1252-0_16

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Leone, C. M., & Richards, M. H. (1989). Classwork and homework in early adolescence: The ecology of achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18 (12), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02139072

Li, J., Han, X., Wang, W., Sun, G., & Cheng, Z. (2018). How social support influences university students’ academic achievement and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of self-esteem. Learning and Individual Differences, 61 , 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.016

Liu, Y., Gong, S., & Xiong, J. (2016). The Influence of perceived mathematics homework quality, perceived control and homework emotion on homework effort for middle school students. Journal of Psychological Science, 39 (2), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20160216

Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31 , 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001

Manna, G., Giorgio, F., Sonia, I., Como, M. R., & De Santis, S. (2016). The relationship between self-esteem, depression and anxiety: Comparing vulnerability and scar model in the Italian context. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4 (3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/2016.4.1328

Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement and research. In J. M. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 59–98). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315806976

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60 (4), 981–992. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131038

Mouratidis, M., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30 (2), 240–268. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.2.240

Mruk, C. J. (2013). Self-esteem and positive psychology: Research, theory, and practice . Springer Publishing Company.

Murphy, J., Decker, K., Chaplin, C., Dagenais, R., Heller, J., Jones, R., et al. (1987). An exploratory analysis of the structure of homework assignments in high schools. Research in Rural Education, 4 (2), 61–71.

Nicaise, V., Bois, E. J., Fairclough, S. J., Amorose, A. J., & Cogérino, G. (2007). Girls’ and boys’ perceptions of physical education teachers’ feedback: Effects on performance and psychological response. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25 (8), 915–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410600898095

Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., & Valle, A. (2015). Teachers’ feedback on homework, homework-related behaviors, and academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 108 (3), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.878298

Okoko‚ W. O. (2012). Self-esteem and academic performance of students in public secondary schools in Ndhiwa Distrist, Kenya. [Master dissertation, University of Nairobi, Kenya].

Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2013). Understanding the link between low self-esteem and depression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22 (6), 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413492763

Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18 (4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37 (2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4

Perveen, F., Altaf, S., & Tehreem, H. (2022). Relationship between self-esteem and academic performance: A gendered perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Research, 4 (3), 780–785. https://doi.org/10.52567/pjsr.v4i03.768

Peterson, E., & Irving, S. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18 (3), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001

Plante, I., De la Sablonnière, R., Aronson, J. M., & Théorêt, M. (2013). Gender stereotype endorsement and achievement-related outcomes: The role of competence beliefs and task values. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38 (3), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.004

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12 (4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

Pulfrey, C., Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2013). Autonomy and task performance: Explaining the impact of grades on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029376

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7

Ren, X., Jing, B., Li, H., & Wu, C. (2022). The impact of perceived teacher support on Chinese junior high school students’ academic self-efficacy: The mediating roles of achievement goals and academic emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 1028722. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1028722

Rosário, P., Cunha, J., Nunes, A. R., Moreira, T., Núñez, J. C., & Xu, J. (2019). “Did you do your homework?” Mathematics teachers’ homework follow-up practices at middle school level. Psychology in the Schools, 56 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22198

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Suárez, N., et al. (2015). The effects of teachers’ homework follow-up practices on students’ EFL performance: A randomized-group design. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 , 1528. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60 (1), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096350

Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7 (2), 112–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209508406961

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Simonton, K. L., & Layne, T. E. (2023). Investigating middle school students’ physical education emotions, emotional antecedents, self-esteem, and intentions for physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 42 (4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2022-0193

Singh, R., Saleem, M., Pradhan, P., Heffernan, C., Heffernan, N. T., Razzaq, L., Dailey, M. D., Oonnor, C., & Mulcahy, C. (2011). Feedback during Web-Based Homework: The Role of Hints. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. (Vol. 6738). Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_43

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. Contemporary Sociology, 21 (4), 609–637. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075902

Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (1), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028931

Strandell, J. (2016). Culture, cognition and behavior in the pursuit of self-esteem. Poetics, 54 (5), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2015.08.007

Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9 , 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003

Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensions of global self-esteem: Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65 (2), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6502_8

Teoh, H. J., & Nur Afiqah, R. (2010). Self-esteem amongst young adults: The effect of gender, social support and personality. Malaysian Journal of Psychiatry, 19 (2), 41–49.

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kastens, C., & Köller, O. (2006). Effort on homework in grades 5–9: Development, motivational antecedents, and the association with effort on classwork. Child Development, 77 (4), 1094–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00921.x

Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Between-teacher differences in homework assignments and the development of students’ homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176

Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Chameleon effects in homework research: The homework-achievement association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis chosen. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34 (1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001

Velotti, P., Garofalo, C., Bottazzi, F., & Caretti, V. (2017). Faces of shame: Implications for self-esteem, emotion regulation, aggression and well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 151 (2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1248809

Verma, S., Sharma, D., & Larson, R. W. (2002). School stress in India: Effects on time and daily emotions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26 (6), 500–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000454

Wang, F., & Wang, S. (2012). A comparative study on the influence of automated evaluation system and teacher grading on students’ English writing. Procedia Engineering, 29 (2), 993–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.077

Woltering, S., & Lewis, M. D. (2009). Developmental pathways of emotion regulation in childhood: A neuropsychological perspective. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3 (3), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01066.x

Xu, J. (2011). Homework emotion management at the secondary school level: Antecedents and homework completion. Teachers College Record, 113 (3), 529–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300303

Xu, J. (2018). Emotion regulation in mathematics homework: An empirical study. The Journal of Educational Research, 111 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1175409

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Xu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2017). Self-regulation of mathematics homework behavior: An empirical investigation. The Journal of Educational Research, 110 (5), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1125837

Zhang, J. (2023). A comparative study of "writing peer review" in high school chemistry error-prone concept learning. [Master dissertation, East China Normal University].

Zhang, Q. (2016). Basic characteristics of the content of the teaching and learning of Chinese subjects. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method, 36 (1), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2016.01.014

Zhu, Y., & Leung, F. (2012). Homework and mathematics achievement in Hong Kong: evidence from the TIMSS2003. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10 (8), 907–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9302-3

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participating students, teachers, and schools for their time and support.

This work was supported by The National Social Science Found of China “14th Five-Year Plan” 2022 Youth Project in Education: Research on the formation mechanism of schoolwork burden of primary and secondary school students and the accurate reduction mechanism of big data [grant numbers CHA220299].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Northeast Normal University, #2555 Jingyue Avenue, Changchun City, 130117, Jilin, China

Rui Gou & Xiaohui Chen

Faculty of Education, Northeast Normal University, #5268 Renming Avenue, Changchun City, 130024, Jilin, China

Xin Yang & Chun Cao

School of Communication, Qufu Normal University, #80 North Yantai Road, Rizhao City, 276826, Shandong, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: RG, XY, CC; methodology: RG, XY; formal analysis and investigation: NC, RG, XY; writing-original draft preparation: RG, XY; Writing-review and editing: RG, XY; CC, XC; funding acquisition: XY; Resources: XC.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Yang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Northeast Normal University.

Consent to participate

Written consent was obtained from participants.

Consent for publication

This submission has been approved by all co-authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gou, R., Yang, X., Chen, X. et al. The relationship between teachers' homework feedback, students' homework emotions, and academic self-esteem: A multi-group analysis of gender differences. Soc Psychol Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09897-0

Download citation

Received : 22 June 2023

Accepted : 06 February 2024

Published : 09 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09897-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Homework feedback
• Homework emotions
• Academic self-esteem
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

“Homework Feedback Is…”: Elementary and Middle School Teachers’ Conceptions of Homework Feedback

Jennifer cunha.

1 Departamento de Psicologia Aplicada, Escola de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal

Pedro Rosário

José carlos núñez.

2 Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

Ana Rita Nunes

Tânia moreira, tânia nunes.

This study explored mathematics teachers’ conceptions of the homework feedback focusing on four key aspects: definition, purpose, types, and perceived impact. Forty-seven teachers from elementary and middle schools participated in six focus groups. Data were analyzed using content analysis. To enhance the trustworthiness of findings, classroom observations were used for triangulation of data. Participants conceptualized homework feedback in three directions (i.e., teachers’ feedback provided to students, students’ feedback provided to teachers, and homework self-feedback), being teachers’ monitoring of students’ learning the purpose reported by most teachers. Participants also reported the types of homework feedback more frequently used in class (e.g., checking homework completion, checking homework on the board), and their perceived impact on students. Findings provide valuable information to deepen the understanding of the homework feedback process, which may help develop new avenues for future research.

Introduction

Homework may be defined as tasks assigned by teachers to be completed in non-instructive time ( Cooper, 2001 ), and has proved to enhance students’ academic achievement when endowed with particular characteristics (e.g., short, purposeful, frequent assignments, high quality) (e.g., Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ; Rosário et al., 2015a ).

In addition, the homework feedback provided by the teacher in class is an important tool to increase the impact of homework on students’ learning and academic achievement (e.g., Walberg and Paik, 2000 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ; Rosário et al., 2015b ), and a crucial aspect of the quality of homework ( Cooper, 2001 ). However, detailed information on elementary and middle school teachers’ perspectives about their practices and on the reasons why teachers choose and use particular types of homework feedback in class is still scarce ( Bang et al., 2009 ; Deslandes, 2009 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). Investigating teachers’ conceptions of the homework feedback, particularly in elementary and middle school, may provide new insights into research on homework (e.g., helping further explain previous quantitative results; improving homework feedback measures), as well as into educational practices (e.g., teachers getting training on homework feedback practices).

Teachers’ Role on the Homework Feedback Process

Teachers play an important role in the first phase of the homework process by setting up the objectives of homework assignments and designing tasks, and also in the final phase by implementing classroom follow-up practices ( Cooper, 2001 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ; Rosário et al., 2015a , b ). The latter includes, among other practices, homework feedback provided in class: oral or written praise, criticism, written comments (highlighting right and wrong answers), rewards, general review of homework in class, and grading (i.e., teachers giving numerical grades) (e.g., Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Murphy et al., 1987 ; Corno, 2000 ; Cooper, 2001 ). These homework feedback practices are an important instructional tool for teachers in their teaching process (e.g., helping identify students’ difficulties, errors or misconceptions in homework; approaching the learning contents to accommodate students’ lack of prior knowledge, and redesigning homework to match students’ needs) ( Corno, 2000 ; Walberg and Paik, 2000 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ; An and Wu, 2012 ; Bang, 2012 ).

Extant research lacks studies which have focused specifically on each of the above-mentioned types of homework feedback; still, some studies have shed some light on the usage and benefits of the various types of homework feedback. For example, Murphy et al. (1987 , p. 68) found that “class discussion on homework,” and grading and commenting on homework were the practices most frequently used by high school teachers (i.e., English, mathematics, science, and social science) to monitor students’ completion of homework. Focusing on mathematics, Kaur (2011) explored the nature of homework tasks assigned by three 8th grade mathematics teachers (e.g., types of homework, sources of homework tasks), and found that teachers provided feedback on errors by grading assignments, orienting discussions and checking homework on the board when needed. Using the TIMSS 2003 data set, Zhu and Leung (2012) found that a high percentage of 8th grade mathematics teachers reported checking homework completion (85%), providing feedback regularly (i.e., at least “sometimes”, 100%), and discussing homework in class (96%). Nevertheless, none of these studies deeply explored the process of homework feedback.

Students’ Role on the Homework Feedback Process

Students engaging in school tasks with autonomy and responsibility are expected to develop a sense of personal agency for self-managing their behaviors ( Zimmerman, 1989 ). Besides, students who proactively manage their behaviors to attain self-set goals are likely to self-regulate their learning efficiently ( Zimmerman, 1989 ). From a social cognitive perspective, self-regulated learning (SRL) may be defined as an active learning process whereby students self-set goals that direct their cognitions, motivations and behaviors toward those goals ( Zimmerman, 1989 ; Núñez et al., 2013 ; Rosário et al., 2013 ). For example, robust self-efficacy and autonomy, good study skills, commitment to self-set goals, and positive academic attitudes are examples of core elements of academic self-regulation which are necessary to complete homework ( Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005 ; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Schmitz and Perels, 2011 ; Núñez et al., 2015c ). Regarding the latter, extant literature highlighted self-regulation competencies as essential tools not only to help students complete their homework, but also use the homework feedback delivered with efficacy and responsibility ( Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ; Xu and Wu, 2013 ). In fact, students are given homework feedback in class and play an important role deciding what to do next with the information given (e.g., ignoring feedback, self-evaluating their homework performance, using SRL learning strategies).

However, to authors’ knowledge, research has not yet provided information to contribute to understanding how teachers’ homework feedback may promote students’ active role in the homework feedback process. As Corno (2000) reported, teachers are expected to promote students’ capacity to self-evaluate their homework, which would involve addressing important self-regulatory processes. Otherwise, homework feedback may fail to benefit students ( Zhu and Leung, 2012 ).

The Benefits of Homework Feedback

Research has analyzed the effect of specific types of homework feedback provided by teachers on students’ academic performance in a particular subject (e.g., Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ), and also the relationships between homework variables (e.g., homework feedback perceived by students, students’ interest, homework management) using non-subject-centered designs ( Xu, 2012 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ). Focusing on the former (i.e., investigating homework feedback in a particular subject), Cardelle and Corno (1981) examined the effect of three types of written homework feedback (i.e., praise, constructive criticism, and constructive criticism plus praise) on college students’ written performance in a second language. Findings showed that students under the constructive criticism plus praise condition achieved a better written performance than their counterparts. Moreover, irrespective of performance levels (i.e., high, middle, and low), participants reported their preference for the constructive criticism plus praise condition. Elawar and Corno (1985) conducted a similar study in mathematics with 6th grade students. Findings showed that students under the constructive criticism plus praise condition showed better achievement and a more positive attitude toward mathematics (e.g., enthusiasm for mathematics) than students of the control group.

The synthesis by Walberg et al. (1985) , and also recent findings by Rosário et al. (2015b) , indicated that specific and individual feedback (i.e., giving written comments or grading homework) positively impacts students’ academic achievement. However, checking homework, grading, and providing individual feedback on homework assignments for every single student in class may not always be feasible because of teacher’s heavy workload (e.g., large numbers of students per class, large numbers of classes to teach, many school meetings per week) ( Cooper, 2001 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). This educational constraint may help explain why checking homework on the board and checking homework orally are among the homework follow-up practices most frequently used by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers ( Rosário et al., 2015b ). These practices are useful to teachers because they allow providing feedback to the whole class (e.g., Brookhart, 2008 ) with less effort than that needed to grade homework or comment on students’ assignments.

Moreover, homework feedback perceived by students was also investigated using non-subject-centered designs (e.g., Xu, 2011 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ; for exceptions see Tas et al., 2016 ; Xu et al., 2017 ). In general, findings showed some of the benefits of homework feedback for students. For example, Xu’s studies using multilevel designs found that at student level teachers’ homework feedback reported by 8th and 11th grade students was positively associated with students’ interest in homework ( Xu, 2008 ), students’ reasons for doing homework ( Xu, 2010 ), students’ homework management ( Xu and Wu, 2013 ; Xu et al., 2017 ), and students’ homework motivation management ( Xu, 2014 ).

Analyzing students’ homework completion at 8th and 11th grade levels, Xu (2011) found a positive association with teacher homework feedback at both student level and class level. The explained variance was higher at class level. The author concluded that students’ homework completion is related to teachers’ provision of homework feedback ( Xu, 2011 ). This proposition is further substantiated by the findings by Bang (2011) , showing that high school immigrant students perceived teachers’ feedback as a facilitating factor, and the lack of it as an obstacle to homework completion.

More recently, Núñez et al. (2015b) conducted a study with students from various school years (grades 5–12) and concluded that the stronger the teachers’ homework feedback is perceived by students, the greater the amount of homework completed and the better the quality of homework time management (e.g., how well students managed time devoted to homework and avoided distractions). Moreover, these authors found that students’ academic achievement is indirectly and positively associated with homework feedback through students’ homework behaviors (i.e., amount of homework completed) and self-regulation (i.e., quality of homework time management), highlighting the importance of student engagement in the homework process ( Núñez et al., 2015b ). The results of Tas et al. (2016) are consistent with those, showing that middle school students’ homework self-regulation (e.g., orientation goals, learning strategies) mediated the relationship between perceived homework feedback and science achievement.

Bang (2012) reported that teachers acknowledged homework feedback (i.e., grading homework) as an important tool to motivate immigrant students to complete homework. Still, teachers admitted the educational challenge of providing homework feedback because of the time-consuming nature of this strategy. In fact, Rosário et al. (2015b) also reported the difficulties faced by EFL teachers to collect and grade homework on a regular basis. Both studies ( Bang, 2012 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ) called for further research on teachers’ perspectives about homework feedback.

In spite of the benefits of homework feedback for students previously reported, the literature has shown that teachers’ support in homework perceived by students decreases from elementary to middle school ( Katz et al., 2010 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ), without specifying in what aspects. Moreover, Kukliansky et al. (2016) recently observed middle school teachers’ behaviors in science classes (3–5 consecutive times) and found that in-class instructional feedback was not always provided, even when demanded by students. However, the authors did not explore the reasons why teachers did not provide feedback in this situation.

In sum, extant research on homework feedback has been conducted on controlled domain-centered contexts (e.g., Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ), on single grade levels (e.g., Kaur, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ; Xu et al., 2017 ), is non-subject-centered (e.g., Xu, 2011 ), or explored specific populations (e.g., teachers of immigrant students, Bang, 2012 ) (cf. Table ​ Table1 1 ), thus further research is needed to deepen the understanding of the homework feedback process.

Summary of studies that focus homework feedback.

The Present Study

Teachers are an important source of information in the study of the homework feedback process because they actually manage feedback in class ( Cooper, 2001 ). Still, little is known about how mathematics teachers of different school levels perceive homework feedback. Examining elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of the homework feedback is expected to reveal useful information on the homework process, especially teachers’ beliefs and practices concerning homework feedback (cf. Irving et al., 2011 ). The model of teachers’ conceptions of assessment and feedback ( Irving et al., 2011 ; see also Peterson and Irving, 2008 ) provides a relevant theoretical framework for the current research, and guided the research questions, data collection and analysis. This model addresses four key aspects of assessment and feedback: definition, purpose, personal response (i.e., types of assessment and feedback used) and perceived impact. Analyzing these key aspects focused on the homework feedback may provide data to help explain previous findings showing small effect sizes or low explained variances (see Zhu and Leung, 2012 ; Xu, 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ; Rosário et al., 2015b ), and design future studies, homework policies or school-based interventions.

The following research questions guided the current study:

What are elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback?

How do the four key aspects of the homework feedback relate to each other?

The current study explores the conceptions of teachers of two school levels for two reasons. Firstly, there are some differences as to the educational goals of those school levels; while teachers at elementary school focus on working on the foundations of mathematics (e.g., giving support in the development of number sense), middle school students are expected to learn high-level concepts (e.g., application of proportional relationships). Secondly, homework research found that the characteristics of the homework assigned (e.g., amount of homework assigned, homework purposes) vary for elementary and middle school. For example, Mullis et al. (2004) found that middle school students are expected to do larger amounts of homework than elementary school students. Besides, the purposes of assignments may also vary for both school grades. While homework purposes for middle school may be more related to school contents assessed in tests, homework purposes for elementary school are more likely to aim at developing personal skills such as time management (e.g., Muhlenbruck et al., 1999 ; Cooper and Valentine, 2001 ). Notwithstanding, the recent meta-analysis focused on mathematics and science by Fan et al. (2017) included a study in which elementary school teachers reported to assign homework to practice basic mathematics skills (see Bedford, 2014 ). Those differences (e.g., amount of homework assigned, homework purposes) may help explain the differential results regarding the benefits of homework in elementary and middle school (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ). Hence, elementary and middle school teachers were invited to talk about homework feedback in order to learn their conceptions and reported practices.

The current study focuses on mathematics (see Trautwein et al., 2006 on the importance of focusing homework research on a specific domain). The reason is threefold: students’ achievement levels, educational relevance of the subject, and previous research findings on homework. There is a global educational concern about students’ poor performance in mathematics. The PISA 2012 report indicates that students from 35 countries show a mathematics performance below the OECD average ( OECD, 2014 ). This worrying educational scenario raises serious challenges for some countries (among which is Portugal), given the fundamental role played by mathematics in other subjects (e.g., biology, physics) and in the development of life and citizenship skills (e.g., Reyna and Brainerd, 2007 ; OECD, 2014 ; Hagger et al., 2015 ). Moreover, mathematics was chosen because of the great amount of homework that is regularly set by teachers (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Schmitz and Perels, 2011 ; Xu, 2015 ).

Materials and Methods

School and participants characteristics.

The last 2 years of elementary school in the Portuguese educational system encompass 5th and 6th grades (10 and 11 years old), while middle school includes 7th, 8th, and 9th grade (12–14 years old). Students have 270 min of mathematics per week in 5th and 6th grade, and 225 min per week in each of the three middle school years. At the end of 6th and 9th grade students complete a final exam that counts toward 30% of the overall grade.

Homework is an educational tool often used by Portuguese teachers as part of their lessons; still, there are no formal homework policies for Portuguese public schools (e.g., characteristics of homework assignments, homework follow-up practices; Rosário et al., 2015b ).

In the current study, participants were involved in focus group discussions and some of them in classroom observations.

Participants in Focus Groups

Six focus group discussions were conducted in this study, each of which comprised 7–9 mathematics teachers. Three focus groups were set up with elementary school teachers (5th and 6th grade) and three focus groups with middle school teachers (7th, 8th, and 9th grade). Following Morgan (1997) , homogeneity of groups was ensured in order to encourage participation among participants and minimize inhibition. Participating teachers met the following criteria: (i) having experience in teaching mathematics at elementary or middle school for at least 2 years, and (ii) assigning homework and providing homework feedback regularly (at least once a week). These requirements aimed to guarantee participants’ ability to generate ideas and opinions to share in their focus group.

The school administrators from the pool of schools which had previously enrolled in other university research projects were contacted by the authors. From those schools who agreed to participate, 20 public schools (approximately 25%) were randomly selected, and 75 mathematics teachers (approximately 25% of the pool of available elementary and middle school teachers) were randomly selected. Teachers were e-mailed about the purposes and procedures of the study (e.g., duration of the session, videotaping of the session) and invited to participate. To encourage participation (see Krueger and Casey, 2010 ), teachers were offered a participation reward (i.e., gift card), free baby-sitting services and a 3-h seminar on homework process and SRL to be held after the study had concluded.

In the end, 47 mathematics teachers (an acceptance rate of 63%) from 12 schools agreed to participate in the present study. The first author phoned the volunteer teachers to schedule the focus group meeting. Then, teachers were distributed into the various groups considering criteria such as: school, school level, and preferred scheduled time. Teachers with a hierarchical relationship were not allocated in the same focus group because this might affect their responses and the dynamics of the discussion ( Kitzinger, 1995 ; Irving et al., 2011 ). In order to encourage attendance, all participants were reminded of the focus group session 1 week before and were asked to arrive 10 min early. A map with the location was sent to all participants.

All teachers attended the focus group discussions on the scheduled day (see Table ​ Table2 2 for focus group demographics). Twenty-four teachers (51.1%) were teaching at elementary school level, and 23 (48.9%) at middle school level. In general, participating teachers had 21 years of teaching experience ( SD = 6.11); taught students from middle-class families, as evidenced by the low percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch (19.7%, data collected from the secretary’s office of the participating schools).

Summary of demographic information of the focus groups.

Participants in Classroom Observations

Given the time-consuming nature of observational studies, of these 47 teachers, 25% of the participants were randomly selected and asked to be observed in their mathematics classes. Finally, six teachers of each school level ( N = 12; four males) were observed in their classrooms. These teachers had been teaching between two to five classes and they had an average of 19 years of teaching experience ( SD = 6.93).

Data Collection

Data was collected from two data sources: focus groups and classroom observations. The research team had previously enrolled in a qualitative research course offered by the University of Minho. Following a hands-on approach, the course training addressed topics including the following: how to lead focus group discussions (e.g., encouraging participation) and observations, and how to ensure the quality and credibility of a qualitative study.

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the ethics committee of the University of Minho. All subjects gave written informed consent to the different phases of the research (i.e., focus groups and classroom observations) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Focus Group Discussions

Focus group interviews allow for in-depth exploration of meanings, attitudes, and personal experiences of participants about a particular topic during an informal, but structured, group discussion ( Kitzinger, 1995 ; Krueger and Casey, 2010 ). This method of data collection helps capture teachers’ tacit knowledge in order to fill research gaps ( Ryan et al., 2014 ). The focus group interviews were conducted by two members of the research team as facilitators while a third member filmed the sessions. To meet teachers’ availability requirements to participate, four focus group discussions were held at the end of the school year (July), and two at the beginning of the following school year (October). Each focus group session lasted approximately 60 min and took place in a room with appropriate light and sound conditions. To create a friendly environment, snacks and refreshments were offered to participants before and after the discussion. The chairs were arranged in a half circle to allow participants to see each other and to facilitate the filming of everyone in the room.

Prior to the discussions, teachers filled in a socio-demographic questionnaire (e.g., gender, years of teaching experience) and signed the written informed consent form. Then, the facilitators introduced themselves, read aloud the study purpose and the basic rules of the focus group discussion, and ensured confidentiality of participants’ responses (i.e., any information that may identify participants or their schools was eliminated at the end of the study).

To facilitate the interaction between participants, all focus group sessions started with a warm-up activity. Then, the facilitators started the discussion with general questions (e.g., the importance of homework) and, following Peterson and Irving (2008) and Irving et al. (2011) , specific questions related to the four key aspects of homework feedback were asked: definition, purpose, types of homework feedback, and perceived impact (see Table ​ Table3 3 ). This set of questions was previously asked to two teachers in order to ensure comprehensibility. These teachers did not participate in the focus group discussions.

Key areas and guiding questions used in teachers’ focus groups.

Classroom Observations

Classroom observations were conducted to capture teachers’ spontaneous behaviors regarding the homework feedback process. All invited teachers were informed that they would be observed five times on average (see Kukliansky et al., 2016 ), in a period of 3 weeks in the middle of the school year (March). Teachers were blind to the exact date or timetable of the observations (dates of the mathematics assessment tests were excluded from the observations schedule) and all agreed to participate acknowledging these requirements. Two other members of the research team, who were knowledgeable about homework research, conducted the classroom observations. These observations incorporated a structured content based on previous homework research to direct researchers’ attention to teacher’s responses to students’ homework completion (see Choo et al., 2015 ). The instrument used to collect data included the five homework feedback types reported in the literature (e.g., Rosário et al., 2015b ). Additionally, researchers took field notes independently on the homework feedback process (e.g., time spent and how homework feedback was delivered), cross-checked and expanded upon their notes as promptly as possible. In the end, each teacher was observed on average five times, thus gathering a total of 64 h of classroom observations.

Data Analysis

Transcriptions of focus group discussions and observation field notes were analyzed using content analysis ( Bardin, 1996 ). The latter is a qualitative research technique used to search for and identify categories, following systematic procedures ( Bardin, 1996 ).

The researchers who conducted the focus groups carried out the data analysis. Content analysis followed three main steps ( Bardin, 1996 ): (i) reading the focus groups’ verbatim transcriptions to get an overview of the data (pre-analysis), (ii) coding (exploration of data), and (iii) treatment (e.g., percentages) and interpretation of data (e.g., comparing frequencies of coded categories). The organization, management, coding, and querying process of the data were conducted using the QSR International’s NVivo 10 software (e.g., Richards, 2005 ).

The extensiveness of comments (i.e., number of participants who convey an idea, Krueger and Casey, 2000 ) in the current study was the criterion used to identify categories. The identification of categories followed a deductive and inductive iterative process ( Bardin, 1996 ). The categories were organized a priori in a coding scheme based on the theoretical model by Irving et al. (2011) , and on the homework research (e.g., Walberg et al., 1985 ; Cooper, 2001 ; Xu, 2011 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). For example, the categories “definition,” “purposes,” “types,” and “perceived impact” of homework feedback were driven by the Irving et al. (2011) theoretical model, while each type of homework feedback (e.g., subcategory “checking homework on the board”) was driven by homework research (e.g., Rosário et al., 2015b ). New categories were added during the analysis using participants’ words ( Bardin, 1996 ). For example, the subcategories “homework feedback provided to teacher,” “self-esteem,” “homework self-feedback” were subcategories build upon teachers’ words. In the end, all transcripts were reviewed in order to check whether the already coded material fit the new subcategories.

Finally, the two researchers reviewed all the categories and sub-categories and discussed the differences found in order to reach a consensus (e.g., elimination of the subcategory “teachers assess students’ progress” because it was highly related to the subcategory “teachers monitor students’ learning”). After the data analysis of four focus group discussions (two from each school level), the researchers coded the two other focus group discussions and no new information was added. To ensure the reliability of findings, the Kappa value was calculated using the Coding Comparison Queries in the Navigation View of the NVivo software. The Kappa value was 0.86, which may be considered “almost perfect” according to Landis and Koch (1977 , p. 165). Then data from the elementary and middle school teachers were analyzed separately conducting a matrix-coding query, crossing nodes with attributes (i.e., school level). The number of participants for each subcategory was converted into a percentage.

The two researchers who conducted the classroom observations coded independently the process of homework feedback delivery described in the field notes according to the codebook used in the focus groups. No new categories or subcategories were identified or redefined. Data from the elementary and middle school teachers were analyzed separately following the procedure used in focus groups, and the number of participants for each subcategory was converted into a percentage. To avoid bias on the Kappa value in NVivo, due to different numbers of characters of the researchers’ field notes ( Kim et al., 2016 ), data was exported and IBM SPSS was used to calculate Cohen’s Kappa for nominal variables. The Cohen’s Kappa value for each subcategory ranged between 0.81 and 1.0, which indicates high agreement across observers.

To answer the second research question (i.e., How do the four key aspects of the homework feedback relate to each other?), data analysis followed two steps using the same software. First, a Cluster Analysis Wizard by word similarity between nodes was conducted to explore patterns and connections between nodes in an initial phase of data analysis ( Bazeley and Jackson, 2013 ). Second, a case-by-nodes matrix was conducted to explore the relationships between each category in the focus group discussion transcripts as suggested by Bazeley and Jackson (2013) .

Specific quality procedures were used to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings of the current study ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ): investigator triangulation (i.e., several investigators were involved in the analysis process), methodological triangulation (i.e., patterns in data from focus groups and classroom observations were compared using a matrix-coding query, crossing nodes with classified sources – focus group and observations), and a member checking run at the University facilities. The researchers randomly selected and invited 25% of the participants of each grade level to do a member check ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ). Ten teachers agreed to participate (six from elementary school and four from middle school) (response rate of 83%). Member checking session lasted approximately 2 h. Firstly, participants were informed of the findings (approximately 45 min). Afterward, they were given a copy of the findings and asked to analyze and discuss whether the description was an authentic representation of the topics covered during the focus group interviews. The participants also analyzed whether the description of the homework feedback types provided to students was an authentic representation of what usually happens in class. Participants were invited to critically analyze the findings and comment on them ( Creswell, 2007 ).

Data were organized and reported according to each of the key aspects of teachers’ conceptions of the homework feedback (see Peterson and Irving, 2008 ): definition, purpose, types of homework feedback practices, and perceived impact of homework feedback (see Figures ​ Figures1 1 , ​ 2 2 ). Furthermore, the relationships between these four aspects were presented (see Figure ​ Figure3 3 ). Teachers’ verbatim quotes were introduced to illustrate the categories and conversations held in the focus group discussions (see also Table ​ Table4 4 ). In addition, whenever possible, data from classroom observations were included to illustrate findings. Categories were reported using the criteria by Hill et al. (2005 , p. 16) as follows: general (i.e., categories include all, or all but one, of the cases), typical (i.e., categories include more than half of the cases) and variant (i.e., categories include more than three cases or up to half of the cases). For reasons of parsimony, rare categories (two or three cases) were not reported.

Elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback for each key aspect.

Observed elementary and middle school teachers’ homework feedback practices.

Relationships among teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback.

Summary of findings.

Initial Data Screening

All participants reported assigning homework regularly and considered homework feedback as an important element for homework effectiveness. Data showed that, for each homework assignment, 96% of the elementary school teachers and 52% of the middle school teachers reported spending approximately 30 min giving homework feedback in class. Moreover, 48% of the middle school teachers spent on average 15 min giving homework feedback in class. Classroom observations provided precise information on the time spent in class giving homework feedback: 3–80 min in elementary school classes ( M = 32.75; SD = 19.91), and 5–55 min in middle school classes ( M = 29.89; SD = 17.36).

Definitions of Homework Feedback

When teachers were asked about their definition of homework feedback, the majority said they “had never thought about it” (F1P1). Still, elementary and middle school teachers elaborated on homework feedback differently (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). Teachers from elementary school proposed two meanings for homework feedback: (i) homework feedback provided by the teacher and (ii) students’ homework self-feedback. For middle school teachers, homework feedback was conceptualized as threefold): (i) homework feedback provided by the teacher; (ii) homework feedback provided by the student; and (iii) students’ homework self-feedback. The analysis of the frequency labels for each category revealed no general categories, which allows concluding that definitions of homework feedback vary among teachers, irrespective of the grade level. Moreover, while “homework feedback provided to students” is a variant category in elementary school, in middle school is a typical category (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

For elementary school teachers in one focus group discussion and for middle school teachers in two focus groups, homework feedback provided by teachers was defined as a message provided to students with information concerning their homework behaviors (i.e., completion, effort), and comprehension of homework tasks and performance (e.g., how well students answered, why answers are wrong).

Middle school teachers in all focus groups conceptualized homework feedback in the reverse direction (i.e., from the students to the teacher), as the following statement illustrates:

• simple  F5P2: Some weeks ago, I noticed that several students in class had not understood some homework exercises. I asked the whole class and found out that no one had understood. Two or three students said: Sir, these exercises were a bit complicated… We did not understand what we were expected to do, how to start… This was the homework feedback they gave me.

The remaining teachers nodded their heads in agreement and added that this piece of information gathered at the beginning of a lesson helps them choose the type of homework feedback to give to students.

Lastly, elementary school teachers of two focus groups, and middle school teachers of one focus group (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ) proposed another meaning for homework feedback: “homework self-feedback” (typical category in elementary school and variant category in middle school). The following utterance illustrates this conceptualization:

• simple  F2P3: Homework feedback is when students can explain or reflect upon what they are doing…or checking from their seats when we check homework on the board.

Another elementary school teacher elaborated on students’ homework self-feedback:

• simple  F4P4: Homework feedback is also related to students’ homework completion. All my students draw a grid in their notebooks and devote one row to homework. Every day they write 1 for “completed” homework and 0 for “missing.” At the end of the term they have a score. I believe this to be self-feedback because students know their score and link it to school grades. They know that those who complete homework are likely to achieve better results. The opposite is also true….

This type of homework feedback (i.e., self-feedback) is more focused on students’ homework behaviors than on students’ homework performance. Still, other teachers from the same focus group reported that they do not use this strategy with their students.

Purposes of Homework Feedback

The homework feedback purposes identified by teachers at both school levels were similar. Teachers enthusiastically talked about homework feedback as a “working tool” serving three main purposes (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ): (i) teachers monitor students’ learning and behavior (typical category in both school levels); (ii) students monitor their own learning (typical category in elementary school and variant category in middle school); and (iii) promotion of students’ self-esteem (variant category in both school levels).

When asked to expand on this idea, participants explained that homework feedback helps teachers identify students’ difficulties and monitor their content knowledge, which provides information to self-evaluate the instruction process and introduce changes if necessary. In fact, some students struggle to learn and show difficulties to understand and complete homework. To promote students’ motivation to do homework, teachers agreed on the need – “after charging our batteries of patience” (F6P3) – to explain in class how to do homework exercises. Besides, teachers exemplified the usefulness of homework feedback for monitoring students’ homework behaviors (e.g., checking whether students have completed their homework, whether they have copied the solutions from a textbook). This category emerged in all focus group discussions, and was consensual among participants. Teachers emphatically agreed on the examples discussed and expanded on others’ ideas. The following statements illustrate some of the conversations held:

• simple  F2P4: Homework feedback is important in order to learn about what is happening on earth [some teachers laughed], to learn whether most students do their homework, whether they manage to do it alone or need some help, but also to learn about their difficulties during the learning process and act upon their mistakes.
• simple  F2P1: To know whether I delivered the message well or not so… Homework feedback should make us change our instruction methodologies. If the message was not properly delivered, it’s necessary to change the course of action…

Moreover, many elementary and some middle school teachers in all focus groups mentioned students’ monitoring of their own learning as an important purpose of homework feedback, as illustrated by the following opinion:

• simple  F5P3: With the help of homework feedback, students can learn what is right or wrong in their homework. If the homework assignment is correct, they get some positive reinforcement. If it is not correct, they learn that they have to study more and do additional exercises.

Some points made by participants focused exclusively on one of the two previous purposes (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). However, some teachers in all focus groups irrespective of grade level considered homework feedback a purposeful tool for teachers or students to monitor progress in learning. In sum, teachers admitted that homework feedback provides on-task opportunities for teachers and students to monitor the teaching and learning process.

Moreover, teachers from five focus groups pointed at the promotion of students’ self-esteem as another purpose of homework feedback (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). Elementary and middle school teachers supported this idea, showing concern about students’ wellbeing, mainly of low achievers:

• simple  F5P6: When they [students] realize that they are capable of doing homework exercises, they feel very happy and proud of themselves. When they fail to complete or feel frustrated because they couldn’t find a way to do the exercises, I try to make positive comments, highlighting what they did well in order to make them feel confident. It is crucial to give them positive reinforcements to improve their self-esteem.

Types of Homework Feedback Practices

Going further in the discussion, teachers identified the most frequently used homework feedback practices: (i) checking homework completion; (ii) checking homework on the board; (iii) testing related content; (iv) considering homework in the overall grade; (v) informing parents of their children’s homework non-compliance (homework feedback to parents); and (vi) giving written comments (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

The two types of homework feedback practices first mentioned in all focus group discussions were: checking who completes homework and checking homework on the board. The classroom observations (see Figure ​ Figure2 2 ) provided information on the classroom routines and, with some exceptions, allowed concluding that classes usually begin with similar routines: checking who did homework and then checking homework on the board.

As Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows, checking homework completion is a general and typical category among elementary and middle school teachers, respectively. When discussing this practice (see Table ​ Table4 4 ), some of the elementary and middle school teachers argued that they simply ask who completed homework. On the other hand, most elementary and some middle school teachers explained that they walk around the class having a glance at students’ notebooks in order to check homework completion. This strategy allows noting who actually did their homework and gathers information on how students did it (e.g., whether students followed all the steps to solve a problem). In this process, teachers reported that they try to understand the reasons why students did not complete homework (e.g., is failing to complete homework a class problem or is it only associated with a particular student?). The participating teachers considered this type of homework feedback useful because it gives information on the process and allows them to respond to students’ maladaptive homework behaviors (e.g., missing homework, copying solutions from peer students, writing down results without checking). Teachers from both school levels reported using logs in class to record who missed homework, and data from the classroom observations corroborated this finding. When asked how they usually deal with maladaptive homework completion behaviors, some teachers at both school levels reported criticizing students who repeatedly fail to complete homework or copy answers from the textbook, as the following utterance illustrates:

• simple  F6P5: Where is your homework? Oh, I see. Keep working like this and you will get far… [ironic tone]

The use of public criticism and irony in response to maladaptive homework behaviors was observed sometimes in elementary school classes, and often in middle school classes.

When discussing the best practice regarding homework, participants at both school levels named checking homework on the board as a practice that “reaches all students” (F6P4). All teachers were very emphatic about the importance and usefulness of this type of feedback. As Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows, this practice is the most frequently used by elementary and middle school teachers. Moreover, present data (i.e., focus group discussions and classroom observations) suggest several ways in which this type of homework feedback may be put into practice. For example, some teachers reported that they check homework on the board; others mentioned writing on the board the answers dictated by students from their seats; while others explained that they randomly choose one or more students to do homework exercises on the board. Elementary and middle school teachers further explained additional homework feedback practices adopted after displaying the solution for the exercise on the board: (i) whole-class discussion led by the teacher; (ii) further explanation provided by the teacher or by the students on what is written on the board; (iii) teachers’ praise for students’ efforts in learning or good performance, or (iv) general incentives encouraging students to persist when doing homework. The observations conducted in the classrooms provided data that showed that all these strategies were used in class when teachers were checking homework on the board. Still, frequency and sequence of the strategies used by teachers (e.g., students check homework on the board, teacher explains problem solving procedures, class discussion) varied according to the needs and characteristics of the class. Moreover, classroom observations revealed that when students ask teachers for help, some teachers provide individual explanations while checking homework on the board. For example, when students raise their hand to show a lack of understanding while checking homework on the board, some teachers go to the student’s desk to answer their question individually.

Teachers at both school levels also emphasized checking homework on the board as a way of giving feedback to the whole class with minimum time and effort:

• simple  F1P1: When homework is being checked on the board by a student, I identify what is incorrect and explain how the exercise may be approached. Still, this feedback is very general because I cannot check every single assignment that students hands in. I simple cannot do it!

However, some participating teachers alerted that students who check homework on the board get a more detailed type of feedback than those who passively watch from their seats or do not pay attention to the checking process.

Moreover, many elementary and some middle school teachers in all focus group discussions mentioned asking questions, or assigning exercises similar to those of previous homework assignments (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 , Testing of related content). Data from the classroom observations confirmed this practice. Participants stressed that this practice provides students with a new feedback event centered on the level of accuracy of their responses and on their ability to transfer the knowledge learned to new tasks. However, despite the general agreement regarding this homework feedback practice, some middle school teachers admitted that they only check students’ ability to transfer knowledge in assessment tests and claimed that this practice should not be considered homework feedback – “This is assessment, not feedback! [Emphatic tone]” (F1P5).

Most participants at both school levels reported following their school’s assessment criteria regarding homework. Generally, homework completion counts for 2–5% of the overall grade in mathematics. When asked to be more specific, several teachers explained that they use information on homework completion recorded in class logs, while others declared using information on students’ performance when checking homework on the board. Teachers admitted that they do not examine the quality of all homework assignments given in class because of the heavy workload they faced on a daily basis. During classroom observations, teachers registered who did not complete homework and sometimes they referred that this behavior would decrease their overall grade. Most teachers in all focus groups reported including information on homework completion in the overall mathematics grade; still, less than half identified this practice as a type of homework feedback.

Furthermore, some of the elementary and middle school teachers in all focus groups mentioned sending parents a message when their children miss homework three times as a type of homework feedback. This practice was confirmed by data from classroom observations. Interestingly, participants did not mention reporting children’s progress on homework to parents during the focus group discussions, and accordingly this practice was not observed in class.

Finally, a few elementary school teachers in two focus group discussions and a few middle school teachers in one focus group reported commenting on students’ homework regularly. Comments address the strengths and weaknesses of homework, pointing out the topics that need to be improved, as the following quotation exemplifies:

• simple  F4P1: I comment on what is done well, but I also point out mistakes and suggest ways to improve what is wrong or not so well done. For example, I’d write: “Great line of reasoning but try to do x so you’ll only have to do two calculations and you’ll finish the exercises faster.” Unfortunately, sometimes I have to write other kinds of comments such as “What a coincidence, your answer is exactly the same as Joana’s or Catarina’s … and the three of you have made exactly the same mistakes…”

These few participants were asked by their focus group peers how they managed to comment on students’ homework regularly. A teacher answered that she could do it because she had been assigned only one class; still, “I spent my lunch hour and some of my free time at school working on this” (F3P3). Another teacher explained that she provides this type of homework feedback weekly, except for those weeks when students have assessment tests. According to this last participant, the negative side of this practice, “frustrating I should say” (F4P1), is when students copy homework answers from another student. Commenting on students’ homework is a very time-consuming practice, and this participant expressed feeling discouraged when such maladaptive behaviors occur in class. To overcome the “very time-consuming obstacle,” another teacher who also claimed to use this practice explained that he usually asks the whole class to complete homework on a separate sheet – “I choose only one good exercise which reflects the material covered in class” (F5P7). In the next lesson, and without prior notice, he collects four or five homework assignments, which are returned with feedback comments in the following class. Participants in the three focus group discussions agreed that this type of homework feedback is very useful, but also stressed the unlikelihood of giving it in class because of the heavy workload they as teachers have to bear (e.g., teachers have to teach five or six classes at different grade levels, each of them with over 25 students, heavy curriculums). In this context, one participant complained: “I’m not a rubber band that may be stretched [endlessly]” (F5P5).

Perceived Impact of Homework Feedback

As Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows, elementary and middle school teachers highlighted the positive impact of homework feedback on content learning, self-esteem, and homework completion (some categories are typical and others are variant).

The following dialog among elementary school teachers illustrates their conceptions on the impact of homework feedback:

• simple  F4P9: Students who complete homework regularly are more willing to understand the contents covered.
• simple  F4P2: …and they complete homework more often… At least I notice more effort.

Moreover, both elementary and middle school teachers related homework feedback to class participation (variant category in both school levels), as the following participant argued:

• simple  F4P5: Yes…they [students who complete homework regularly] follow classroom instructions and participate in class more actively, for example, by asking me questions and answering mine more frequently…

Only elementary school teachers in two focus group discussions related homework feedback to students’ achievement, while none of the middle school teachers did so (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). In fact, some of the middle school teachers in all the focus group discussions defended the need for students to play an active role in their learning, arguing that homework feedback is not worthwhile for those who are not interested in learning.

Relationships between Teachers’ Conceptions of Homework Feedback

The second research question aimed to examine how the four key aspects of the homework feedback are related. Figure ​ Figure3 3 provides a graphical model of teachers’ most salient conceptions of homework feedback and the relationships among them. The bold solid lines represent typical cases (more than 50%), the thinner solid lines represent variant categories (between 25 and 50% cases), and the dotted lines represent variant categories (between 17 and 24% cases). All lines represent the conceptions of both elementary and middle school teachers except for the lines with an asterisk, which refer to a specific school level (see legend of Figure ​ Figure3 3 ).

As Figure ​ Figure3 3 shows, the definitions of homework feedback provided by elementary and middle school teachers differ regarding the purposes for giving homework feedback. The middle school teachers perceived homework feedback as the feedback provided by the teacher to their students about their homework. The purpose for this homework feedback was described by teachers as twofold: help teachers monitor students’ learning and help students monitor their own learning. The latter was mentioned less often by middle school teachers. Besides, the middle school teachers conceptualized homework feedback provided to teachers by their students with the purpose of helping teachers monitor students’ learning.

In turn, elementary school teachers perceived homework feedback mainly as self-feedback and, accordingly, conceptualized students’ monitoring of their learning as the main purpose for giving homework feedback. While discussing, these teachers highlighted students’ active role in self-regulate their learning during and after homework completion (e.g., students checking their answers when solutions are written on the board). Still, the elementary school teachers did not explain how they promote these self-regulation skills in class. Moreover, the second set of relationships (i.e., purposes and homework feedback types) reveals a different pattern of results as described below.

Interestingly, the participating teachers operationalized both homework purposes (i.e., teachers monitoring students learning and students’ monitoring their own learning, the latter less often; see Figure ​ Figure3 3 ) through the “checking homework on the board” homework feedback type. Teachers’ arguments were twofold: this practice allows checking students’ level of understanding of content (e.g., students solving exercises autonomously on the board), and students can learn about their skills while checking their answers with those written on the board.

The homework feedback practice testing related contents was also linked to both purposes but only by elementary school teachers. These teachers argued that providing students with similar exercises to those previously set as homework helps teachers monitor their students’ learning and students to monitor their own learning.

The purpose “teachers’ monitoring their students’ learning” was linked to the practice “checking homework completion” by elementary and middle school teachers. This homework feedback practice helps teachers learn who completed homework and collect information on the content with which students are struggling the most. This information is expected to help teachers meet their students’ needs.

Finally, the various types of homework feedback were associated with various perceived impacts. Teachers at both school levels converged in the fact that checking homework completion impacts students’ homework completion positively. In general, teachers mentioned that some students are “immature” and their lack of active involvement and strong volition prevent them from completing homework. Thus, most of the teachers at both school levels anticipated that external control is needed to help students complete homework. Checking homework completion was referred to as an important tool for encouraging students to do homework.

As Figure ​ Figure3 3 depicts, teachers described checking homework on the board as the homework feedback practice that most benefits students. According to participants, this practice fosters self-esteem (only reported by elementary school teachers), homework completion (reported by some teachers at both school levels), class participation (reported by some teachers at both levels), and learning of the content taught in class (reported by most of the teachers from both levels). Teachers explained that praising students on their good performance while doing exercises on the board is likely to increase their self-esteem. Furthermore, teachers said that this practice encourages homework completion and increases class participation because it provides students with specific information on how to solve exercises.

Some elementary school teachers reported that testing related content helps students participate more in class (e.g., answering teacher’s questions, asking more questions) and be more engaged in their learning.

A few teachers at both school levels (see Figure ​ Figure3 3 ) mentioned counting homework in the overall grade, and communicating with parents when their children miss homework three times as two types of homework feedback with impact on students’ homework completion. Counting homework completion in the overall grade was referred to as a direct incentive for students to complete homework. However, some teachers alerted that this practice may not always be effective because of the time gap between students’ homework behaviors and the end of term when they get their final grade report. Thus, all agreed that teachers should respond to students’ homework behaviors (e.g., missing homework or doing assignments correctly) as soon as possible. Participants highlighted the importance of communicating with families about children’s homework behaviors. However, teachers alerted that this type of homework feedback may not be effective without the implication of the family in the learning process; “if the family is aware of the importance of this type of practice, then it will be effective, otherwise it will have no effect” (F3P4).

As reported previously, 17% of the elementary and middle school teachers claimed to make written comments on students’ homework assignments (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). However, when discussing the possible impact of the various types of homework feedback, more teachers (than that 17%) agreed that written comments on students’ assignments would improve students’ learning of content (see Figure ​ Figure3 3 ). These teachers mentioned that personalized homework feedback would help students correct their mistakes and might provide guidance on the topics that need to be further studied. As a result, students were likely to improve their grades.

The discussion of the current study is organized according to each key aspect of teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback. Regarding the first key aspect of homework feedback, teachers proposed a multifaceted definition of homework feedback: (i) homework feedback provided by the teacher, (ii) homework feedback provided by the student, and (iii) homework self-feedback. The latter extends the definition of Cooper (2001) , who defined homework feedback as the teachers’ responses to students’ homework completion as a follow-up (e.g., comments, incentives, grades). The definition of homework self-feedback is linked to the internal feedback or self-feedback proposed by Butler and Winne (1995) and Hattie and Timperley (2007) , respectively. According to these authors, students are expected to display self-regulatory skills to self-evaluate their performance in homework assignments (see Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ). Interestingly, this category is typical in elementary school, but variant in middle school. This is an important finding because the generation of internal feedback requires knowledge on strategies and standards, as well as the capacity to judge the quality of a task in relation to standards, which not all students are capable of, especially those at lower grade levels ( Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons, 1990 ; Butler and Winne, 1995 ; Rosário et al., 2016 ). Moreover, low achievers struggling to learn often fail to activate and control the SRL process ( Núñez et al., 2015a ). In fact, these students are likely to fail to monitor their homework behaviors because they do not know “whether they are on the right track” (F4P8).

Consistently with literature, teachers’ major conceptions of homework feedback purposes addressed monitoring students’ learning, either focusing on teachers’ or on students’ role ( Corno, 2000 ; An and Wu, 2012 ; Bang, 2012 ). This may be particularly important in mathematics where contents are organized so as to follow a continuous progression and lower levels prepare the foundations of subsequent levels ( Pijls and Dekker, 2011 ). Teachers’ monitoring provides the opportunity for teachers to change their teaching practices in response to students’ needs ( Walberg and Paik, 2000 ; Kralovec and Buell, 2001 ), which may be understood as a “student-centered” approach (see Sheridan, 2013 ). The conception of homework feedback purposes focused on students’ monitoring their work emphasizes students’ active role during the homework process and the use of SRL competencies such as self-monitoring and self-reflection (e.g., Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ). The last purpose of homework feedback proposed by participants is to “promote self-esteem.” This purpose is not mentioned in homework literature; however, in the study by Irving et al. (2011) , teachers mentioned the need to inform students about the positive aspects of their performance, thus incentivizing their progress, especially among low achievers showing low self-esteem.

Regarding the third topic of homework feedback (homework feedback types), findings in the current study are consistent with literature ( Cooper, 2001 ; Mullis et al., 2004 ; Kaur, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ; Kukliansky et al., 2016 ). However, despite the similarity of the homework feedback practices reported by elementary and middle school teachers, the percentages of each reported category vary. For example, checking homework completion and checking homework on the board are general categories in elementary school and typical categories in middle school; while testing of related content is a typical category in elementary school and a variant category in middle school. These findings are consistent with students’ reports on their teachers’ support in homework ( Katz et al., 2010 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ). A decrease in teachers’ support in homework at middle school level is expected because older students are likely to be more autonomous. However, Katz et al. (2010) found that the middle school students who perceived low teachers’ homework support reported high psychological needs and low intrinsic motivation. Other important finding to note is the use of criticism observed in elementary and middle school classrooms which may have the opposite effect of teachers’ intentions (e.g., reduce homework non-compliance). In fact, being criticized in class is likely to be non-constructive because it may reduce students’ willingness to accept criticism and result in low favorable responses toward homework. On the contrary, criticism delivered in private is likely to lead to better responses (see Leung et al., 2001 ).

According to participants, homework feedback impacts in the following aspects: content learning, self-esteem, homework completion, class participation, and achievement. Globally, this finding is consistent with previous research (e.g., Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2009 ; Xu, 2011 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ), except for class participation and self-esteem which have not yet been studied. It is interesting to note, however, that despite most teachers reported spending 30 min or more providing homework feedback in each class (see Initial Data Screening subsection); about one third of elementary school teachers related homework feedback to students’ achievement, while none of the middle school teachers did so. However, prior research has evidenced the positive impact of homework feedback on students’ academic achievement ( Núñez et al., 2015b ), especially when teachers provide suggestions on how to improve learning (see Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Walberg et al., 1985 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ).

Moreover, middle school teachers added that when students do not play an active role in their learning, feedback is not likely to have any impact. This conception is consistent with the SRL approach to the homework process (e.g., Xu and Wu, 2013 ; Xu, 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ) which stresses, for example, the role that teachers may play in helping students define their own homework goals and reflect on the relationship between homework completion and achieving self-set learning goals (e.g., Núñez et al., 2015b ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). As Labuhn et al. (2010) observed, the feedback provided by teachers may not impact students’ learning and behaviors if students do not understand what is intended with homework feedback.

Findings gathered from relationships between teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback provide additional useful insights. Interestingly, the two most frequently reported types of homework feedback (i.e., checking homework completion and checking homework on the board) in both school levels are more linked to the purpose “teachers monitoring students’ learning” than to the purpose “students monitoring their own learning.” This data may suggest that teachers may not be fully aware of the importance of promoting students’ SRL competencies to increase the benefits of homework feedback or they may lack the knowledge to promote these skills in class (see Spruce and Bol, 2015 ).

Practical Implications

The current study provides four major findings of relevance for educational practice: (i) decrease of teachers’ reported homework feedback practices from elementary to middle school level; (ii) a few teachers from elementary school and none from middle school level perceive homework feedback impacting on students’ academic achievement; (iii) usage of public criticism in class, especially in middle school; and (iv) teachers’ lack of awareness on SRL strategies.

First, teachers and school administrators with the help of school psychologists could examine homework practices delivered in class, namely homework feedback, to analyze whether they are set to be responsive to students’ educational needs. As found in the current study, there is a decrease of the homework feedback from elementary to middle school; however, this finding should be considered by teachers because, according to literature, many middle school students still report the need of teachers’ homework support (e.g., Katz et al., 2010 ).

Data also showed that both elementary and middle school teachers spend around 30 min providing homework feedback in class, but the perceived impact of this school practice on students’ achievement was barely mentioned in the focus groups. This data merit reflection within the school context to understand whether homework feedback is being used with efficacy. For example, school-based training for teachers’ on homework models (e.g., Cooper, 2001 ; Trautwein et al., 2006 ) could theoretically ground their homework practices in schools. This training would also help teachers understand that criticism and irony in class may discourage homework compliance, but it also may lead to undesirable outcomes such as children homework disengagement.

Finally, data (e.g., elementary school teachers believe that students generate homework self-feedback; the homework feedback practices most used in class are more closely related to the purpose “teachers monitoring students’ learning” than to the purpose “students monitoring their own learning”) suggest the need to set school-based training for teachers on SRL strategies. This training could consider addressing the homework process in relation with SRL to promote students’ agency and sense of responsibility over homework and homework feedback in particular. For example, teachers are expected to learn and practice how to model the use of SRL strategies in class ( Rosário et al., 2013 ; Spruce and Bol, 2015 ). In fact, students lacking SRL skills may fail to use the homework feedback delivered in class, which may compromise the impact of this instructional tool on students learning and achievement (see Corno, 2000 ; Peterson and Irving, 2008 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ). To promote the development of students SRL competencies and increase the benefits of homework feedback, teachers may also consider using “diary tasks” to promote students’ homework self-reflection in class (see Ferreira et al., 2015 ).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

To authors’ knowledge, this study was the first to map mathematics teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback and examine the relationships between teachers’ definitions, purposes, types, and perceived impact of homework feedback. The analysis of these relationships focusing on a specific content domain at two school levels showed which categories were linked, and how, by the participating teachers. This study extended previous research conducted with mathematics teachers from a single grade level (see Kaur, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ).

According to the current findings, elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback vary, as well as the time spent in class providing feedback. Moreover, in spite of the fact that the types of homework feedback practices are the same, the type of categories (i.e., general vs. typical and typical vs. variant) varies in the two school levels, and the dynamic of providing homework feedback at those school levels is diverse and complex (e.g., usage of various strategies to provide some types of homework feedback, even by the same teacher). These findings may help understand why the relationship between homework and academic achievement reported in the literature varies from elementary to middle school (see Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ).

Furthermore, the complexity of the homework feedback process reflected by the collected data may not be captured by extant instruments that examine teachers’ homework feedback practices. To some extent, this may contribute to understand the low effect sizes and explained variances found in the homework feedback research (e.g., Xu, 2014 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). This finding reinforces the need for future studies collect data using more than one method to capture and better understand the phenomenon of the homework process and its influence on students’ academic outcomes (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ). Furthermore, findings showed positive relationships between some types of homework feedback practices and perceived impact on students’ variables that have not yet been examined in homework research (e.g., checking homework on the blackboard and class participation). Future studies may consider further examining these relationships.

The present study followed methodological procedures to enhance trustworthiness of findings such as random sampling, investigator and methodological triangulation, provision of direct quotations, and member checking ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ; Shenton, 2004 ; Elo et al., 2014 ). Results from member checking were very positive. The majority of the participants agreed that the description of the findings was a genuine reflection of the topics covered in the focus group discussions, and of the homework routines in the classroom. No suggestions were made to change the description of data. Such data have strengthened present findings. In addition, teachers highlighted that they usually choose types of homework feedback that reach all students because of the professional constraints they experience daily (i.e., heavy workload). This topic was mentioned during the discussions and may merit further investigation because it may be an important factor compromising the homework feedback process.

Notwithstanding the strengths of the current study, there are also some limitations that need to be addressed. Classroom observations helped strengthen findings, nevertheless only 25% of the participating teachers were observed in a limited period of time. Moreover, most of the participants have extensive experience in teaching, which may have contributed to the results. As Hattie (2003) reported, expert teachers are more capable of seeking and giving feedback, and also monitoring their students’ learning than novice teachers. Conducting studies on novice teachers would help identify their specific needs for training on instructional variables, and design school-based interventions to meet these professionals’ needs.

Elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback were mapped, but the role of students in the homework feedback process should be further researched. Further investigation may want to explore elementary and middle school students’ conceptions of homework feedback and compare their responses with current findings. The information provided would be useful to learn how students understand (e.g., in what ways students perceive teachers’ homework feedback practices as helpful, see Xu, 2016 ) and cope with the homework feedback given in class. Examining the (mis)alignment of both conceptions of homework feedback (elementary and middle school teachers and students) may help deepen the understanding of the impact of homework feedback and further examine the differential relationship between doing homework and academic achievement at these two school levels (see Cooper et al., 2006 ). The results, although promising, should be further investigated in different school grades and subjects. At this level, however, they may be useful to researchers looking for an in-depth understanding of homework feedback and willing to explore new research topics on the “last but not least” aspect of the homework process.

Ethics Statement

This study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the University of Minho. All research participants provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Author Contributions

JC and PR substantially contributed to the conception and the design of the work. JC was responsible for the literature search. JC, AN, TM, JN, and TN were responsible for the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work. PR was also in charge of technical guidance. JN made important intellectual contribution in manuscript revision. JC wrote the manuscript with valuable inputs from the remaining authors. All authors agreed for all aspects of the work and approved the version to be published.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank Sofia Kirkman and Fuensanta Monroy for the English editing of the manuscript.

Funding. This study was conducted at Psychology Research Centre (UID/PSI/01662/2013), University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education through national funds and co-financed by FEDER through COMPETE2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007653). JC was supported by a Ph.D. fellowship from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT – SFRH/BD/95341/2013).

• An S., Wu Z. (2012). Enhancing mathematics teachers’ knowledge of students’ thinking from assessing and analyzing misconceptions in homework. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10 717–753. 10.1007/s10763-011-9324-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bang H. (2012). Promising homework practices: teachers’ perspectives on making homework work for newcomer immigrant students. High Sch. J. 95 3–31. 10.1353/hsj.2012.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bang H., Suárez-Orozco C., Pakes J., O’Conner E. (2009). The importance of homework in determining immigrant students’ grades in schools in the USA context. Educ. Res. 51 1–25. 10.1080/00131880802704624 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bang H. J. (2011). What makes it easy or hard for you to do your homework? An account of newcomer immigrant youths’ afterschool academic lives. Curr. Issues Educ. 14 1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bardin L. (1996). The Content Analysis. Paris: PUF. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazeley P., Jackson K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bedford P. D. (2014). Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Regarding Homework: An Examination of the Cognitive Domain Embedded in Third Grade Mathematics Homework. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookhart S. M. (2008). How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. [ Google Scholar ]
• Butler D. L., Winne P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 65 245–281. 10.3102/00346543065003245 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cardelle M., Corno L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in written feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Q. 15 k251–261. 10.2307/3586751 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choo E. K., Garro A. C., Ranney M. L., Meisel Z. F., Morrow Guthrie K. (2015). Qualitative research in emergency care part I: research principles and common applications. Acad. Emerg. Med. 22 1096–1102. 10.1111/acem.12736 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H. (2001). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for Administrators, Teachers, and Parents , 2nd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Robinson J., Patall E. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 76 1–62. 10.3102/00346543076001001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Valentine J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework. Educ. Psychol. 36 143–153. 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corno L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elem. Sch. J. 100 529–548. 10.1086/499654 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Method: Choosing Among Five Approaches , 2nd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deslandes R. (2009). “Elementary school teachers’ views of homework and parents - school relations,” in Perspectives on Student Outcomes and Homework: Family-School-Community Partnerships , ed. Deslandes R. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 128–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dettmers S., Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Kunter M., Baumert J. (2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics. J. Educ. Psychol. 102 467–482. 10.1037/a0018453 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elawar M. C., Corno L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’ written feedback on student homework: changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. J. Educ. Psychol. 77 162–173. 10.1037/0022-0663.77.2.162 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elo S., Kääriäinen M., Kanste O., Pölkki T., Utriainen K., Kyngäs H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: a focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open 4 1–10. 10.1177/2158244014522633 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein J. L., Van Voorhis F. L. (2001). More than ten minutes: teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educ. Psychol. 36 181–193. 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan H., Xu J., Cai Z., He J., Fan X. (2017). Homework and students’ achievement in math and science: a 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015. Educ. Res. Rev. 20 35–54. 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Alonso R., Suárez-Álvarez J., Muñiz J. (2015). Adolescents’ homework performance in mathematics and science: personal factors and teaching practices. J. Educ. Psychol. 107 1075–1085. 10.1037/edu0000032 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferreira P. C., Simão A. V., Silva A. L. (2015). Does training in how to regulate one’s learning affect how students report self-regulated learning in diary tasks? Metacogn. Learn. 10 199–230. 10.1007/s11409-014-9121-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagger M., Sultan S., Hardcastle S., Chatzisarantis N. (2015). Perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation toward mathematics activities in educational and out-of-school contexts is related to mathematics homework behavior and attainment. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 41 111–123. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J., Timperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77 81–112. 10.3102/003465430298487 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J. A. (2003). Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence?. Paper Presented at the Building Teacher Quality Research Conference , Melbourne, VIC. Available at: https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=research_conference_2003 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill C. E., Knox S., Thompson B. J., Williams E. N., Hess S. A., Ladany N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: an update. J. Couns. Psychol. 52 k196–205. 10.1037/a0033361 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Irving S., Harris L., Peterson E. (2011). ‘One assessment doesn’t serve all the purposes’ or does it? New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 12 413–426. 10.1007/s12564-011-9145-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz I., Kaplan A., Gueta G. (2010). Students’ needs, teachers’ support, and motivation for doing homework: a cross-sectional study. J. Exp. Educ. 78 246–267. 10.1080/00220970903292868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaur B. (2011). Mathematics homework: a study of three grade eight classrooms in Singapore. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 9 187–206. 10.1007/s10763-010-9237-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim S. Y., Graham S. S., Ahn S., Olson M. K., Card D. J., Kessler M. M., et al. (2016). Correcting biased Cohen’s Kappa in NVivo. Commun. Methods Meas. 10 217–232. 10.1080/19312458.2016.1227772 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitzinger J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 311 299–302. 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kralovec E., Buell J. (2001). End homework now. Educ. Leadersh. 58 39–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R. A., Casey M. A. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 3rd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 10.1037/10518-189 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R. A., Casey M. A. (2010). “Focus group interviewing,” in Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation , 3rd Edn, eds Newcomer K. E., Hatry H. P., Wholey J. S. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 506–534. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kukliansky I., Shosberger I., Eshach H. (2016). Science teachers’ voice on homework: beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 14 229–250. 10.1007/s10763-014-9555-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Labuhn A. S., Zimmerman B. J., Hasselhorn M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: the influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards. Metacogn. Learn. 5 173–194. 10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis J. R., Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 159–174. 10.2307/2529310 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leung K., Su S., Morris M. W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Hum. Relat. 54 1155–1187. 10.1177/0018726701549002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L. (1997). Focus Group as Qualitative Research , 2nd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 10.4135/9781412984287 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muhlenbruck L., Cooper H., Nye B., Lindsay J. J. (1999). Homework and achievement: explaining the different strengths of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Soc. Psych. Educ. 3 295–317. 10.1023/A:1009680513901 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullis I. V., Martin M. O., Gonzalez E. J., Chrostowski S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy J., Decker K., Chaplin C., Dagenais R., Heller J., Jones R., et al. (1987). An exploratory analysis of the structure of homework assignments in high schools. Res. Rural Educ. 4 61–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Rosário P., Vallejo G., González-Pienda J. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring program in middle school. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 38 11–21. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Cerezo R., González-Pienda J., Rosário P., Mourão R., et al. (2015a). Homework and academic achievement across Spanish compulsory education. Educ. Psychol. 35 726–746. 10.1080/01443410.2013.817537 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Rosário P., Vallejo G., Cerezo R., Valle A. (2015b). Teachers’ feedback on homework, homework-related behaviors, and academic achievement. J. Educ. Res. 108 204–216. 10.1080/00220671.2013.878298 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Rosário P., Vallejo G., Valle A., Epstein J. L. (2015c). Relationships between parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students. Metacogn. Learn. 10 375–406. 10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-Year-Olds Know and what they can do with what they know, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson E., Irving S. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learn. Instr. 18 238–250. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pijls M., Dekker R. (2011). Students discussing their mathematical ideas: the role of the teacher. Math. Educ. Res. J. 23 379–396. 10.1007/s13394-011-0022-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramdass D., Zimmerman B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: the important role of homework. J. Adv. Acad. 22 194–218. 10.1177/1932202X1102200202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reyna V. F., Brainerd C. J. (2007). The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn. Individ. Diff. 17 147–159. 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Valle A., González-Pienda J., Lourenço A. (2013). Grade level, study time, and grade retention and their effects on motivation, self-regulated learning strategies, and mathematics achievement: a structural equation model. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28 1311–1331. 10.1007/s10212-012-0167-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Cunha J., Azevedo R., Pereira R., et al. (2016). Promoting Gypsy children school engagement: a story-tool project to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 47 84–94. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Cunha J., Nunes T., Mourão R., et al. (2015a). Does homework design matter? The role of homework’s purpose in student mathematics achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 43 10–24. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Cunha J., Nunes T., Suárez N., et al. (2015b). The effects of teachers’ homework follow-up practices on students’ EFL performance: a randomized-group design. Front. Psychol. 6 : 1528 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan K. E., Gandha T., Culbertson M. J., Carlson C. (2014). Focus group evidence: implications for design and analysis. Am. J. Eval. 35 328–345. 10.1177/1098214013508300 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitz B., Perels F. (2011). Self-monitoring of self-regulation during math homework behaviour using standardized diaries. Metacogn. Learn. 6 255–273. 10.1007/s11409-011-9076-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shenton A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ. Inf. 22 63–75. 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheridan L. D. (2013). Changes in pre-service teachers perceptions’ of teacher qualities: development from egocentric to student centric. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 38 55–75. 10.14221/ajte.2013v38n9.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spruce R., Bol L. (2015). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated learning. Metacogn. Learn. 10 245–277. 10.1007/s11409-014-9124-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tas Y., Sungur S., Oztekin C. (2016). Development and validation of science homework scale for middle-school students. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 14 417–444. 10.1007/s10763-014-9582-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: the role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learn. Instr. 19 243–258. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Schnyder I., Niggli A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. J. Educ. Psychol. 98 438–456. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walberg H. J., Paik S. J. (2000). Effective Educational Practices. Brussels: International Academy of Education & International Bureau of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walberg H. J., Paschal R. A., Weinstein T. (1985). Homework’s powerful effects on learning. Educ. Leadersh. 42 76–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2008). Models of secondary school students’ interest in homework: a multilevel analysis. Am. Educ. Res. J. 45 1180–1205. 10.3102/0002831208323276 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2010). Homework purposes reported by secondary school students: a multilevel analysis. J. Educ. Res. 103 171–182. 10.1080/00220670903382939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2011). Homework completion at the secondary school level: a multilevel analysis. J. Educ. Res. 104 171–182. 10.1080/00220671003636752 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2012). Predicting students’ homework environment management at the secondary school level. Educ. Psychol. 32 183–200. 10.1080/01443410.2011.635639 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2014). Regulation of motivation: predicting students’ homework motivation management at the secondary school level. Res. Pap. Educ. 29 457–478. 10.1080/02671522.2013.775324 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2015). Investigating factors that influence conventional distraction and tech-related distraction in math homework. Comput. Educ. 81 304–314. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2016). A study of the validity and reliability of the teacher homework involvement scale: a psychometric evaluation. Measurement 93 102–107. 10.1016/j.measurement.2016.07.012 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J., Du J., Fan X. (2017). Self-regulation of mathematics homework behavior: an empirical investigation. J. Educ. Res. 110 467–477. 10.1080/00220671.2015.1125837 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J., Wu H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior: homework management at the secondary school level. J. Educ. Res. 106 1–13. 10.1080/00220671.2012.658457 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu Y., Leung F. (2012). Homework and mathematics achievement in Hong Kong: evidence from the TIMSS 2003. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10 907–925. 10.1007/s10763-011-9302-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 81 329–339. 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman B. J., Kitsantas A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: the mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30 397–417. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman B. J., Martinez-Pons M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. J. Educ. Psychol. 82 51–59. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

6 Strategies to Simplify your Homework Systems

Checking in Homework....20 minutes I could do without

30 comments

I want to know what infractions might have occurred and what consequences are the result

If you mean, what happens if they don't do their homework, well two things. One, my school has a Study Hall that the students go to complete their homework during recess. (they eat their breakfast and complete their work). Secondly, there is a fine of $10 Classroom Economy dollars for 3 missing assignments. My students love their money and do not want to part with it...so the rate of non-completion is really very low. :)

Trying to think of how I could adapt this for K... You have my wheels turning!! PS I'm having a giveaway and would love to have you join! Blessings, Jessica Stanford Mrs. Stanford's Class Blog

In my classroom, I use a similiar system for homework checks. Our team has one teacher that stays in from recess daily and the students with incomplete homework stay in to complete their homework. They come outside after their homework is complete. It doesn't take too many times of staying in for them to get their homework done at home.

What a awesome idea! I'm all for a little more responsibility for them and a little extra time for me! Laura Will Grade For Coffee

Great idea! Thanks for sharing :)

I have "Academic Assistants" at each table who do the job, much as your Table Captains do. Rather than just a check mark, though, they write a C for complete, and I (capital i) for incomplete assignments, and a large circle for missing work. I give 3 points for complete work, 2 for incomplete, 0 for missing work, and 1 for work made up later. The average is their "completes homework on time" grade. We don't have an easy system for staying in at recess to do the work, but I'd love to figure one out. Can you write more about how your classroom economy works (or point me to where you've discussed it before I found this wonderful blog)? What kinds of things do you "sell" and where do you get them? How does the whole thing work? It seems like a great idea, and I'd love to know how to implement something like it.

I love this idea and I'm intrigued. Can you explain what the H/W/P means on your check sheet? (I think that's what it says!) How do you choose your Table Captains? I'm assuming your groups stay together long enough that you aren't repicking captains too much. I'd want it to be my most trustworthy kids, not just any person from that table!

I too am wondering about the H/W/P? Any answer on this yet?

The Table Captains are chosen every month, so they have a bit of time to work. Also, about the 3rd month into school, all of the kids could do the job. They really do pay attention to how to do the job. (and I am responsible for actually choosing the Table Captains, so I make sure my kids are trustworthy. I did have one student try to cheat it, and the disappointment I showed him/the whole class was enough to never have that happen again) As for the HWP...that just means "Homework Pass" So the student who has that by his name used a pass that night for homework.

This looks like a fantastic system. I like how you "charge" for three missing assignments, too! Definitely pinning for next year! Elizabeth Fun in Room 4B

Sounds like a great idea! I always enjoy your blog. April @ The Idea Backpack

I have a classroom job- one of my kids is the Homework Checker for the whole class and checks off if it's been turned in, or draws a circle if it hasn't. That way, if it's turned in late, they can add the check- but I can still see that it was late. Thanks for sharing the way you do it! :) Jenny Luckeyfrog's Lilypad

You are right-homework checking can take up precious classroom time! :) This past year I just stopped assigning it-I taught 6th grade. 1/3 of the class wasn't doing it, and it was taking up time to check it and go over it. :) I love your system that you came up with! Shannon http://www.irunreadteach.wordpress.com

I have tried 4 different ways of collecting homework this year alone - and like you I have found it to be extremely time consuming. I really like the idea of table captains doing this. I'm very excited to try it this way next year. I will also be implementing the classroom economy and between the two, I hope to have a great homework year!

I love this idea! It does eat up a bit of my morning. I am going to have to get over not having control and focus on whats more important. Thanks for the word doc!

I love this form. Is there anyway to add more lines? I would like to create this document with a list of 20 students. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!

Once you've downloaded the document make a copy, just in case. To insert lines, place your cursor in one of the rows, right click, choose insert, and then the location (above/below) of where you would like a line added. It will also be asking you if you are wanting to add addition columns. Hope that helps.

thats such a good idea to have students check it... if it werent for my teachers assistant id never check it !! im your newest follower ...drop by =) Just Wild About Teaching

Oh such a great idea! I am pinning this and saving it for later. =) Misty Think, Wonder, & Teach

Wow this is a great idea. :)

This comment has been removed by the author.

Thanks for the fabulous idea! I'm totally training my friends to do this for me next year!!

I'm really enjoying your blog and the fantastic ideas you're sharing. I can't wait to try the table captains as homework checkers. This will save so much time!

I love your blog! is there anyway that you can send me this sheet to my email??? its [email protected]! THanks a million!! Love all your ideas!

HI! Found you through another blog and I agree with this 100%. I usually have 2 homework checkers in my classroom that check in the homework each morning using an excel spreadsheet with all students' names on it, but this would be even faster and easier. Thanks for the idea share. I just started following your blog. If you have time, please pop on over to my new blog. Thanks Danielle http://scrappyteaching.blogspot.com

I love this idea of table captains A.K.A. Academic Assistant as another teacher calls them. Question. What do you do with late students?

When a student is late, the table captain quickly gets up and checks the work. It is literally like clockwork in my room, so it goes off without a hitch. It is very quick and undisruptive.

Love it! thanks for sharing the doc!

I teach 3rd grade and was wondering what your "modified" version of this system is?

Please leave a comment! I love to hear what you think about what is posted :)

Welcome to Room 6!

I am so glad to have you along with me for this teaching journey we are both on.

This newsletter will always be full of tried and true, classroom tested ideas that will

work for YOU! Let's learn and grow together.

K-12 Resources By Teachers, For Teachers Provided by the K-12 Teachers Alliance

• Teaching Strategies
• Classroom Activities
• Classroom Management
• Technology in the Classroom
• Professional Development
• Lesson Plans
• Writing Prompts
• Graduate Programs

The Value of Parents Helping with Homework

Dr. selena kiser.

• September 2, 2020

The importance of parents helping with homework is invaluable. Helping with homework is an important responsibility as a parent and directly supports the learning process. Parents’ experience and expertise is priceless. One of the best predictors of success in school is learning at home and being involved in children’s education. Parental involvement with homework helps develop self-confidence and motivation in the classroom. Parents helping students with homework has a multitude of benefits including spending individual time with children, enlightening strengths and weaknesses, making learning more meaningful, and having higher aspirations.

How Parental Involvement with Homework Impacts Students

Parental involvement with homework impacts students in a positive way. One of the most important reasons for parental involvement is that it helps alleviate stress and anxiety if the students are facing challenges with specific skills or topics. Parents have experience and expertise with a variety of subject matter and life experiences to help increase relevance. Parents help their children understand content and make it more meaningful, while also helping them understand things more clearly.

Also, their involvement increases skill and subject retention. Parents get into more depth about content and allow students to take skills to a greater level. Many children will always remember the times spent together working on homework or classroom projects. Parental involvement with homework and engagement in their child’s education are related to higher academic performance, better social skills and behavior, and increased self-confidence.

Parents helping with homework allows more time to expand upon subjects or skills since learning can be accelerated in the classroom. This is especially true in today’s classrooms. The curricula in many classrooms is enhanced and requires teaching a lot of content in a small amount of time. Homework is when parents and children can spend extra time on skills and subject matter. Parents provide relatable reasons for learning skills, and children retain information in greater depth.

Parental involvement increases creativity and induces critical-thinking skills in children. This creates a positive learning environment at home and transfers into the classroom setting. Parents have perspective on their children, and this allows them to support their weaknesses while expanding upon their strengths. The time together enlightens parents as to exactly what their child’s strengths and weaknesses are.

Virtual learning is now utilized nationwide, and parents are directly involved with their child’s schoolwork and homework. Their involvement is more vital now than ever. Fostering a positive homework environment is critical in virtual learning and assists children with technological and academic material.

Strategies for Including Parents in Homework

An essential strategy for including parents in homework is sharing a responsibility to help children meet educational goals. Parents’ commitment to prioritizing their child’s educational goals, and participating in homework supports a larger objective. Teachers and parents are specific about the goals and work directly with the child with classwork and homework. Teachers and parents collaboratively working together on children’s goals have larger and more long-lasting success. This also allows parents to be strategic with homework assistance.

A few other great examples of how to involve parents in homework are conducting experiments, assignments, or project-based learning activities that parents play an active role in. Interviewing parents is a fantastic way to be directly involved in homework and allows the project to be enjoyable. Parents are honored to be interviewed, and these activities create a bond between parents and children. Students will remember these assignments for the rest of their lives.

Project-based learning activities examples are family tree projects, leaf collections, research papers, and a myriad of other hands-on learning assignments. Children love working with their parents on these assignments as they are enjoyable and fun. This type of learning and engagement also fosters other interests. Conducting research is another way parents directly impact their child’s homework. This can be a subject the child is interested in or something they are unfamiliar with. Children and parents look forward to these types of homework activities.

Parents helping students with homework has a multitude of benefits. Parental involvement and engagement have lifelong benefits and creates a pathway for success. Parents provide autonomy and support, while modeling successful homework study habits.

• #homework , #ParentalInvolvement

More in Professional Development

How Sensory Rooms Help Students with Autism Thrive

Students with autism often face challenges in the classroom due to their sensory…

Establishing a Smooth Flow: The Power of Classroom Routines

Learners thrive in environments where there’s structure and familiarity, and implementing classroom routines…

The Benefits of Learning a Foreign Language

One of my favorite memories from my time in high school was when…

How to Enhance Working Memory in your Classroom

Enhancing working memory is vital in the learning process of all classrooms. There…

The 6 Best Sites to Rate and Review Teachers and Professors

These six academic websites rate and review teachers and professors, so you can be better prepared for the school or college year ahead.

A good professor or teacher can make or break a school year, which is why websites that let you rate your teachers and professors are so valuable. It's a way of warning others of potential teachers to avoid, or at the very least to prepare yourself for what's coming.

These online resources allow you to rate your professor or teacher so that you and your peers can make the best choice possible. Here are six of the best sites that let you rate your teacher worth checking out.

1. Rate My Professors

Rate My Professors boasts more than 19 million ratings of over 1.7 million professors from college students across the globe. These ratings come from more than 7,500 schools across the United States, Canada, England, Scotland, and Wales.

Simply type the name of a professor in the search bar, or find your school by entering its name. From there, you can read and leave reviews for your teachers and professors as either a member or guest. Regardless of your choice, you'll remain anonymous on Rate My Professors, so you don't have to worry about being found out.

On every school's page, you'll find the ratings of its top professors, as well as the average professor ratings and how that school stacks up to similar institutions. When combined with these great ways to use LinkedIn to choose a university to study at , this is a great resource for making an informed decision before going off to college.

When you click on a professor or teacher's name, you'll see their overall quality, whether students would take a class from them again, and the level of difficulty of their classes. You can also see tags that give you a better idea of how that professor teaches, as well as reviews and testimonials written by former students.

2. Rate My Teachers

RateMyTeachers is another popular way to review your classes and teachers. As the name implies, it asks students to rate their teachers on a number of metrics. The focus here is on elementary and secondary school teachers from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.

Users can search for teachers by name or choose a school. From there, you can rate that school's teachers or read reviews left by other students. RateMyTeachers allows you to rate your teachers on a scale of one to five stars in the following categories:

• What kind of test does the teacher most often use?
• Is the teacher available for extra help?
• Does the teacher respond to emails promptly?
• Does the teacher post in-class materials online for reference?
• Does the teacher inform students of how their total grades are tallied?
• How much homework does this teacher assign?
• How much writing is required in this teacher's class?
• Does the teacher allow students to use technology in class?
• How much memorization is required to do well in this teacher's course?

If you have ever attended a class taught by a difficult teacher, you know that these questions are some of the most important for getting the most out of a class.

There are plenty of great ways to catch up in school when you've fallen behind . But, by doing some research, you can set yourself up for success and increase your odds of getting a good grade before you ever enter the classroom.

Uloop is a professor rating site completely powered by college students around the country. It consists of a huge database featuring a large number of schools in the United States. If you want to rate your teachers, then this is a great place to do so. It's also great to avoid getting stuck with a bad professor.

Uloop's biggest feature is not actually its professor rating section, but how it functions as a student marketplace for your college.

This means that it not only allows you to rate your professor, but that it also includes other resources, such as jobs, housing, tutors, textbooks, and test prep. Whether you need to rent a room, find a tutor for homework help , or get help with your course load, Uloop is a great place to look.

Finding the professor reviews can be a little difficult, but the professor reviews themselves are solid, and the professor reviews and ratings are based on the following criteria:

• Helpfulness

The ratings also include comments written by former students, which will give you a great deal of insight into what the professor is like. This way, you'll know what to expect before taking any of their classes.

Think of Uloop as a bulletin board system for students. It covers things like campus jobs, course notes, help with finding roommates, a textbook exchange, student loan help, and much more.

For any college student, Uloop is a fantastic resource that can be used to make friends, get better grades, and rate your professors.

For something a little different, Niche is an excellent choice. Niche doesn't let you rate individual teachers, but instead rates schools based on a variety of different metrics, including the teachers.

This means that you can look through schools to find one that is a good fit for you and your needs. The information on the quality of teachers is devised using the following metric:

• How many students agree that the teachers give engaging lessons
• How many students agree that the teachers genuinely care about the students
• How many students agree that the teachers adequately lead and control the classroom

There's also plenty of other information here to look through when it comes to a school, and covers just about anything you could want. There are nearly 100,000 schools listed on Niche, so there's a wide variety of responses to look through here.

5. Student Reviews

At first glance, Student Reviews looks rather outdated and disorganized. The UI leaves something to be desired, but that doesn't change the fact that Student Reviews features an impressive database of class reviews with over 236,000 college reviews. There are reviews here of over 11,000 universities and more than 15,200 teachers.

The search feature is really great here. You can narrow down your search using a wide variety of metrics such as degree and major, satisfaction rate, school size, location, tuition amount, and other criteria. In addition to professor reviews and school ratings, the platform features a handful of tools like:

• College finder
• Articles related to career and education
• Top schools in the US
• Careers and majors
• High school summer programs
• Internships

If you're looking for something like the top computer science programs for bachelor's degree graduates , then this is the type of place you might find it.

Moreover, users can rate professors based on how clearly they teach, whether they have respect for students, how they express themselves in the classroom, and a number of other qualities.

6. Rate Your Lecturer

If you're based in the UK, you can make use of a great teacher rating site called Rate Your Lecturer.

It's a platform devoted to rating many things, including cities, universities, and of course, lecturers. Its database doesn't match that of Student Reviews and other similar websites, but it's a good starting point if you're looking for professor ratings and reviews.

Rate Your Lecturer allows students to rank lecturers by the quality of:

• Intranet Support
• Office Hours
• Approachability

Each rating is from zero to ten stars, with a final overall score for the lecturer based on all the individual rankings. Once you find a good lecturer, you may want to make the most of some of the best apps and services for recording a lecture remotely in order to make the most of their lessons.

You can also type your university's name in the search bar to see its top five lecturers and other professors. If you don't see your lecturer listed, you can add him yourself and provide the first ranking. Your review will be anonymous.

Choosing Your Professor or Teacher

Taking a high school or university class from a bad teacher can be the difference between making and failing a course. Fortunately, there are ways to avoid or at the very least prepare for these teachers and professors going in.

These websites let you learn more about the teachers at your school and prepare for their classes accordingly. See the latest professor reviews and ratings, take notes, and then sign up for the classes you're interested in. While reviewing your teachers can be helpful, it's important to keep cybersecurity practices in mind and not reveal too much personal information.

NEWS... BUT NOT AS YOU KNOW IT

I use ChatGPT to do my homework – teachers are too lazy to check

Share this with

When 16-year-old student Fiore realised an English essay was due the next day, his first thought wasn’t to open a book and cram the assignment into an all-nighter. 

After all, it’s 2024.

Instead, he got ChatGPT to save his bacon by writing the entire essay for him within seconds. All he had to do was input the assignment criteria, the required number of paragraphs and formatting information before letting the AI chatbot do the rest. 

Describing this process as ‘incredibly easy’, Fiore has since submitted at least five essays this way and, he tells Metro.co.uk, has no regrets. 

‘I started using ChatGPT because it’s much easier than actually doing work and my grade was already suffering,’ admits the teen. ‘Most of the time the essays are just English assignments that I simply don’t feel like doing, or based off reading material I don’t want to read.’

While ChatGPT generates ‘pretty convincing’ essays, Fiore always proofreads them and occasionally edits a few words so that they sound ‘more organic’. And whatever he’s doing works, he adds, as they’re bringing in better grades, too. 

No regrets 

Although many people would fear plagiarism detectors or eagle-eyed lecturers spotting AI-generated essays , Fiore isn’t afraid of getting caught.

In fact, he doesn’t believe that his teachers ‘will go through the effort of checking’ essays for ChatGPT-generated content , saying that his school ‘doesn’t explicitly say anything against AI use’.

And while his parents don’t know he uses ChatGPT for his schoolwork, he doesn’t think they would ‘necessarily care’. 

‘I will absolutely be using ChatGPT for assignments to come, English or not,’ the student says adamantly. 

It’s a move Chris Carron, CEO of plagiarism detection software company Turnitin, warns against, however. He says that using AI to ‘outsource their homework and essays’, can affect students’ ability to ‘learn or build critical thinking and communication skills’ that will be needed beyond school.

‘This new shortcut may be tempting in a pinch, but it will set them up for failure in the workplace,’ he tells Metro.co.uk.

However, it could be a little too late. After analysing 200 million essays, Turnitin found that more than one in ten comprised at least 20% AI-generated text. Six million had at least 80% AI content.

Legitimate use

Not all students are using AI to cheat, though – and not are all using ChatGPT, with a range of similar models available including Google’s Gemini . Many view this technology as a tool to assist their studies and enhance their learning.

23-year-old Elizabeth, who is pursuing a master’s degree in journalism, regularly uses ChatGPT in her works. She says the chatbot helps her better understand complex academic reading materials by simplifying hard-to-understand text.

She has also found uses for it in essay writing, inputting paragraphs and asking the AI tool to rephrase her writing to make it ‘more succinct’ – something some may consider cheating, or at least questionable.  

The software also helps her find sources when researching essays, adds Elizabeth. 

‘ I started using it a few months after it came into popular use,’ she tells Metro.co.uk. ‘I was definitely worried about things like plagiarism at first, but mostly when I was talking about it with other people. 

I would say I felt conflicted but only before I’d actually seen for myself the ways it would be useful and what its limitations would be.’ 

Since then, the student has learned how to use the tool responsibly, which her lecturers even discussed in talks.

Elizabeth says the use of AI among her peers is ‘pretty common now’. She’s heard stories of people getting in trouble for misusing the technology and says there’s a sense of shame surrounding such uses.

But she believes there is a fine line between using ChatGPT to inspire essay writing and using it ‘as a substitute for studying or as a shortcut in essay writing’.

Elizabeth continues: ‘I never copy and paste their output, but it gives me a blueprint to go off of to write more clearly.

‘As a student, it helps to have something that can break down very abstract concepts.’

Supporting disabled students

Maya Seth, a 22-year-old public relations executive, was diagnosed with dyslexia when she was 11 and, because of her condition, found it hard to keep pace with reading materials during her design degree.

While Maya received one-to-one support from her university, she also used ChatGPT to comprehend in-depth academic text. 

Asking ChatGPT to summarise academic articles enabled her to determine the ‘key points’, she explains. This helped her save time as she could ‘quickly work out if an article was worth reading’ in the first place. 

‘Studying a creative subject, AI was also a great way to get over creative blocks by using it as a way to make my blank page less blank,’ she says.

‘I didn’t use anything the AI produced, but it was a good thought-provoking starting point.’

But as this technology isn’t always accurate, Maya says it’s important to ‘read the whole article, not just the AI summary’.

She advises: ‘Students can use the tools ethically by being transparent about their AI use and ensuring against misinformation through fact checking with credible sources.’

Since leaving university in 2023, Maya is now exploring ways it can help her in the workplace as part of an AI working group at her company. She adds: ‘I think ChatGPT is a great tool that we all need to work out how to use ethically.’

It’s not just students

Educators can also find uses for AI tools. Last year, education secretary Gillian Keegan said the tech could do the ‘heavy lifting’ for teachers by marking students’ homework and planning lessons.

They are already using AI software for creating annual school reports with the click of a button, and one school has even appointed an AI headteacher

Minty Pester, an art and media lecturer at a Welsh college, says artificial intelligence is allowing him to ‘speed up admin tasks’ and ‘plan units of work’.

The technology is also helping him provide students with tailored support, he says. 

He explains: ‘AI makes it quick and easy to change the level something is aimed at or to create something new for individuals with specific areas of improvement.’

With AI rapidly transforming the workplace, Minty believes that understanding technology is just as important as maths or digital literacy for students. 

He calls it a ‘vital skill’ that allows students ‘to be more creative with their ideas, to explore concepts and find research that they might not have thought to look for’.

‘The idea is to use it as a tool, not to generate work for the student – they still need to demonstrate their own knowledge and understanding for their qualifications,’ he says.

But is it ethical?

While AI is delivering benefits for both students and teachers, there are obvious ethical implications and technical constraints to consider. 

Jade McLellan, deputy head pastoral at St Dunstan’s College, believes that educators should teach ‘young people about the ethics of AI development’, helping them understand ‘how to use it, but also limit and control it’.

However, Minty says a potential downside of using AI as an educational tool could be ‘a shift in priorities’.

He warns that some may view AI usage as ‘people getting lazy’ or ‘not holding on to information or having the same level of literacy skill’, just like predictive text may affect someone’s ability to spell on their own. 

Minty has also caught students submitting AI-generated work, which he says can result in them being disciplined for plagiarism or ‘losing their whole qualification’.

He says teachers can detect AI-generated essays by looking for ‘change[s] in sentence structure, abundance of adjectives, use of bullet point lists and higher level writing’. 

‘I have caught students trying to pass off work as their own that has been created by AI, luckily for them it was spotted before their final submissions so I could let them know that it needed redoing,’ he adds. 

‘Students that try and ‘get away’ with a copy and paste assignment tend to put as much effort into their prompts as they do writing their own work, and it shows.’

Because the large language models powering ChatGPT and other AI tools are trained on large datasets, there are also data privacy concerns. 

Minty says both students and educators should refrain from entering sensitive information or copyrighted work into these tools. 

‘We can get around this by using ‘closed’ AI tools that don’t take or store the inputs such as Microsoft Copilot,’ he adds.

Educators used to more traditional teaching methods may struggle to understand AI technology and use it incorrectly, too.

One professor in Texas ran his students’ essays through ChatGPT to see if the AI chatbot had written them , failing many students after it said ‘yes’. But it turns out ChatGPT was actually lying . 

‘Despite the widespread adoption of AI in the classroom, teachers require more support and guidance to identify AI usage and introduce good practices into the classroom,’ says Jason Tomlinson, managing director at edtech company RM Technology. 

‘In fact, research by RM Technology found that a third of teachers believe their students have a better understanding of AI than they do.’

When it comes to addressing ‘this knowledge gap’,  he says the education system must develop regulatory policies on AI use, collaborate with experts from the private sector and improve the accessibility of teacher training schemes.

And, as 17-year-old Eastbourne College student Reuben Booth found out, AI tools like ChatGPT can generate ‘verbose’ answers that ‘lack practical sense’.

‘Its responses could therefore be easily noticed by my teachers and it generally doesn’t allow me to access high marks in my work,’ the teenager explains.

‘I once asked Chat GPT to summarise a long document, which I couldn’t apprehend, into bullet points. However, I found that this meant the understanding of the text I gained was limited, leaving me with no choice but to re-trace my steps and make my own bullet points to work out the text adequately.

‘I would opt against using Chat GPT, most notably because it often doesn’t provide me with answers that contain the precision and specific knowledge that the mark schemes require in all my individual subjects.’

Considering both the opportunities and downsides of AI use in education, Chris, CEO of Turnitin, encourages the sector to ‘experiment with leveraging AI in all teacher and student work’.

Doing so will help educators clarify ‘where and how AI can help with productivity or quality of teaching materials’, he says. 

He concludes: ‘We’re hearing of significant productivity gains for teachers, creating more time for teaching and working with students.’

MORE : Why are we using AI to create women with big boobs?

MORE : Futuristic cruise ship has robot bartenders that can make 1,000 drinks a day

MORE : Warning over AI replicas of dead relatives that ‘digitally haunt’ the living

Sign Up for News Updates

Get your need-to-know latest news, feel-good stories, analysis and more.

Privacy Policy

Get us in your feed

College of Education

• College of Education News
• All Stories

Texas Tech University Earns National Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs

College of Education Marketing & Communication

May 15, 2024

The Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) has awarded 5-year initial accreditation status to the TechTeach education program at Texas Tech University.

The Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP) has awarded 5-year initial accreditation status to the TechTeach education program at Texas Tech University .

After reviewing the evidence collected through a process of self-study and peer review, the AAQEP Accreditation Commission issued the decision at its February 20, 2023 meeting along with the following rationale:

The Commission evaluated the program's evidence for each AAQEP standard and determined that all four standards are met. The program prepares candidates to work effectively as professional educators who can adapt to different contexts and continue to grow professionally. Texas Tech University maintains program quality through thorough and ongoing analysis of evidence of its own effectiveness and by making revisions to the program and curriculum in order to better prepare its candidates. It engages with stakeholders and partners to strengthen the P-20 education system through its widespread partnerships.

“Congratulations to Texas Tech University and to all of the faculty, staff, and stakeholders who have achieved their goal of national accreditation by AAQEP,” said AAQEP President and CEO Mark LaCelle-Peterson. “The programs provide excellent preparation for educators and use evidence continuously to inform and improve their practices.”

National accreditation assures the quality of professional preparation programs through a nongovernmental, nonregulatory process of self-study and peer review. This standards-based and evidence-based process serves two broad aims: accountability and continuous improvement. The AAQEP model is also designed to honor local context and foster innovation and collaboration among institutions. AAQEP currently has members in 38 states and other jurisdictions with over 190 educator preparation providers participating in the accreditation system.

About AAQEP

Founded in 2017, AAQEP is a membership association and quality assurance agency that provides accreditation services and formative support to all types of educator preparation providers. The organization promotes excellent, effective, and innovative educator preparation that is committed to evidence-based improvement in a collaborative professional environment. AAQEP is nationally recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Visit aaqep.org for more information.

Assessment and Accreditation

Learn more about Assessment and Accreditation in the College of Education.

tags: College of Education News

• Like College of Education on Facebook Like College of Education on Facebook
• Follow College of Education on X (twitter) Follow College of Education on X (twitter)
• Subscribe to College of Education on YouTube Subscribe to College of Education on YouTube
• Follow College of Education on Instagram Follow College of Education on Instagram

Teacher Spots Telltale Sign Students Are Copying Homework

Posted: May 20, 2024 | Last updated: May 20, 2024

The educator, who asked not to be named, was initially worried when he read one of the pupil’s answers, but then he saw what the others had put.

More for You

We Ordered 7 Fast-Food Breakfast Sandwiches to Find the Best One

Rock Queens: 25 Pioneering Women Who Shaped the Music Industry

New horror movie debuts with 100% Rotten Tomatoes rating

Supernova Study Reveals 'Danger To Planets'

Caitlin's Success A Result Of 'Race And Sexuality,' Claims Jemele Hill

Chicken Owner Shares Easy To Follow Instructions For Building the Perfect Coop

Judge Merchan 'Tipped His Hand' on Key Issue: Attorney

John Oates Credits Ultimatum Wife Aimee Gave Him 30 Years Ago for Their Family's Success: She Was '100% Right' (Exclusive)

Report: Packers' biggest offseason acquisition dealing with injury, two additional injuries announced

These 15 Habits Separate the Rich From the Poor

Air Force general will jump from one to three stars to lead air commandos

Ukraine says it may have destroyed Russia's last cruise missile carrier based out of Crimea

Jada Pinkett Smith wears the same Alaïa gown she wore 20 years ago: photos

All About The Tractor Supply 125cc Massimo Mini Jeep

18 Iconic Songs From the 60s and 70s Everyone Should Know

Jets HC Robert Saleh explains decision on OC Nathaniel Hackett

You Can Tell If An Egg Is Expired By Dropping It In A Glass Of Water

Donald Trump Can't Find Enough Americans to Work at Mar-a-Lago

‘Mouth to hell’ keeps eating up land around it – and it can't be stopped

Severe storms and tornadoes wreak havoc throughout the Midwest