how does homework impact students academic performance

Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?

A conversation with a Wheelock researcher, a BU student, and a fourth-grade teacher

“Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids’ lives,” says Wheelock’s Janine Bempechat. “It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful. It has to do with the value of practicing over and over.” Photo by iStock/Glenn Cook Photography

Do your homework.

If only it were that simple.

Educators have debated the merits of homework since the late 19th century. In recent years, amid concerns of some parents and teachers that children are being stressed out by too much homework, things have only gotten more fraught.

“Homework is complicated,” says developmental psychologist Janine Bempechat, a Wheelock College of Education & Human Development clinical professor. The author of the essay “ The Case for (Quality) Homework—Why It Improves Learning and How Parents Can Help ” in the winter 2019 issue of Education Next , Bempechat has studied how the debate about homework is influencing teacher preparation, parent and student beliefs about learning, and school policies.

She worries especially about socioeconomically disadvantaged students from low-performing schools who, according to research by Bempechat and others, get little or no homework.

BU Today  sat down with Bempechat and Erin Bruce (Wheelock’17,’18), a new fourth-grade teacher at a suburban Boston school, and future teacher freshman Emma Ardizzone (Wheelock) to talk about what quality homework looks like, how it can help children learn, and how schools can equip teachers to design it, evaluate it, and facilitate parents’ role in it.

BU Today: Parents and educators who are against homework in elementary school say there is no research definitively linking it to academic performance for kids in the early grades. You’ve said that they’re missing the point.

Bempechat : I think teachers assign homework in elementary school as a way to help kids develop skills they’ll need when they’re older—to begin to instill a sense of responsibility and to learn planning and organizational skills. That’s what I think is the greatest value of homework—in cultivating beliefs about learning and skills associated with academic success. If we greatly reduce or eliminate homework in elementary school, we deprive kids and parents of opportunities to instill these important learning habits and skills.

We do know that beginning in late middle school, and continuing through high school, there is a strong and positive correlation between homework completion and academic success.

That’s what I think is the greatest value of homework—in cultivating beliefs about learning and skills associated with academic success.

You talk about the importance of quality homework. What is that?

Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids’ lives. It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful. It has to do with the value of practicing over and over.

What are your concerns about homework and low-income children?

The argument that some people make—that homework “punishes the poor” because lower-income parents may not be as well-equipped as affluent parents to help their children with homework—is very troubling to me. There are no parents who don’t care about their children’s learning. Parents don’t actually have to help with homework completion in order for kids to do well. They can help in other ways—by helping children organize a study space, providing snacks, being there as a support, helping children work in groups with siblings or friends.

Isn’t the discussion about getting rid of homework happening mostly in affluent communities?

Yes, and the stories we hear of kids being stressed out from too much homework—four or five hours of homework a night—are real. That’s problematic for physical and mental health and overall well-being. But the research shows that higher-income students get a lot more homework than lower-income kids.

Teachers may not have as high expectations for lower-income children. Schools should bear responsibility for providing supports for kids to be able to get their homework done—after-school clubs, community support, peer group support. It does kids a disservice when our expectations are lower for them.

The conversation around homework is to some extent a social class and social justice issue. If we eliminate homework for all children because affluent children have too much, we’re really doing a disservice to low-income children. They need the challenge, and every student can rise to the challenge with enough supports in place.

What did you learn by studying how education schools are preparing future teachers to handle homework?

My colleague, Margarita Jimenez-Silva, at the University of California, Davis, School of Education, and I interviewed faculty members at education schools, as well as supervising teachers, to find out how students are being prepared. And it seemed that they weren’t. There didn’t seem to be any readings on the research, or conversations on what high-quality homework is and how to design it.

Erin, what kind of training did you get in handling homework?

Bruce : I had phenomenal professors at Wheelock, but homework just didn’t come up. I did lots of student teaching. I’ve been in classrooms where the teachers didn’t assign any homework, and I’ve been in rooms where they assigned hours of homework a night. But I never even considered homework as something that was my decision. I just thought it was something I’d pull out of a book and it’d be done.

I started giving homework on the first night of school this year. My first assignment was to go home and draw a picture of the room where you do your homework. I want to know if it’s at a table and if there are chairs around it and if mom’s cooking dinner while you’re doing homework.

The second night I asked them to talk to a grown-up about how are you going to be able to get your homework done during the week. The kids really enjoyed it. There’s a running joke that I’m teaching life skills.

Friday nights, I read all my kids’ responses to me on their homework from the week and it’s wonderful. They pour their hearts out. It’s like we’re having a conversation on my couch Friday night.

It matters to know that the teacher cares about you and that what you think matters to the teacher. Homework is a vehicle to connect home and school…for parents to know teachers are welcoming to them and their families.

Bempechat : I can’t imagine that most new teachers would have the intuition Erin had in designing homework the way she did.

Ardizzone : Conversations with kids about homework, feeling you’re being listened to—that’s such a big part of wanting to do homework….I grew up in Westchester County. It was a pretty demanding school district. My junior year English teacher—I loved her—she would give us feedback, have meetings with all of us. She’d say, “If you have any questions, if you have anything you want to talk about, you can talk to me, here are my office hours.” It felt like she actually cared.

Bempechat : It matters to know that the teacher cares about you and that what you think matters to the teacher. Homework is a vehicle to connect home and school…for parents to know teachers are welcoming to them and their families.

Ardizzone : But can’t it lead to parents being overbearing and too involved in their children’s lives as students?

Bempechat : There’s good help and there’s bad help. The bad help is what you’re describing—when parents hover inappropriately, when they micromanage, when they see their children confused and struggling and tell them what to do.

Good help is when parents recognize there’s a struggle going on and instead ask informative questions: “Where do you think you went wrong?” They give hints, or pointers, rather than saying, “You missed this,” or “You didn’t read that.”

Bruce : I hope something comes of this. I hope BU or Wheelock can think of some way to make this a more pressing issue. As a first-year teacher, it was not something I even thought about on the first day of school—until a kid raised his hand and said, “Do we have homework?” It would have been wonderful if I’d had a plan from day one.

Explore Related Topics:

• Share this story

Senior Contributing Editor

Sara Rimer A journalist for more than three decades, Sara Rimer worked at the Miami Herald , Washington Post and, for 26 years, the New York Times , where she was the New England bureau chief, and a national reporter covering education, aging, immigration, and other social justice issues. Her stories on the death penalty’s inequities were nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and cited in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Her journalism honors include Columbia University’s Meyer Berger award for in-depth human interest reporting. She holds a BA degree in American Studies from the University of Michigan. Profile

She can be reached at [email protected] .

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 81 comments on Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?

Insightful! The values about homework in elementary schools are well aligned with my intuition as a parent.

when i finish my work i do my homework and i sometimes forget what to do because i did not get enough sleep

same omg it does not help me it is stressful and if I have it in more than one class I hate it.

Same I think my parent wants to help me but, she doesn’t care if I get bad grades so I just try my best and my grades are great.

I think that last question about Good help from parents is not know to all parents, we do as our parents did or how we best think it can be done, so maybe coaching parents or giving them resources on how to help with homework would be very beneficial for the parent on how to help and for the teacher to have consistency and improve homework results, and of course for the child. I do see how homework helps reaffirm the knowledge obtained in the classroom, I also have the ability to see progress and it is a time I share with my kids

The answer to the headline question is a no-brainer – a more pressing problem is why there is a difference in how students from different cultures succeed. Perfect example is the student population at BU – why is there a majority population of Asian students and only about 3% black students at BU? In fact at some universities there are law suits by Asians to stop discrimination and quotas against admitting Asian students because the real truth is that as a group they are demonstrating better qualifications for admittance, while at the same time there are quotas and reduced requirements for black students to boost their portion of the student population because as a group they do more poorly in meeting admissions standards – and it is not about the Benjamins. The real problem is that in our PC society no one has the gazuntas to explore this issue as it may reveal that all people are not created equal after all. Or is it just environmental cultural differences??????

I get you have a concern about the issue but that is not even what the point of this article is about. If you have an issue please take this to the site we have and only post your opinion about the actual topic

This is not at all what the article is talking about.

This literally has nothing to do with the article brought up. You should really take your opinions somewhere else before you speak about something that doesn’t make sense.

we have the same name

so they have the same name what of it?

lol you tell her

totally agree

What does that have to do with homework, that is not what the article talks about AT ALL.

Yes, I think homework plays an important role in the development of student life. Through homework, students have to face challenges on a daily basis and they try to solve them quickly.I am an intense online tutor at 24x7homeworkhelp and I give homework to my students at that level in which they handle it easily.

More than two-thirds of students said they used alcohol and drugs, primarily marijuana, to cope with stress.

You know what’s funny? I got this assignment to write an argument for homework about homework and this article was really helpful and understandable, and I also agree with this article’s point of view.

I also got the same task as you! I was looking for some good resources and I found this! I really found this article useful and easy to understand, just like you! ^^

i think that homework is the best thing that a child can have on the school because it help them with their thinking and memory.

I am a child myself and i think homework is a terrific pass time because i can’t play video games during the week. It also helps me set goals.

Homework is not harmful ,but it will if there is too much

I feel like, from a minors point of view that we shouldn’t get homework. Not only is the homework stressful, but it takes us away from relaxing and being social. For example, me and my friends was supposed to hang at the mall last week but we had to postpone it since we all had some sort of work to do. Our minds shouldn’t be focused on finishing an assignment that in realty, doesn’t matter. I completely understand that we should have homework. I have to write a paper on the unimportance of homework so thanks.

homework isn’t that bad

Are you a student? if not then i don’t really think you know how much and how severe todays homework really is

i am a student and i do not enjoy homework because i practice my sport 4 out of the five days we have school for 4 hours and that’s not even counting the commute time or the fact i still have to shower and eat dinner when i get home. its draining!

i totally agree with you. these people are such boomers

why just why

they do make a really good point, i think that there should be a limit though. hours and hours of homework can be really stressful, and the extra work isn’t making a difference to our learning, but i do believe homework should be optional and extra credit. that would make it for students to not have the leaning stress of a assignment and if you have a low grade you you can catch up.

Studies show that homework improves student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college. Research published in the High School Journal indicates that students who spent between 31 and 90 minutes each day on homework “scored about 40 points higher on the SAT-Mathematics subtest than their peers, who reported spending no time on homework each day, on average.” On both standardized tests and grades, students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69% of students who didn’t have homework. A majority of studies on homework’s impact – 64% in one meta-study and 72% in another – showed that take home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement. Research by the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) concluded that increased homework led to better GPAs and higher probability of college attendance for high school boys. In fact, boys who attended college did more than three hours of additional homework per week in high school.

So how are your measuring student achievement? That’s the real question. The argument that doing homework is simply a tool for teaching responsibility isn’t enough for me. We can teach responsibility in a number of ways. Also the poor argument that parents don’t need to help with homework, and that students can do it on their own, is wishful thinking at best. It completely ignores neurodiverse students. Students in poverty aren’t magically going to find a space to do homework, a friend’s or siblings to help them do it, and snacks to eat. I feel like the author of this piece has never set foot in a classroom of students.

THIS. This article is pathetic coming from a university. So intellectually dishonest, refusing to address the havoc of capitalism and poverty plays on academic success in life. How can they in one sentence use poor kids in an argument and never once address that poor children have access to damn near 0 of the resources affluent kids have? Draw me a picture and let’s talk about feelings lmao what a joke is that gonna put food in their belly so they can have the calories to burn in order to use their brain to study? What about quiet their 7 other siblings that they share a single bedroom with for hours? Is it gonna force the single mom to magically be at home and at work at the same time to cook food while you study and be there to throw an encouraging word?

Also the “parents don’t need to be a parent and be able to guide their kid at all academically they just need to exist in the next room” is wild. Its one thing if a parent straight up is not equipped but to say kids can just figured it out is…. wow coming from an educator What’s next the teacher doesn’t need to teach cause the kid can just follow the packet and figure it out?

Well then get a tutor right? Oh wait you are poor only affluent kids can afford a tutor for their hours of homework a day were they on average have none of the worries a poor child does. Does this address that poor children are more likely to also suffer abuse and mental illness? Like mentioned what about kids that can’t learn or comprehend the forced standardized way? Just let em fail? These children regularly are not in “special education”(some of those are a joke in their own and full of neglect and abuse) programs cause most aren’t even acknowledged as having disabilities or disorders.

But yes all and all those pesky poor kids just aren’t being worked hard enough lol pretty sure poor children’s existence just in childhood is more work, stress, and responsibility alone than an affluent child’s entire life cycle. Love they never once talked about the quality of education in the classroom being so bad between the poor and affluent it can qualify as segregation, just basically blamed poor people for being lazy, good job capitalism for failing us once again!

why the hell?

you should feel bad for saying this, this article can be helpful for people who has to write a essay about it

This is more of a political rant than it is about homework

I know a teacher who has told his students their homework is to find something they are interested in, pursue it and then come share what they learn. The student responses are quite compelling. One girl taught herself German so she could talk to her grandfather. One boy did a research project on Nelson Mandela because the teacher had mentioned him in class. Another boy, a both on the autism spectrum, fixed his family’s computer. The list goes on. This is fourth grade. I think students are highly motivated to learn, when we step aside and encourage them.

The whole point of homework is to give the students a chance to use the material that they have been presented with in class. If they never have the opportunity to use that information, and discover that it is actually useful, it will be in one ear and out the other. As a science teacher, it is critical that the students are challenged to use the material they have been presented with, which gives them the opportunity to actually think about it rather than regurgitate “facts”. Well designed homework forces the student to think conceptually, as opposed to regurgitation, which is never a pretty sight

Wonderful discussion. and yes, homework helps in learning and building skills in students.

not true it just causes kids to stress

Homework can be both beneficial and unuseful, if you will. There are students who are gifted in all subjects in school and ones with disabilities. Why should the students who are gifted get the lucky break, whereas the people who have disabilities suffer? The people who were born with this “gift” go through school with ease whereas people with disabilities struggle with the work given to them. I speak from experience because I am one of those students: the ones with disabilities. Homework doesn’t benefit “us”, it only tears us down and put us in an abyss of confusion and stress and hopelessness because we can’t learn as fast as others. Or we can’t handle the amount of work given whereas the gifted students go through it with ease. It just brings us down and makes us feel lost; because no mater what, it feels like we are destined to fail. It feels like we weren’t “cut out” for success.

homework does help

here is the thing though, if a child is shoved in the face with a whole ton of homework that isn’t really even considered homework it is assignments, it’s not helpful. the teacher should make homework more of a fun learning experience rather than something that is dreaded

This article was wonderful, I am going to ask my teachers about extra, or at all giving homework.

I agree. Especially when you have homework before an exam. Which is distasteful as you’ll need that time to study. It doesn’t make any sense, nor does us doing homework really matters as It’s just facts thrown at us.

Homework is too severe and is just too much for students, schools need to decrease the amount of homework. When teachers assign homework they forget that the students have other classes that give them the same amount of homework each day. Students need to work on social skills and life skills.

I disagree.

Beyond achievement, proponents of homework argue that it can have many other beneficial effects. They claim it can help students develop good study habits so they are ready to grow as their cognitive capacities mature. It can help students recognize that learning can occur at home as well as at school. Homework can foster independent learning and responsible character traits. And it can give parents an opportunity to see what’s going on at school and let them express positive attitudes toward achievement.

Homework is helpful because homework helps us by teaching us how to learn a specific topic.

As a student myself, I can say that I have almost never gotten the full 9 hours of recommended sleep time, because of homework. (Now I’m writing an essay on it in the middle of the night D=)

I am a 10 year old kid doing a report about “Is homework good or bad” for homework before i was going to do homework is bad but the sources from this site changed my mind!

Homeowkr is god for stusenrs

I agree with hunter because homework can be so stressful especially with this whole covid thing no one has time for homework and every one just wants to get back to there normal lives it is especially stressful when you go on a 2 week vaca 3 weeks into the new school year and and then less then a week after you come back from the vaca you are out for over a month because of covid and you have no way to get the assignment done and turned in

As great as homework is said to be in the is article, I feel like the viewpoint of the students was left out. Every where I go on the internet researching about this topic it almost always has interviews from teachers, professors, and the like. However isn’t that a little biased? Of course teachers are going to be for homework, they’re not the ones that have to stay up past midnight completing the homework from not just one class, but all of them. I just feel like this site is one-sided and you should include what the students of today think of spending four hours every night completing 6-8 classes worth of work.

Are we talking about homework or practice? Those are two very different things and can result in different outcomes.

Homework is a graded assignment. I do not know of research showing the benefits of graded assignments going home.

Practice; however, can be extremely beneficial, especially if there is some sort of feedback (not a grade but feedback). That feedback can come from the teacher, another student or even an automated grading program.

As a former band director, I assigned daily practice. I never once thought it would be appropriate for me to require the students to turn in a recording of their practice for me to grade. Instead, I had in-class assignments/assessments that were graded and directly related to the practice assigned.

I would really like to read articles on “homework” that truly distinguish between the two.

oof i feel bad good luck!

thank you guys for the artical because I have to finish an assingment. yes i did cite it but just thanks

thx for the article guys.

Homework is good

I think homework is helpful AND harmful. Sometimes u can’t get sleep bc of homework but it helps u practice for school too so idk.

I agree with this Article. And does anyone know when this was published. I would like to know.

It was published FEb 19, 2019.

Studies have shown that homework improved student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college.

i think homework can help kids but at the same time not help kids

This article is so out of touch with majority of homes it would be laughable if it wasn’t so incredibly sad.

There is no value to homework all it does is add stress to already stressed homes. Parents or adults magically having the time or energy to shepherd kids through homework is dome sort of 1950’s fantasy.

What lala land do these teachers live in?

Homework gives noting to the kid

Homework is Bad

homework is bad.

why do kids even have homework?

Comments are closed.

Latest from Bostonia

Could boston be the next city to impose congestion pricing, alum has traveled the world to witness total solar eclipses, opening doors: rhonda harrison (eng’98,’04, grs’04), campus reacts and responds to israel-hamas war, reading list: what the pandemic revealed, remembering com’s david anable, cas’ john stone, “intellectual brilliance and brilliant kindness”, one good deed: christine kannler (cas’96, sph’00, camed’00), william fairfield warren society inducts new members, spreading art appreciation, restoring the “black angels” to medical history, in the kitchen with jacques pépin, feedback: readers weigh in on bu’s new president, com’s new expert on misinformation, and what’s really dividing the nation, the gifts of great teaching, sth’s walter fluker honored by roosevelt institute, alum’s debut book is a ramadan story for children, my big idea: covering construction sites with art, former terriers power new professional women’s hockey league, five trailblazing alums to celebrate during women’s history month, alum beata coloyan is boston mayor michelle wu’s “eyes and ears” in boston neighborhoods.

Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?

• Share this story on facebook
• Share this story on twitter
• Share this story on reddit
• Share this story on linkedin
• Get this story's permalink
• Print this story

Educators should be thrilled by these numbers. Pleasing a majority of parents regarding homework and having equal numbers of dissenters shouting "too much!" and "too little!" is about as good as they can hope for.

But opinions cannot tell us whether homework works; only research can, which is why my colleagues and I have conducted a combined analysis of dozens of homework studies to examine whether homework is beneficial and what amount of homework is appropriate for our children.

The homework question is best answered by comparing students who are assigned homework with students assigned no homework but who are similar in other ways. The results of such studies suggest that homework can improve students' scores on the class tests that come at the end of a topic. Students assigned homework in 2nd grade did better on math, 3rd and 4th graders did better on English skills and vocabulary, 5th graders on social studies, 9th through 12th graders on American history, and 12th graders on Shakespeare.

Less authoritative are 12 studies that link the amount of homework to achievement, but control for lots of other factors that might influence this connection. These types of studies, often based on national samples of students, also find a positive link between time on homework and achievement.

Yet other studies simply correlate homework and achievement with no attempt to control for student differences. In 35 such studies, about 77 percent find the link between homework and achievement is positive. Most interesting, though, is these results suggest little or no relationship between homework and achievement for elementary school students.

Why might that be? Younger children have less developed study habits and are less able to tune out distractions at home. Studies also suggest that young students who are struggling in school take more time to complete homework assignments simply because these assignments are more difficult for them.

These recommendations are consistent with the conclusions reached by our analysis. Practice assignments do improve scores on class tests at all grade levels. A little amount of homework may help elementary school students build study habits. Homework for junior high students appears to reach the point of diminishing returns after about 90 minutes a night. For high school students, the positive line continues to climb until between 90 minutes and 2½ hours of homework a night, after which returns diminish.

Beyond achievement, proponents of homework argue that it can have many other beneficial effects. They claim it can help students develop good study habits so they are ready to grow as their cognitive capacities mature. It can help students recognize that learning can occur at home as well as at school. Homework can foster independent learning and responsible character traits. And it can give parents an opportunity to see what's going on at school and let them express positive attitudes toward achievement.

Opponents of homework counter that it can also have negative effects. They argue it can lead to boredom with schoolwork, since all activities remain interesting only for so long. Homework can deny students access to leisure activities that also teach important life skills. Parents can get too involved in homework -- pressuring their child and confusing him by using different instructional techniques than the teacher.

My feeling is that homework policies should prescribe amounts of homework consistent with the research evidence, but which also give individual schools and teachers some flexibility to take into account the unique needs and circumstances of their students and families. In general, teachers should avoid either extreme.

Link to this page

Copy and paste the URL below to share this page.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Browse content in C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
• Browse content in C0 - General
• C01 - Econometrics
• Browse content in C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
• C10 - General
• C11 - Bayesian Analysis: General
• C12 - Hypothesis Testing: General
• C13 - Estimation: General
• C14 - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
• C15 - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
• C18 - Methodological Issues: General
• C19 - Other
• Browse content in C2 - Single Equation Models; Single Variables
• C20 - General
• C21 - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions
• C22 - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
• C23 - Panel Data Models; Spatio-temporal Models
• C24 - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models; Threshold Regression Models
• C25 - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
• C26 - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation
• Browse content in C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
• C30 - General
• C31 - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
• C32 - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models
• C33 - Panel Data Models; Spatio-temporal Models
• C34 - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models
• C35 - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
• C36 - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation
• C38 - Classification Methods; Cluster Analysis; Principal Components; Factor Models
• Browse content in C4 - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics
• C40 - General
• C41 - Duration Analysis; Optimal Timing Strategies
• C44 - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
• C45 - Neural Networks and Related Topics
• Browse content in C5 - Econometric Modeling
• C50 - General
• C51 - Model Construction and Estimation
• C52 - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
• C53 - Forecasting and Prediction Methods; Simulation Methods
• C54 - Quantitative Policy Modeling
• C55 - Large Data Sets: Modeling and Analysis
• C57 - Econometrics of Games and Auctions
• C58 - Financial Econometrics
• Browse content in C6 - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
• C60 - General
• C61 - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
• C63 - Computational Techniques; Simulation Modeling
• Browse content in C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
• C78 - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
• Browse content in C8 - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs
• C81 - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
• Browse content in D - Microeconomics
• Browse content in D0 - General
• D04 - Microeconomic Policy: Formulation; Implementation, and Evaluation
• Browse content in D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics
• D10 - General
• D12 - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
• Browse content in D2 - Production and Organizations
• D22 - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
• D24 - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
• Browse content in D3 - Distribution
• D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
• Browse content in D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
• D41 - Perfect Competition
• D44 - Auctions
• Browse content in D6 - Welfare Economics
• D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
• Browse content in D9 - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
• D91 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
• Browse content in E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Browse content in E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy
• E24 - Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution; Aggregate Human Capital; Aggregate Labor Productivity
• Browse content in E3 - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles
• E30 - General
• E31 - Price Level; Inflation; Deflation
• E32 - Business Fluctuations; Cycles
• E37 - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
• Browse content in E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
• E52 - Monetary Policy
• E58 - Central Banks and Their Policies
• Browse content in G - Financial Economics
• Browse content in G1 - General Financial Markets
• G10 - General
• G11 - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
• G12 - Asset Pricing; Trading volume; Bond Interest Rates
• G17 - Financial Forecasting and Simulation
• Browse content in G2 - Financial Institutions and Services
• G21 - Banks; Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
• Browse content in H - Public Economics
• Browse content in H1 - Structure and Scope of Government
• H12 - Crisis Management
• Browse content in I - Health, Education, and Welfare
• Browse content in I1 - Health
• I12 - Health Behavior
• I13 - Health Insurance, Public and Private
• I14 - Health and Inequality
• I18 - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
• I19 - Other
• Browse content in I2 - Education and Research Institutions
• I21 - Analysis of Education
• I24 - Education and Inequality
• Browse content in J - Labor and Demographic Economics
• Browse content in J1 - Demographic Economics
• J16 - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
• Browse content in J3 - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
• J31 - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
• Browse content in J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
• J64 - Unemployment: Models, Duration, Incidence, and Job Search
• Browse content in J7 - Labor Discrimination
• J71 - Discrimination
• Browse content in L - Industrial Organization
• Browse content in L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
• L24 - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures; Technology Licensing
• Browse content in O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth
• Browse content in O1 - Economic Development
• O10 - General
• O18 - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
• Browse content in O5 - Economywide Country Studies
• O57 - Comparative Studies of Countries
• Browse content in P - Economic Systems
• Browse content in P1 - Capitalist Systems
• P16 - Political Economy
• Browse content in Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
• Browse content in Q0 - General
• Q02 - Commodity Markets
• Browse content in Q1 - Agriculture
• Q11 - Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis; Prices
• Browse content in Q5 - Environmental Economics
• Q54 - Climate; Natural Disasters; Global Warming
• Browse content in R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics
• Browse content in R0 - General
• R00 - General
• Browse content in R1 - General Regional Economics
• R15 - Econometric and Input-Output Models; Other Models
• Browse content in R2 - Household Analysis
• R23 - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population; Neighborhood Characteristics
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About The Econometrics Journal
• About the Royal Economic Society
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic
• < Previous

The impact of homework on student achievement

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ozkan Eren, Daniel J. Henderson, The impact of homework on student achievement, The Econometrics Journal , Volume 11, Issue 2, 1 July 2008, Pages 326–348, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2008.00244.x

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Utilizing parametric and nonparametric techniques, we assess the role of a heretofore relatively unexplored ‘input’ in the educational process, homework, on academic achievement. Our results indicate that homework is an important determinant of student test scores. Relative to more standard spending related measures, extra homework has a larger and more significant impact on test scores. However, the effects are not uniform across different subpopulations. Specifically, we find additional homework to be most effective for high and low achievers, which is further confirmed by stochastic dominance analysis. Moreover, the parametric estimates of the educational production function overstate the impact of schooling related inputs. In all estimates, the homework coefficient from the parametric model maps to the upper deciles of the nonparametric coefficient distribution and as a by‐product the parametric model understates the percentage of students with negative responses to additional homework.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Librarian

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1368-423X
• Print ISSN 1368-4221
• Copyright © 2024 Royal Economic Society
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Students' achievement and homework assignment strategies.

• 1 Department of Education Sciences, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
• 2 Department of Education, Principality of Asturias Government, Oviedo, Spain
• 3 Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

The optimum time students should spend on homework has been widely researched although the results are far from unanimous. The main objective of this research is to analyze how homework assignment strategies in schools affect students' academic performance and the differences in students' time spent on homework. Participants were a representative sample of Spanish adolescents ( N = 26,543) with a mean age of 14.4 (±0.75), 49.7% girls. A test battery was used to measure academic performance in four subjects: Spanish, Mathematics, Science, and Citizenship. A questionnaire allowed the measurement of the indicators used for the description of homework and control variables. Two three-level hierarchical-linear models (student, school, autonomous community) were produced for each subject being evaluated. The relationship between academic results and homework time is negative at the individual level but positive at school level. An increase in the amount of homework a school assigns is associated with an increase in the differences in student time spent on homework. An optimum amount of homework is proposed which schools should assign to maximize gains in achievement for students overall.

The role of homework in academic achievement is an age-old debate ( Walberg et al., 1985 ) that has swung between times when it was thought to be a tool for improving a country's competitiveness and times when it was almost outlawed. So Cooper (2001) talks about the battle over homework and the debates and rows continue ( Walberg et al., 1985 , 1986 ; Barber, 1986 ). It is considered a complicated subject ( Corno, 1996 ), mysterious ( Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ), a chameleon ( Trautwein et al., 2009b ), or Janus-faced ( Flunger et al., 2015 ). One must agree with Cooper et al. (2006) that homework is a practice full of contradictions, where positive and negative effects coincide. As such, depending on our preferences, it is possible to find data which support the argument that homework benefits all students ( Cooper, 1989 ), or that it does not matter and should be abolished ( Barber, 1986 ). Equally, one might argue a compensatory effect as it favors students with more difficulties ( Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ), or on the contrary, that it is a source of inequality as it specifically benefits those better placed on the social ladder ( Rømming, 2011 ). Furthermore, this issue has jumped over the school wall and entered the home, contributing to the polemic by becoming a common topic about which it is possible to have an opinion without being well informed, something that Goldstein (1960) warned of decades ago after reviewing almost 300 pieces of writing on the topic in Education Index and finding that only 6% were empirical studies.

The relationship between homework time and educational outcomes has traditionally been the most researched aspect ( Cooper, 1989 ; Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ), although conclusions have evolved over time. The first experimental studies ( Paschal et al., 1984 ) worked from the hypothesis that time spent on homework was a reflection of an individual student's commitment and diligence and as such the relationship between time spent on homework and achievement should be positive. This was roughly the idea at the end of the twentieth century, when more positive effects had been found than negative ( Cooper, 1989 ), although it was also known that the relationship was not strictly linear ( Cooper and Valentine, 2001 ), and that its strength depended on the student's age- stronger in post-compulsory secondary education than in compulsory education and almost zero in primary education ( Cooper et al., 2012 ). With the turn of the century, hierarchical-linear models ran counter to this idea by showing that homework was a multilevel situation and the effect of homework on outcomes depended on classroom factors (e.g., frequency or amount of assigned homework) more than on an individual's attitude ( Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ). Research with a multilevel approach indicated that individual variations in time spent had little effect on academic results ( Farrow et al., 1999 ; De Jong et al., 2000 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2013 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2014 ; Servicio de Evaluación Educativa del Principado de Asturias, 2016 ) and that when statistically significant results were found, the effect was negative ( Trautwein, 2007 ; Trautwein et al., 2009b ; Lubbers et al., 2010 ; Chang et al., 2014 ). The reasons for this null or negative relationship lie in the fact that those variables which are positively associated with homework time are antagonistic when predicting academic performance. For example, some students may not need to spend much time on homework because they learn quickly and have good cognitive skills and previous knowledge ( Trautwein, 2007 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ), or maybe because they are not very persistent in their work and do not finish homework tasks ( Flunger et al., 2015 ). Similarly, students may spend more time on homework because they have difficulties learning and concentrating, low expectations and motivation or because they need more direct help ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ), or maybe because they put in a lot of effort and take a lot of care with their work ( Flunger et al., 2015 ). Something similar happens with sociological variables such as gender: Girls spend more time on homework ( Gershenson and Holt, 2015 ) but, compared to boys, in standardized tests they have better results in reading and worse results in Science and Mathematics ( OECD, 2013a ).

On the other hand, thanks to multilevel studies, systematic effects on performance have been found when homework time is considered at the class or school level. De Jong et al. (2000) found that the number of assigned homework tasks in a year was positively and significantly related to results in mathematics. Equally, the volume or amount of homework (mean homework time for the group) and the frequency of homework assignment have positive effects on achievement. The data suggests that when frequency and volume are considered together, the former has more impact on results than the latter ( Trautwein et al., 2002 ; Trautwein, 2007 ). In fact, it has been estimated that in classrooms where homework is always assigned there are gains in mathematics and science of 20% of a standard deviation over those classrooms which sometimes assign homework ( Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ). Significant results have also been found in research which considered only homework volume at the classroom or school level. Dettmers et al. (2009) concluded that the school-level effect of homework is positive in the majority of participating countries in PISA 2003, and the OECD (2013b) , with data from PISA 2012, confirms that schools in which students have more weekly homework demonstrate better results once certain school and student-background variables are discounted. To put it briefly, homework has a multilevel nature ( Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ) in which the variables have different significance and effects according to the level of analysis, in this case a positive effect at class level, and a negative or null effect in most cases at the level of the individual. Furthermore, the fact that the clearest effects are seen at the classroom and school level highlights the role of homework policy in schools and teaching, over and above the time individual students spend on homework.

From this complex context, this current study aims to explore the relationships between the strategies schools use to assign homework and the consequences that has on students' academic performance and on the students' own homework strategies. There are two specific objectives, firstly, to systematically analyze the differential effect of time spent on homework on educational performance, both at school and individual level. We hypothesize a positive effect for homework time at school level, and a negative effect at the individual level. Secondly, the influence of homework quantity assigned by schools on the distribution of time spent by students on homework will be investigated. This will test the previously unexplored hypothesis that an increase in the amount of homework assigned by each school will create an increase in differences, both in time spent on homework by the students, and in academic results. Confirming this hypothesis would mean that an excessive amount of homework assigned by schools would penalize those students who for various reasons (pace of work, gaps in learning, difficulties concentrating, overexertion) need to spend more time completing their homework than their peers. In order to resolve this apparent paradox we will calculate the optimum volume of homework that schools should assign in order to benefit the largest number of students without contributing to an increase in differences, that is, without harming educational equity.

Participants

The population was defined as those students in year 8 of compulsory education in the academic year 2009/10 in Spain. In order to provide a representative sample, a stratified random sampling was carried out from the 19 autonomous regions in Spain. The sample was selected from each stratum according to a two-stage cluster design ( OECD, 2009 , 2011 , 2014a ; Ministerio de Educación, 2011 ). In the first stage, the primary units of the sample were the schools, which were selected with a probability proportional to the number of students in the 8th grade. The more 8th grade students in a given school, the higher the likelihood of the school being selected. In the second stage, 35 students were selected from each school through simple, systematic sampling. A detailed, step-by-step description of the sampling procedure may be found in OECD (2011) . The subsequent sample numbered 29,153 students from 933 schools. Some students were excluded due to lack of information (absences on the test day), or for having special educational needs. The baseline sample was finally made up of 26,543 students. The mean student age was 14.4 with a standard deviation of 0.75, rank of age from 13 to 16. Some 66.2% attended a state school; 49.7% were girls; 87.8% were Spanish nationals; 73.5% were in the school year appropriate to their age, the remaining 26.5% were at least 1 year behind in terms of their age.

Test application, marking, and data recording were contracted out via public tendering, and were carried out by qualified personnel unconnected to the schools. The evaluation, was performed on two consecutive days, each day having two 50 min sessions separated by a break. At the end of the second day the students completed a context questionnaire which included questions related to homework. The evaluation was carried out in compliance with current ethical standards in Spain. Families of the students selected to participate in the evaluation were informed about the study by the school administrations, and were able to choose whether those students would participate in the study or not.

Instruments

Tests of academic performance.

The performance test battery consisted of 342 items evaluating four subjects: Spanish (106 items), mathematics (73 items), science (78), and citizenship (85). The items, completed on paper, were in various formats and were subject to binary scoring, except 21 items which were coded on a polytomous scale, between 0 and 2 points ( Ministerio de Educación, 2011 ). As a single student is not capable of answering the complete item pool in the time given, the items were distributed across various booklets following a matrix design ( Fernández-Alonso and Muñiz, 2011 ). The mean Cronbach α for the booklets ranged from 0.72 (mathematics) to 0.89 (Spanish). Student scores were calculated adjusting the bank of items to Rasch's IRT model using the ConQuest 2.0 program ( Wu et al., 2007 ) and were expressed in a scale with mean and standard deviation of 500 and 100 points respectively. The student's scores were divided into five categories, estimated using the plausible values method. In large scale assessments this method is better at recovering the true population parameters (e.g., mean, standard deviation) than estimates of scores using methods of maximum likelihood or expected a-posteriori estimations ( Mislevy et al., 1992 ; OECD, 2009 ; von Davier et al., 2009 ).

Homework Variables

A questionnaire was made up of a mix of items which allowed the calculation of the indicators used for the description of homework variables. Daily minutes spent on homework was calculated from a multiple choice question with the following options: (a) Generally I don't have homework; (b) 1 h or less; (c) Between 1 and 2 h; (d) Between 2 and 3 h; (e) More than 3 h. The options were recoded as follows: (a) = 0 min.; (b) = 45 min.; (c) = 90 min.; (d) = 150 min.; (e) = 210 min. According to Trautwein and Köller (2003) the average homework time of the students in a school could be regarded as a good proxy for the amount of homework assigned by the teacher. So the mean of this variable for each school was used as an estimator of Amount or volume of homework assigned .

Control Variables

Four variables were included to describe sociological factors about the students, three were binary: Gender (1 = female ); Nationality (1 = Spanish; 0 = other ); School type (1 = state school; 0 = private ). The fourth variable was Socioeconomic and cultural index (SECI), which is constructed with information about family qualifications and professions, along with the availability of various material and cultural resources at home. It is expressed in standardized points, N(0,1) . Three variables were used to gather educational history: Appropriate School Year (1 = being in the school year appropriate to their age ; 0 = repeated a school year) . The other two adjustment variables were Academic Expectations and Motivation which were included for two reasons: they are both closely connected to academic achievement ( Suárez-Álvarez et al., 2014 ). Their position as adjustment factors is justified because, in an ex-post facto descriptive design such as this, both expectations and motivation may be thought of as background variables that the student brings with them on the day of the test. Academic expectations for finishing education was measured with a multiple-choice item where the score corresponds to the years spent in education in order to reach that level of qualification: compulsory secondary education (10 points); further secondary education (12 points); non-university higher education (14 points); University qualification (16 points). Motivation was constructed from the answers to six four-point Likert items, where 1 means strongly disagree with the sentence and 4 means strongly agree. Students scoring highly in this variable are agreeing with statements such as “at school I learn useful and interesting things.” A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed using a Maximum Likelihood robust estimation method (MLMV) and the items fit an essentially unidimensional scale: CFI = 0.954; TLI = 0.915; SRMR = 0.037; RMSEA = 0.087 (90% CI = 0.084–0.091).

As this was an official evaluation, the tests used were created by experts in the various fields, contracted by the Spanish Ministry of Education in collaboration with the regional education authorities.

Data Analyses

Firstly the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations between the variables were calculated. Then, using the HLM 6.03 program ( Raudenbush et al., 2004 ), two three-level hierarchical-linear models (student, school, autonomous community) were produced for each subject being evaluated: a null model (without predictor variables) and a random intercept model in which adjustment variables and homework variables were introduced at the same time. Given that HLM does not return standardized coefficients, all of the variables were standardized around the general mean, which allows the interpretation of the results as classical standardized regression analysis coefficients. Levels 2 and 3 variables were constructed from means of standardized level 1 variables and were not re-standardized. Level 1 variables were introduced without centering except for four cases: study time, motivation, expectation, and socioeconomic and cultural level which were centered on the school mean to control composition effects ( Xu and Wu, 2013 ) and estimate the effect of differences in homework time among the students within the same school. The range of missing variable cases was very small, between 1 and 3%. Recovery was carried out using the procedure described in Fernández-Alonso et al. (2012) .

The results are presented in two ways: the tables show standardized coefficients while in the figures the data are presented in a real scale, taking advantage of the fact that a scale with a 100 point standard deviation allows the expression of the effect of the variables and the differences between groups as percentage increases in standardized points.

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and the matrix of correlations between the study variables. As can be seen in the table, the relationship between the variables turned out to be in the expected direction, with the closest correlations between the different academic performance scores and socioeconomic level, appropriate school year, and student expectations. The nationality variable gave the highest asymmetry and kurtosis, which was to be expected as the majority of the sample are Spanish.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation matrix between the variables .

Table 2 shows the distribution of variance in the null model. In the four subjects taken together, 85% of the variance was found at the student level, 10% was variance between schools, and 5% variance between regions. Although the 10% of variance between schools could seem modest, underlying that there were large differences. For example, in Spanish the 95% plausible value range for the school means ranged between 577 and 439 points, practically 1.5 standard deviations, which shows that schools have a significant impact on student results.

Table 2. Distribution of the variance in the null model .

Table 3 gives the standardized coefficients of the independent variables of the four multilevel models, as well as the percentage of variance explained by each level.

Table 3. Multilevel models for prediction of achievement in four subjects .

The results indicated that the adjustment variables behaved satisfactorily, with enough control to analyze the net effects of the homework variables. This was backed up by two results, firstly, the two variables with highest standardized coefficients were those related to educational history: academic expectations at the time of the test, and being in the school year corresponding to age. Motivation demonstrated a smaller effect but one which was significant in all cases. Secondly, the adjustment variables explained the majority of the variance in the results. The percentages of total explained variance in Table 2 were calculated with all variables. However, if the strategy had been to introduce the adjustment variables first and then add in the homework variables, the explanatory gain in the second model would have been about 2% in each subject.

The amount of homework turned out to be positively and significantly associated with the results in the four subjects. In a 100 point scale of standard deviation, controlling for other variables, it was estimated that for each 10 min added to the daily volume of homework, schools would achieve between 4.1 and 4.8 points more in each subject, with the exception of mathematics where the increase would be around 2.5 points. In other words, an increase of between 15 and 29 points in the school mean is predicted for each additional hour of homework volume of the school as a whole. This school level gain, however, would only occur if the students spent exactly the same time on homework as their school mean. As the regression coefficient of student homework time is negative and the variable is centered on the level of the school, the model predicts deterioration in results for those students who spend more time than their class mean on homework, and an improvement for those who finish their homework more quickly than the mean of their classmates.

Furthermore, the results demonstrated a positive association between the amount of homework assigned in a school and the differences in time needed by the students to complete their homework. Figure 1 shows the relationship between volume of homework (expressed as mean daily minutes of homework by school) and the differences in time spent by students (expressed as the standard deviation from the mean school daily minutes). The correlation between the variables was 0.69 and the regression gradient indicates that schools which assigned 60 min of homework per day had a standard deviation in time spent by students on homework of approximately 25 min, whereas in those schools assigning 120 min of homework, the standard deviation was twice as long, and was over 50 min. So schools which assigned more homework also tended to demonstrate greater differences in the time students need to spend on that homework.

Figure 1. Relationship between school homework volume and differences in time needed by students to complete homework .

Figure 2 shows the effect on results in mathematics of the combination of homework time, homework amount, and the variance of homework time associated with the amount of homework assigned in two types of schools: in type 1 schools the amount of homework assigned is 1 h, and in type 2 schools the amount of homework 2 h. The result in mathematics was used as a dependent variable because, as previously noted, it was the subject where the effect was smallest and as such is the most conservative prediction. With other subjects the results might be even clearer.

Figure 2. Prediction of results for quick and slow students according to school homework size .

Looking at the first standard deviation of student homework time shown in the first graph, it was estimated that in type 1 schools, which assign 1 h of daily homework, a quick student (one who finishes their homework before 85% of their classmates) would spend a little over half an hour (35 min), whereas the slower student, who spends more time than 85% of classmates, would need almost an hour and a half of work each day (85 min). In type 2 schools, where the homework amount is 2 h a day, the differences increase from just over an hour (65 min for a quick student) to almost 3 h (175 min for a slow student). Figure 2 shows how the differences in performance would vary within a school between the more and lesser able students according to amount of homework assigned. In type 1 schools, with 1 h of homework per day, the difference in achievement between quick and slow students would be around 5% of a standard deviation, while in schools assigning 2 h per day the difference would be 12%. On the other hand, the slow student in a type 2 school would score 6 points more than the quick student in a type 1 school. However, to achieve this, the slow student in a type 2 school would need to spend five times as much time on homework in a week (20.4 weekly hours rather than 4.1). It seems like a lot of work for such a small gain.

Discussion and Conclusions

The data in this study reaffirm the multilevel nature of homework ( Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ) and support this study's first hypothesis: the amount of homework (mean daily minutes the student spends on homework) is positively associated with academic results, whereas the time students spent on homework considered individually is negatively associated with academic results. These findings are in line with previous research, which indicate that school-level variables, such as amount of homework assigned, have more explanatory power than individual variables such as time spent ( De Jong et al., 2000 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Scheerens et al., 2013 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ). In this case it was found that for each additional hour of homework assigned by a school, a gain of 25% of a standard deviation is expected in all subjects except mathematics, where the gain is around 15%. On the basis of this evidence, common sense would dictate the conclusion that frequent and abundant homework assignment may be one way to improve school efficiency.

However, as noted previously, the relationship between homework and achievement is paradoxical- appearances are deceptive and first conclusions are not always confirmed. Analysis demonstrates another two complementary pieces of data which, read together, raise questions about the previous conclusion. In the first place, time spent on homework at the individual level was found to have a negative effect on achievement, which confirms the findings of other multilevel-approach research ( Trautwein, 2007 ; Trautwein et al., 2009b ; Chang et al., 2014 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, it was found that an increase in assigned homework volume is associated with an increase in the differences in time students need to complete it. Taken together, the conclusion is that, schools with more homework tend to exhibit more variation in student achievement. These results seem to confirm our second hypothesis, as a positive covariation was found between the amount of homework in a school (the mean homework time by school) and the increase in differences within the school, both in student homework time and in the academic results themselves. The data seem to be in line with those who argue that homework is a source of inequity because it affects those less academically-advantaged students and students with greater limitations in their home environments ( Kohn, 2006 ; Rømming, 2011 ; OECD, 2013b ).

This new data has clear implications for educational action and school homework policies, especially in compulsory education. If quality compulsory education is that which offers the best results for the largest number ( Barber and Mourshed, 2007 ; Mourshed et al., 2010 ), then assigning an excessive volume of homework at those school levels could accentuate differences, affecting students who are slower, have more gaps in their knowledge, or are less privileged, and can make them feel overwhelmed by the amount of homework assigned to them ( Martinez, 2011 ; OECD, 2014b ; Suárez et al., 2016 ). The data show that in a school with 60 min of assigned homework, a quick student will need just 4 h a week to finish their homework, whereas a slow student will spend 10 h a week, 2.5 times longer, with the additional aggravation of scoring one twentieth of a standard deviation below their quicker classmates. And in a school assigning 120 min of homework per day, a quick student will need 7.5 h per week whereas a slow student will have to triple this time (20 h per week) to achieve a result one eighth worse, that is, more time for a relatively worse result.

It might be argued that the differences are not very large, as between 1 and 2 h of assigned homework, the level of inequality increases 7% on a standardized scale. But this percentage increase has been estimated after statistically, or artificially, accounting for sociological and psychological student factors and other variables at school and region level. The adjustment variables influence both achievement and time spent on homework, so it is likely that in a real classroom situation the differences estimated here might be even larger. This is especially important in comprehensive education systems, like the Spanish ( Eurydice, 2015 ), in which the classroom groups are extremely heterogeneous, with a variety of students in the same class in terms of ability, interest, and motivation, in which the aforementioned variables may operate more strongly.

The results of this research must be interpreted bearing in mind a number of limitations. The most significant limitation in the research design is the lack of a measure of previous achievement, whether an ad hoc test ( Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2013 ) or school grades ( Núñez et al., 2014 ), which would allow adjustment of the data. In an attempt to alleviate this, our research has placed special emphasis on the construction of variables which would work to exclude academic history from the model. The use of the repetition of school year variable was unavoidable because Spain has one of the highest levels of repetition in the European Union ( Eurydice, 2011 ) and repeating students achieve worse academic results ( Ministerio de Educación, 2011 ). Similarly, the expectation and motivation variables were included in the group of adjustment factors assuming that in this research they could be considered background variables. In this way, once the background factors are discounted, the homework variables explain 2% of the total variance, which is similar to estimations from other multilevel studies ( De Jong et al., 2000 ; Trautwein, 2007 ; Dettmers et al., 2009 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, the statistical models used to analyze the data are correlational, and as such, one can only speak of an association between variables and not of directionality or causality in the analysis. As Trautwein and Lüdtke (2009) noted, the word “effect” must be understood as “predictive effect.” In other words, it is possible to say that the amount of homework is connected to performance; however, it is not possible to say in which direction the association runs. Another aspect to be borne in mind is that the homework time measures are generic -not segregated by subject- when it its understood that time spent and homework behavior are not consistent across all subjects ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007 ). Nonetheless, when the dependent variable is academic results it has been found that the relationship between homework time and achievement is relatively stable across all subjects ( Lubbers et al., 2010 ; Chang et al., 2014 ) which leads us to believe that the results given here would have changed very little even if the homework-related variables had been separated by subject.

Future lines of research should be aimed toward the creation of comprehensive models which incorporate a holistic vision of homework. It must be recognized that not all of the time spent on homework by a student is time well spent ( Valle et al., 2015 ). In addition, research has demonstrated the importance of other variables related to student behavior such as rate of completion, the homework environment, organization, and task management, autonomy, parenting styles, effort, and the use of study techniques ( Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005 ; Xu, 2008 , 2013 ; Kitsantas and Zimmerman, 2009 ; Kitsantas et al., 2011 ; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Bembenutty and White, 2013 ; Xu and Wu, 2013 ; Xu et al., 2014 ; Rosário et al., 2015a ; Osorio and González-Cámara, 2016 ; Valle et al., 2016 ), as well as the role of expectation, value given to the task, and personality traits ( Lubbers et al., 2010 ; Goetz et al., 2012 ; Pedrosa et al., 2016 ). Along the same lines, research has also indicated other important variables related to teacher homework policies, such as reasons for assignment, control and feedback, assignment characteristics, and the adaptation of tasks to the students' level of learning ( Trautwein et al., 2009a ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Patall et al., 2010 ; Buijs and Admiraal, 2013 ; Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2013 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). All of these should be considered in a comprehensive model of homework.

In short, the data seem to indicate that in year 8 of compulsory education, 60–70 min of homework a day is a recommendation that, slightly more optimistically than Cooper's (2001) “10 min rule,” gives a reasonable gain for the whole school, without exaggerating differences or harming students with greater learning difficulties or who work more slowly, and is in line with other available evidence ( Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ). These results have significant implications when it comes to setting educational policy in schools, sending a clear message to head teachers, teachers and those responsible for education. The results of this research show that assigning large volumes of homework increases inequality between students in pursuit of minimal gains in achievement for those who least need it. Therefore, in terms of school efficiency, and with the aim of improving equity in schools it is recommended that educational policies be established which optimize all students' achievement.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the University of Oviedo with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the University of Oviedo.

Author Contributions

RF and JM have designed the research; RF and JS have analyzed the data; MA and JM have interpreted the data; RF, MA, and JS have drafted the paper; JM has revised it critically; all authors have provided final approval of the version to be published and have ensured the accuracy and integrity of the work.

This research was funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad del Gobierno de España. References: PSI2014-56114-P, BES2012-053488. We would like to express our utmost gratitude to the Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deporte del Gobierno de España and to the Consejería de Educación y Cultura del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias, without whose collaboration this research would not have been possible.

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.

Barber, B. (1986). Homework does not belong on the agenda for educational reform. Educ. Leadersh. 43, 55–57.

Google Scholar

Barber, M., and Mourshed, M. (2007). How the World's Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. McKinsey and Company . Available online at: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Bembenutty, H., and White, M. C. (2013). Academic performance and satisfaction with homework completion among college students. Learn. Individ. Differ. 24, 83–88. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Buijs, M., and Admiraal, W. (2013). Homework assignments to enhance student engagement in secondary education. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28, 767–779. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0139-0

Chang, C. B., Wall, D., Tare, M., Golonka, E., and Vatz, K. (2014). Relations of attitudes toward homework and time spent on homework to course outcomes: the case of foreign language learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 1049–1065. doi: 10.1037/a0036497

Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educ. Leadersh. 47, 85–91.

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

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., and Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Rev. Educ. Res. 76, 1–62. doi: 10.3102/00346543076001001

Cooper, H., Steenbergen-Hu, S., and Dent, A. L. (2012). “Homework,” in APA Educational Psychology Handbook , Vol. 3: Application to Learning and Teaching , eds K. R. Harris, S. Graham, and T. Urdan (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 475–495.

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. (1996). Homework is a complicated thing. Educ. Res. 25, 27–30. doi: 10.3102/0013189X025008027

De Jong, R., Westerhof, K. J., and Creemers, B. P. M. (2000). Homework and student math achievement in junior high schools. Educ. Res. Eval. 6, 130–157. doi: 10.1076/1380-3611(200006)6:2;1-E;F130

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, M., 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

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2009). The relationship between homework time and achievement is not universal: evidence from multilevel analyses in 40 countries. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 20, 375–405. doi: 10.1080/09243450902904601

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

Eurydice (2015). The Structure of the European Education Systems 2015/16: Schematic Diagrams. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union . Available online at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Publications:The_Structure_of_the_European_Education_Systems_2015/16:_Schematic_Diagrams (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Eurydice (2011). Grade Retention during Compulsory Education in Europe: Regulations and Statistics . Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

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

Farrow, S., Tymms, P., and Henderson, B. (1999). Homework and attainment in primary schools. Br. Educ. Res. J. 25, 323–341. doi: 10.1080/0141192990250304

Fernández-Alonso, R., and Muñiz, J. (2011). Diseños de cuadernillos para la evaluación de competencias b1sicas. Aula Abierta 39, 3–34.

Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz, J. (2012). Imputación de datos perdidos en las evaluaciones diagnósticas educativas. [Imputation methods for missing data in educational diagnostic evaluation]. Psicothema 24, 167–175.

Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz, J. (2014). Tareas escolares en el hogar y rendimiento en matemáticas: una aproximación multinivel con estudiantes de enseñanza primaria. [Homework and academic performance in mathematics: A multilevel approach with primary school student]. Rev. Psicol. Educ. 9, 15–30.

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

Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz, J. (2016). Homework and performance in mathematics: the role of the teacher, the family and the student's background. Rev. Psicod. 21, 5–23. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.13939

CrossRef Full Text

Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A., and Schnyder, I. (2015). The Janus-faced nature of time spent on homework: using latent profile analyses to predict academic achievement over a school year. Lear. Instr. 39, 97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.008

Gershenson, S., and Holt, S. B. (2015). Gender gaps in high school students' homework time. Educ. Res. 44, 432–441. doi: 10.3102/0013189X15616123

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. Learn. Individ. Differ. 22, 225–234. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.006

Goldstein, A. (1960). Does homework help? A review of research. Elementary Sch. J. 60, 212–224. doi: 10.1086/459804

Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J., and Ware, H. (2011). The role of homework support resources, time spent on homework, and self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics achievement. J. Adv. Acad. 22, 312–341. doi: 10.1177/1932202X1102200206

Kitsantas, A., and Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). College students homework and academic achievement: the mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs. Metacognition Learn. 4, 1556–1623. doi: 10.1007/s11409-008-9028-y

Kohn, A. (2006). Abusing research: the study of homework and other examples. Phi Delta Kappan 88, 9–22. doi: 10.1177/003172170608800105

Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P. C., Kuyper, H., and Hendriks, A. A. J. (2010). Does homework behavior mediate the relation between personality and academic performance? Learn. Individ. Differ. 20, 203–208. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.005

Martinez, S. (2011). An examination of Latino students' homework routines. J. Latinos Educ. 10, 354–368. doi: 10.1080/15348431.2011.605688

Mislevy, R. J., Beaton, A. E., Kaplan, B., and Sheehan, K. M. (1992). Estimating population characteristics from sparse matrix samples of item responses. J. Educ. Meas. 29, 133–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1992.tb00371.x

Ministerio de Educación (2011). Evaluación General de Diagnóstico 2010. Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Informe de Resultados . Madrid: Instituto de Evaluación. Available online at: http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ievaluacion/informe-egd-2010.pdf?documentId=0901e72b80d5ad3e (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., and Barber, M. (2010). How the World's Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better. McKinsey and Company . Available online at: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/How-the-Worlds-Most-Improved-School-Systems-Keep-Getting-Better_Download-version_Final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Murillo, F. J., and Martínez-Garrido, C. (2013). Homework influence on academic performance. A study of iberoamerican students of primary education. J. Psychodidactics 18, 157–171. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.6156

Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Rosário, P., Tuero, E., and Valle, A. (2014). Student, teacher, and school context variables predicting academic achievement in biology: analysis from a multilevel perspective. J. Psychodidactics 19, 145–171. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.7127

OECD (2009). PISA Data Analysis Manual: SPSS, 2nd Edn . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2011). School Sampling Preparation Manual. PISA 2012 Main Survey. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA2012MS-SamplingGuidelines-.pdf (Accessed January 6, 2017).

OECD (2013a). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I) . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2013b). PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2014a). PISA 2012 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016).

OECD (2014b). Does Homework Perpetuate Inequities in Education? PISA in Focus . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Osorio, A., and González-Cámara, M. (2016). Testing the alleged superiority of the indulgent parenting style among Spanish adolescents. Psicothema 28, 414–420. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.314

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Paschal, R. A., Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H. J. (1984). The effects of homework on learning: a quantitative synthesis. J. Educ. Res. 78, 97–104. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1984.10885581

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., and Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of providing choices in the classroom. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 896–915. doi: 10.1037/a0019545

Pedrosa, I., Suárez-Álvarez, J., García-Cueto, E., and Muñiz, J. (2016). A computerized adaptive test for enterprising personality assessment in youth. Psicothema 28, 471–478. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.68

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

Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., and Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling . Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Rømming, M. (2011). Who benefits from homework assignments? Econ. Educ. Rev. 30, 55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.001

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

Servicio de Evaluación Educativa del Principado de Asturias (2016). La relación entre el tiempo de deberes y los resultados académicos [The Relationship between Homework Time and Academic Performance]. Informes de Evaluación, 1 . Oviedo: Consejería de Educación y Cultura del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias.

Scheerens, J., Hendriks, M., Luyten, H., Sleegers, P., and Cees, G. (2013). Productive Time in Education. A Review of the Effectiveness of Teaching Time at School, Homework and Extended Time Outside School Hours. Enschede: University of Twente . Available online at: http://doc.utwente.nl/86371/ (Accessed January 25, 2016).

Suárez-Álvarez, J., Fernández-Alonso, R., and Muñiz, J. (2014). Self-concept, motivation, expectations and socioeconomic level as predictors of academic performance in mathematics. Learn. Indiv. Diff. 30, 118–123. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.019

Suárez, N., Regueiro, B., Epstein, J. L., Piñeiro, I., Díaz, S. M., and Valle, A. (2016). Homework involvement and academic achievement of native and immigrant students. Front. Psychol. 7:1517. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01517

Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework–achievement relation reconsidered: differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort. Learn. Instr. 17, 372–388. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009

Trautwein, U., and Köller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement: still much of a mystery. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 15, 115–145. doi: 10.1023/A:1023460414243

Trautwein, U., Köller, O., Schmitz, B., and Baumert, J. (2002). Do homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis in 7th grade mathematics. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27, 26–50. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1084

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

Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2007). Students' self-reported effort and time on homework in six school subjects: between-student differences and within-student variation. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 432–444. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.432

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., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., and Lüdtke, O. (2009a). Between-teacher differences in homework assignments and the development of students' homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 101, 176–189. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176

Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M., and Lüdtke, O. (2009b). Chameleon effects in homework research: the homework–achievement association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis chosen. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001

Valle, A., Pan, I., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Tuero, E., and Nunes, A. R. (2015). Predicting approach to homework in primary school students. Psicothema 27, 334–340. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.118

Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, S., Piñero, I., and Rosário, P. (2016). Academic goals, student homework engagement, and academic achievement in elementary school. Front. Psychol. 7:463. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00463

von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., and Mislevy, R. J. (2009). What are Plausible Values and Why are They Useful?. IERI Monograph Series. Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments. Available online at: http://www.ierinstitute.org/fileadmin/Documents/IERI_Monograph/IERI_Monograph_Volume_02.pdf (Accessed January 15, 2017).

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

Walberg, H. J., Paschal, R. A., and Weinstein, T. (1986). Walberg and colleagues reply: effective schools use homework effectively. Educ. Leadersh. 43, 58.

Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., and Haldane, S. A. (2007). ACER ConQuest 2.0: Generalised Item Response Modelling Software . Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.

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. (2013). Why do students have difficulties completing homework? The need for homework management. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 1, 98–105. doi: 10.11114/jets.v1i1.78

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

Xu, J., Yuan, R., Xu, B., and Xu, M. (2014). Modeling students' time management in math homework. Learn. Individ. Differ. 34, 33–42. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.011

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

Keywords: homework time, equity, compulsory secondary education, hierarchical modeling, adolescents

Citation: Fernández-Alonso R, Álvarez-Díaz M, Suárez-Álvarez J and Muñiz J (2017) Students' Achievement and Homework Assignment Strategies. Front. Psychol . 8:286. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286

Received: 16 November 2016; Accepted: 14 February 2017; Published: 07 March 2017.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2017 Fernández-Alonso, Álvarez-Díaz, Suárez-Álvarez and Muñiz. 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) or licensor 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: Javier Suárez-Álvarez, [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.

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

Relationship Between Students’ Prior Academic Achievement and Homework Behavioral Engagement: The Mediating/Moderating Role of Learning Motivation

Susana rodríguez.

1 Department of Psychology, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain

José C. Núñez

2 Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

Antonio Valle

Carlos freire, maría del mar ferradás, carolina rodríguez-llorente.

The interest of assigning homework is frequently discussed due to its alleged low impact on student achievement. One of the current lines of research is to emphasize the quality of student homework engagement rather than the amount of time spent on homework. The aim of this study was to determine (a) the extent to which students’ prior achievement affects their homework engagement (i.e., time spent, time management, and amount of teacher-assigned homework done), and (b) how students’ intrinsic motivation toward homework may mediate or moderate the relationship between prior achievement and the homework engagement variables. A large sample of students from the first 4 years of Secondary Education ( N = 1899) completed questionnaires. The results showed that intrinsic motivation partially mediates, but does not moderate, the effect of prior achievement on the three variables related to homework engagement (time spent, time management, and amount of teacher-assigned homework done). These results highlight the importance of considering both students’ current level of achievement and their motivation toward homework engagement when assigning homework.

Introduction

Homework assignment is used regularly as an instructional strategy to optimize students’ learning and academic achievement ( Cooper et al., 2006 ; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ). In general, there seems to be a positive relationship between homework and academic achievement ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ; Fan et al., 2017 ), although this relationship will vary in magnitude and direction depending on variables such as students’ age, the amount of time spent, the management of that time, the motivational orientation or cognitive engagement, as well as the quality of parental involvement, or the quality of the teacher-assigned homework.

Current academic achievement, in turn, seems to be associated with student engagement in the future performance of homework. Moreover, based on the responses of a broad sample of students aged between 9 and 16 years old, Regueiro et al. (2015) found that prior achievement was significantly related both to students’ subsequent motivation to do homework (i.e., intrinsic motivation, interest, and perception of utility) and to their homework engagement (time spent on homework, homework time management, amount of homework done).

This relationship between prior achievement and homework engagement can be explained by different pathways, external (through parental or teacher involvement) and internal (different levels of knowledge, expectations of future achievement, perceived competence, motivation, etc.). From this point of view, students with good prior achievement may also meet the internal and external conditions that lead to favorable personal homework engagement, whereas if prior achievement is not good, the external and internal conditions will certainly not be as favorable for good homework engagement. Thus, for example, when family involvement becomes more controlling and there is lower motivational and emotional support ( Núñez et al., 2015c , 2017 ; Regueiro et al., 2017a ), teachers develop low expectations about the students’ engagement and future achievement ( Kloomok and Cosden, 1994 ; Pitzer and Skinner, 2017 ; Zhu et al., 2018 ), and the students develop more negative expectations about their competence and future performance, and become discouraged and cease to engage progressively. These unfavorable affective-motivational conditions, in turn, are an added handicap to the already poor personal conditions (low academic achievement) when facing the next learning experiences ( Ben-Naim et al., 2017 ). All of this often leads to a new academic failure, either partial ( Klassen et al., 2008 ) or generalized to the entire academic area ( Shifrer, 2016 ).

The present study analyzes the mediator or moderator role of intrinsic motivation regarding the effect of prior achievement on student homework engagement (time spent on homework, homework time management, and amount of homework done). Although there is abundant information available with regard to student engagement, the same cannot be said regarding the area of homework. The data from this study can contribute to better understanding the way in which past achievement can condition students’ future homework engagement.

Prior Achievement and Motivation

Motivational variables determine student homework engagement; that is, students’ reasons for doing homework significantly influence their degree of engagement (e.g., time spent, optimization of that time, and amount of homework done) and their academic achievement ( Pan et al., 2013 ).

However, the nature of the relationship between motivation and academic achievement is bi-directional, such that the latter is also a significant antecedent of relevant motivational factors in the academic field such as self-concept or self-efficacy ( Marsh et al., 2005 ; Schöber et al., 2018 ). From this viewpoint, students’ learning failures, experienced not so much due to their skills as to their lack of motivation, lead them to developing beliefs of lack of competence, which, in turn, lead to low expectations of achievement and, as a consequence, low homework engagement and poor school performance. Therefore, the data derived from past research suggest including students’ prior achievement as an important variable to understand their homework engagement ( Cool and Keith, 1991 ; Trautwein et al., 2002 ; Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005 ; Fast et al., 2010 ; Chen et al., 2013 ; Garon-Carrier et al., 2016 ).

A study carried out by Hong (2001) pointed out that high-performing students are more self-motivated to do homework than low-performing students. As a result, students who have already been successful in tasks like homework, compared to less successful students, feel more confident to perform tasks successfully in the future. Believing in their capabilities to achieve set goals influences students’ motivation and effort to learn and, therefore, their engagement ( Schunk and Ertmer, 2000 ; Ormrod, 2003 ). In addition, academic achievement also maintains a positive relationship with other motivational variables, such as interest in the homework and the perception of its usefulness ( Wigfield and Cambria, 2010 ).

Motivation and Behavioral Engagement

The expectancy-value theory ( Eccles et al., 1984 ; Wigfield and Eccles, 2000 ) is especially appropriate to explain the motivational aspects of behavior regarding homework ( Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ). It indicates that students are more willing to engage in homework they perceive as emotionally rewarding and valuable, and where their effort is rewarded.

As shown in their work Ben-Eliyahu et al. (2018) , we think about motivation as a pre-existing learner characteristic that produces engagement and self-regulated learning as part of engagement process. Schunk and Mullen (2012) describe this commitment as “the manifestation of students’ motivation.” Like various authors, Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2012) suggest that commitment is a mediator between emotion and achievement, whereas Ainley (2012) argues that motivation leads to achievement through commitment. For other authors, motivation is a predictor of engagement ( Lazowski and Hulleman, 2016 ) and, for Ben-Eliyahu et al. (2018) , motivation triggers commitment. In previous studies, it was also found that different forms of motivation predict commitment ( Patall et al., 2016 ; King and Datu, 2017 ).

Research suggests that students’ type of motivation for a task is significantly related to their engagement ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). There is evidence indicating that many students do homework for extrinsic reasons, such as getting good grades, for their desire to please or to avoid punishment ( Walker et al., 2004 ). However, this kind of motivation is associated with low levels of engagement, learning, and achievement ( Vallerand et al., 1997 ). On another hand, students who perform homework driven by intrinsic reasons tend to show high levels of persistence, creativity, achievement, positive emotions, interest, and engagement ( Flink et al., 1992 ; Bouffard et al., 2001 ; Coutts, 2004 ). Motivation is therefore considered a very influential variable in the process of doing homework and, specifically, in students’ homework behavioral engagement ( Xu and Corno, 1998 ; Corno, 2000 ).

Goal of This Study

Homework assignment without taking into account the diversity of the classroom is a habitual practice. This instructional strategy ends up being successful for some students, but is clearly inappropriate for others. Homework assignment should be adapted to the needs and potentials of the students. Otherwise, rather than helping them to develop, homework assignment progressively undermines their motivation and interest. In the present study, prior achievement and all that this entails (knowledge, perceived competence, expectations, etc.) were considered to constitute a potential determinant of student homework engagement (in terms of amount of time spent on homework, time management, and the amount of teacher-assigned homework done). In addition, we expect to answer the question of whether motivation mediates or moderates the relationship between prior achievement and homework engagement.

Therefore, we examined (a) the extent to which students’ prior achievement conditions their homework engagement, and (b) how students’ interest in doing homework (i.e., intrinsic motivation) may mediate and/or moderate that relationship. The initial hypotheses are as follows:

• simple (1) Firstly, although the relation between time spent on homework and subsequent student achievement is clearly inconsistent ( Cooper et al., 2006 ; Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Trautwein, 2007 ; Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2009 ; Dettmers et al., 2009 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ; Núñez et al., 2015a , c ), previous research argues that prior achievement significantly influences students’ academic engagement (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2002 ; Chen et al., 2013 ; Garon-Carrier et al., 2016 ). Under these precedents, it was hypothesized that the relationship between prior achievement and student homework behavioral engagement would be positive and statistically significant, suggesting that high-performing students would spend more time on homework, better optimize that time, and would do more teacher-assigned homework than low-performing students.
• simple (2) Secondly, some data suggest that prior academic achievement positively influences students’ academic motivation ( Valentine and Dubois, 2005 ; Schöber et al., 2018 ). In turn, students’ motivation is positively associated with the time spent on homework ( Dettmers et al., 2009 ; Regueiro et al., 2015 ), the amount of homework done ( Regueiro et al., 2017b ), the management of homework time ( Núñez et al., 2015a ), and academic achievement ( Valle et al., 2016 ). Therefore, we hypothesized that the relationship between prior achievement and student homework behavioral engagement would be partially mediated by students’ intrinsic motivation. In this way, intrinsic motivation would act as a mediator if the influence of prior achievement on student homework behavioral engagement were conditioned, at least partially, by the influence of students’ motivation. As well as the direct effect, the indirect effect of prior achievement on the variables of student behavioral engagement would also be positive (indicating that higher prior achievement is related to higher intrinsic motivation and greater student behavioral engagement).

Whereas mediation attempts to explain how and why certain effects occur, moderation provides information about when such effects will take place. In statistical terms, there is moderation when the interaction between the independent variable (in our case, prior achievement) and the third variable (intrinsic motivation) significantly affects the dependent variable (student behavioral engagement in homework). As there are no data from previous studies that have addressed this issue, we will not offer any hypothesis about the moderator role of intrinsic motivation. The question to explore here will be: is the effect of prior achievement on student homework behavioral engagement significantly different (e.g., in intensity or direction) as a function of students’ motivational level?

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Participants were 1899 students (51.2% girls) of Compulsory Secondary Education (CSE) from 17 schools of four provinces in the north of Spain, of which 13 are public schools and 4 are subsidized. In terms of distribution by grade, 28.5% are enrolled in 1st grade of CSE (7th grade), 25.2% are in 2nd grade of CSE (8th grade), 22.2% are in 3rd grade of CSE (9th grade), and 24.1% are in 4th grade of CSE (10th grade). Participants’ age ranged between 12 and 16 years.

Instruments

The variables time spent on homework, homework time management, amount of homework done, and homework intrinsic motivation were measured with several items of the Homework Survey (e.g., Núñez et al., 2015a , b , c ; Valle et al., 2015a , b , 2018 ).

Time Spent on Homework

The students responded to two items (usually/during a typical week) with the following general formulation: “How much time do you usually spend each day on homework?” with the response options 1 = less than 30 min , 2 = 30 min to 1 h , 3 = 1 h to an hour and a half , 4 = 1 h and a half to 2 h , 5 = more than 2 h . The reliability is acceptable (α = 0.78).

Amount of Homework Done

This information was obtained from students through their responses to two items related to the amount of teacher-assigned homework usually done. The two items were worded as follows: “Some students complete all their homework, and others only complete some of it. What about you? How much of your homework do you do…? (usually/during a typical week).” The students chose an answer from a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( I didn’t do any of my homework ) to 5 ( I did all my homework ). The reliability is acceptable (α = 0.82).

Homework Time Management

This was evaluated through the response to two items worded as follows: “Students often spend a lot of time doing homework, although most of the times, they don’t use that time properly, as they waste it (e.g., talking on the phone, being distracted by intrusive thoughts, procrastinating). And you, how do you manage the time you spend doing your homework (usually/during a typical week)?,” on which they were requested to rate their level of perceived quality of homework time management on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( I don’t optimize it at all: “I am continually distracted by everything” ) to 5 ( I optimize it completely: I concentrate, and until I finish doing homework, I don’t think about anything else ). The reliability is acceptable (α = 0.77).

Intrinsic Motivation for Homework

Interest in learning by doing homework was assessed by students’ responses to eight items ( e.g., “I enjoy doing homework, because it allows me to learn more and more”; “Doing homework helps me understand what is being taught in class” and “Doing homework helps prepare me for the next day’s lesson/develop good self-discipline/learn how to plan my time or to be more responsible” ), which were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ( totally false ) to 5 ( completely true ). The reliability is acceptable (α = 0.86).

Prior Achievement

Prior achievement was evaluated according to the average academic grades obtained in the last year in Spanish, Math and foreign language (English). These grades were ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = insufficient, 2 = sufficient, 3 = good, 4 = notable, 5 = outstanding).

The procedure employed in this investigation followed the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Research and Teaching Ethics Committee of the University of A Coruña. First of all, the prior written informed consent was obtained from the management team and the teaching staff of the participating schools. Subsequently, the written informed consent was obtained from the participants and their parents or legal guardians. Data collection was carried out during school hours. The instruments were administered by staff who collaborated in the research.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed with the SPSS 22 program. Twelve students were eliminated because they had a large amount of missing data or presented outlier values. No significant amount of missing data was found in any of the variables. The missing values were treated through the multiple imputation procedure. Prior to the study of the hypotheses, as preliminary analysis, we analyzed the correlation matrix and the distribution of the variables included in the study (prior achievement, intrinsic motivation, time spent on homework, time management, and amount of teacher-assigned homework done). With the help of the PROCESS ( Hayes, 2013 ) module implemented in the SPSS, we analyzed whether intrinsic motivation mediated and/or moderated the effect of prior achievement on the three variables of student behavioral engagement considered. Figure 1 shows the mediation and moderation schema corresponding to hypotheses.

A simple mediation and moderation conceptual models of intrinsic motivation (IM) in the effect of prior achievement (PACH) on student behavioral engagement in homework (SBEH).

Gender and age (grade) were included in the design to statistically control for their potential effect. The effect sizes were calculated with Cohen’s (1988) d : d < 0.20 = minimum effect size; d > 0.20 < 0.50 = small effect size; d > 0.50 < 0.80 = medium effect size; d > 0.80 = large effect size.

Descriptive Statistics

In Table 1 are summarized the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations corresponding to the variables included in the study. The variables included in the study were significantly correlated, and the skewness and kurtosis data suggested an acceptable normal distribution. According to the relationship between the variables, we observed that: (i) females, compared to males, tended to spend more time on homework, reported better time optimization, and they did more assigned homework, had higher intrinsic motivation toward homework, as well as higher academic achievement; (ii) students’ motivation and interest and homework engagement decreased as they progressed through the school grades (7th to 10th grade); (iii) prior achievement had a significant and positive relationship with intrinsic motivation and student behavioral homework engagement; (iv) and homework time spent, homework time management, and amount of homework done were positively interrelated and positively related to intrinsic motivation.

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis) and Pearson correlation matrix.

Mediation Analysis

In Table 2 are summarized the results of the mediation analysis of the intrinsic motivation of the effect of prior achievement on student homework behavioral engagement (homework time spent, homework time management, and amount of homework performed).

Summary of the mediation model.

Mediation Model (Dependent Variable: Homework Time Spent)

The data obtained suggested that homework intrinsic motivation almost completely mediated the effect of prior achievement on homework time spent. Specifically, whereas the indirect effect of prior achievement on homework time spent was positive and statistically significant ( b = 0.034, p < 0.001, d = 0.274), the direct effect was minimal ( b = 0.054, p < 0.05), with a small effect size ( d = 0.119). The overall effect was b = 0.088 ( p < 0.001, d = 0.193). The mediational model explained 9% of the variability of the time spent on homework. The data also showed that gender was related to the prediction of time spent on homework ( b = 0.366, p < 0.001), although the effect size was small ( d = 0.332). Grade was not a predictor in this model.

Mediation Model (Dependent Variable: Homework Time Management)

Intrinsic motivation acted like a partial mediator of the effect of prior achievement on homework time management (indirect effect: b = 0.049, p < 0.001), although it had a small effect size ( d = 0.323). Prior achievement also maintained a statistically significant but small direct effect on homework time management ( b = 0.149, p = 0.001), ( d = 0.186). The overall effect was almost intermediate ( b = 0.198, p < 0.001, d = 0.486), explaining a total of 16.7% of the variability of homework time management. Gender and grade significantly predicted homework time management, although the effect size was minimal (no effect) (see Table 2 ).

Mediation Model (Dependent Variable: Amount of Homework Done)

The data provided by the mediational analysis indicated that intrinsic motivation was a partial mediator of the effect of prior achievement on amount of homework done (indirect effect: b = 0.042, p < 0.001), with a small effect size ( d = 0.323). The direct effect was intermediate ( b = 0.237, p < 0.001, d = 0.729), and the total effect was large ( b = 0.279, p < 0.001, d = 0.841). The model explained 30.9% of the variability of the amount of homework done. Gender and grade were significant predictors, although whereas gender was hardly a predictor ( d = 0.145), grade had an intermediate effect size ( d = 0.588) (see Table 2 ).

Moderation Analysis

Table 3 provides a summary of the moderation analysis of the intrinsic motivation of the effect of prior achievement on student homework behavioral engagement. The data derived from the analysis shows that intrinsic motivation does not have a moderating effect either in the relationship between prior achievement and time spent on homework ( b = 0.002, p > 0.05, d = 0.003) or with homework time management ( b = -0.004, p > 0.05, d = 0.007). This means that the effect of prior achievement on these two variables is of the same sign and intensity at any level of intrinsic motivation. However, a small moderator effect was observed in the relationship between prior achievement and amount homework done ( b = -0.062, p < 0.01, d = 0.153). As can be observed in the last three rows of Table 3 , depending on the level of intrinsic motivation, the effect size of prior achievement on amount of homework done was different in intensity (but not in direction). In general terms, the greater the intrinsic motivation, the lower the effect of prior achievement, and vice versa.

Summary of the moderation of intrinsic motivation of the effect of prior achievement on student homework behavioral engagement (interaction effects).

Doing homework is an instructional strategy frequently used by the vast majority of teachers, from all educational stages and all the countries belonging to the OECD. However, in the last report of this international organism, some concern was expressed about using this instructional strategy, as the data seem to indicate that countries using less homework are obtaining better achievement in PISA. They also indicated that the use of this strategy is negatively associated with children’s mental health. However, it is clear from the reviewed literature that the most rigorous studies suggest that such claims are not entirely true because other variables must be taken into account besides the time spent on homework, both extrinsic to the student (family involvement, teacher involvement) and those related to the students (level of prior knowledge, motivation, attitude, effort, self-regulation skills in the process of doing homework, etc.).

In this line, the present investigation sought to shed some light on this issue, focusing on the relative importance of the level of prior achievement in student homework engagement. Specifically, first, we studied the predictive capacity of prior achievement in student homework engagement in terms of the amount of time spent weekly, time management, and amount of teacher-assigned homework done. Secondly, we analyzed in greater depth how that relationship might be mediated, moderated, or both, by students’ intrinsic motivation (i.e., intention to engage in homework in order to learn and progress academically). The interest of the work was formulated in terms that if this relationship were significant, student’s current level of achievement should be taken into account by teachers when elaborating and assigning homework. And if motivation mediated or moderated the relationship, it should also be known and taken into account at this time. The main reason is that, if the hypotheses of the study were correct, the unadapted assignment of homework would be an inappropriate instructional strategy, partly responsible for students’ ambiguous relationship with achievement, and even for adverse consequences.

The results confirmed the first and second hypotheses, but not the third one entirely. These results will be discussed below in detail.

In the first hypothesis, we expected that the relationship between prior achievement and student behavioral engagement would be positive. The data partially confirmed this hypothesis. In particular, as expected, high-performing students, compared to low-performing ones, managed homework time better (although the effect size is small) and did more teacher-assigned homework (with an almost large effect size). On the contrary, the amount of time spent on homework was barely explained by students’ prior achievement (the size of the effect is practically non-existent). These results are in the line of those obtained in other studies, which also found that the amount of time spent on homework is of little interest ( Trautwein, 2007 ; Dettmers et al., 2009 ; Regueiro et al., 2015 ).

The second hypothesis was also confirmed. In particular, it was found that the relationship between prior achievement and student homework behavioral engagement is partially mediated by students’ intrinsic motivation, indicating that higher prior achievement is related to higher intrinsic motivation and greater student behavioral engagement. As in other studies, the data from this research indicate that students’ motivation is positively associated, on the one hand, with academic achievement ( Valle et al., 2016 ) and, on the other, with student homework engagement: the time spent on homework ( Dettmers et al., 2009 ; Regueiro et al., 2015 ), homework time management ( Núñez et al., 2015a ), and the amount of teacher-assigned homework done ( Regueiro et al., 2017b ). This research found that the greater the prior achievement, the higher is students’ motivation and, finally, the greater their homework engagement. However, the amount of variance explained in each of the three variables of engagement is substantially different. Whereas only 9% of the time spent doing homework and 16.7% of time management are explained, 30.9% of the amount of teacher-assigned homework done is explained. But, while the data from this study refer to the importance of prior achievement and intrinsic motivation in the explanation of student homework engagement, they also raise some questions such as, for example, what personal variables are responsible for the amount of the remaining variance? what relevance do the family and school contexts have?

In terms of the moderation hypothesis, the results of the analysis of this study suggest that the effect of prior achievement on the time spent on homework and on time management does not change according to students’ motivational level. This means that the relationship described above has the same force and sign whether the student is little or very intrinsically motivated to work on homework. In the case of these two variables (time spent and time management), students’ motivation only facilitates an indirect pathway through which prior achievement would influence student homework engagement. However, some moderation was observed when the dependent variable was the amount of teacher-assigned homework done. In this case, and in general terms, when intrinsic motivation is high, the effect of prior achievement on the amount of homework done is smaller than when motivation is medium or low. These results can be interpreted in the sense that the higher the motivation, the lower is the capacity of prior achievement to determine student engagement in teacher-assigned homework. These findings offer a less deterministic vision: when students’ motivation is high, homework engagement is less determined by past conditions that we cannot influence. Therefore, high intrinsic motivation seems to be an important protective factor.

Educational Implications

The results of this study have some implications for educational practice, which should be taken into account when designing and developing homework.

Firstly, we should assume that student homework engagement is determined by multiple factors that should be taken into account to ensure quality engagement. Students do not engage deeply in their homework just because it is their obligation (this may be the least powerful reason). As seen in this study, intrinsic motivation is an important determinant, mainly in terms of homework time management and the amount of teacher-assigned homework done, which in terms of the effect size, is close to large. As a result, and if only for this reason, it seems clear that it is not just is question of designing and assigning homework, but that homework and the contexts must be of quality, which invite the student to engage with them in order to learn. And it is not enough that the homework and the context are of quality, it is also necessary for students to perceive such quality so their deep engagement takes place ( Rosário et al., 2018 ). Therefore in order to motivate students, an interesting practice when assigning homework might be to consider the relevance of each task with a view to students’ learning and personal autonomy.

Also, secondly, students’ prior achievement is shown as another important determinant of student homework engagement, mainly in terms of the amount of teacher-assigned homework done, and to a lesser extent, with regard to time management. However, as confirmed in the moderation analyses, in relation to the amount of homework done, this effect decreases when intrinsic motivation is high. Thus, insofar as we can highly motivate students to do homework with a deep focus, the determining effect of prior achievement will be lower and, therefore, low-performing students will be less vulnerable.

However, even in this case, it is relevant to take this into account when developing and assigning homework to the students. In general terms, from our data, poor achievement will lead to a decrease in intrinsic motivation (less interest in deep homework engagement), which will lead to a less effective behavioral engagement. In the end, this lower engagement could contribute to subsequent lower achievement, and so on. This loop would have obvious negative consequences. Therefore, it is necessary to significantly adapt the assignment of homework to this group of students, so that, taking into account these limiting initial conditions, the homework will involve real opportunities of personal engagement and success. This will facilitate student engagement – effective engagement – and, over time, the change of direction of that negative loop that makes them so vulnerable.

As previous research suggests, homework should be adapted to students’ potential and explicitly linked to academic success, but should also be perceived as useful by learners ( Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 , 2012 ; Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2009 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 , 2011 ; Rosário et al., 2018 ). Teachers must face the challenge of linking homework characteristics to their students’ learning needs and interest. In this sense, it seems interesting that teachers explicitly state the competences and knowledge that is expected to be optimized with homework and that the instrumental, personal and/or professional use of the tasks that are sent home from the classroom are specifically agreed upon.

Limitations

Although the results seem to be consistent, this research has some limitations that should not be ignored. Firstly, given that gender and grade were relevant in the explanation of student engagement, and although their effect was statistically controlled by including them as covariates, due to the characteristics of the statistical design, the data from this study do not provide information on how gender or grade might be moderating the effects found. Further studies could primarily examine this issue of undeniable relevance.

Secondly, it could be important to analyze the hypotheses of this study using data obtained with measurement instruments other than self-report measures, as this would allow us to determine the validity of the results of the scope of this study. Thirdly, would be of undoubted interest to study the objectives of this research in younger students, from Elementary Education, as the results of this research might not be generalizable to younger ages. Finally, although the procedure to study mediation/moderation is well established with data derived from cross-sectional designs, even with simple models of mediation/moderation, like those used in this investigation, the data obtained might have differed significantly if we had chosen a longitudinal data collection strategy (or repeated measures). For the design of future studies, this issue of particular relevance should be taken into account.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Research and Teaching Ethics Committee of the University of A Coruña, with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Research and Teaching Ethics Committee of the University of A Coruña.

Author Contributions

SR, AV, CF, and MF collected the data and wrote the manuscript. JN analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. CR-L collected the data and helped revision of the manuscript.

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.

Funding. This work was developed with the financing of the research projects EDU2013-44062-P (MINECO), EDU2017-82984-P (MEIC), and Government of the Principality of Asturias, Spain. European Regional Development Fund (Research Groups Program 2018–2020 FC-GRUPIN-IDI/2018/000199).

• Ainley M. (2012). “ Students’ interest and engagement in classroom activities ,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , eds Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 283–302. 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_13 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ben-Eliyahu A., Moore D., Dorph R., Schunn C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement in science across multiple days, activities, and contexts. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 53 87–105. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ben-Naim S., Laslo-Roth R., Einav M., Biran H., Margalit M. (2017). Academic self-efficacy, sense of coherence, hope and tiredness among college students with learning disabilities. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 32 18–34. 10.1080/08856257.2016.1254973 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouffard T., Boileau L., Vezeau C. (2001). Students’ transition from elementary to high school and changes of the relationship between motivation and academic performance. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 16 589–604. 10.1007/BF03173199 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen S. K., Yeh Y. C., Hwang F. M., Lin S. S. J. (2013). The relationship between academic self-concept and achievement: a multicohort-multioccasion study. Learn. Indiv. Differ. 23 172–178. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.021 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 2nd Edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cool V. A., Keith T. Z. (1991). Testing a model of school learning: direct and indirect effects on academic achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 16 28–44. 10.1016/0361-476X(91)90004-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Robinson J., Patall E. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Rev. Educ. Res. 76 1–62. 10.3102/00346543076001001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corno L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elem. Sch. J. 100 529–548. 10.1086/499654 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coutts P. M. (2004). Meanings of homework and implications for practice. Theory Pract. 43 182–187. 10.1207/s15430421tip4303_ [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dettmers S., Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. (2009). The relationship between homework time and achievement is not universal: evidence from multilevel analyses in 40 countries. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 20 375–405. 10.1080/09243450902904601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dettmers S., Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Goetz T., Frenzel A. C., Pekrun R. (2011). Students’emotions during homework in mathematics: testing a theoretical model of antecedents and achievement outcomes. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36 25–35. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ 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 ]
• Eccles J., Adler T., Meece J. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: a test of alternate theories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46 26–43. 10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.26 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein J., Van Voorhis F. (2012). “ The changing debate: From assigning homework to designing homework ,” in Contemporary Debates in Child Development and Education , eds Suggate S., Reese E. (London: Routledge; ), 263–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Epstein J. L., Van Voorhis F. L. (2001). More than 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 ]
• Fast L. A., Lewis J. L., Bryant M. J., Bocian K. A., Cardullo R. A., Rettig M., et al. (2010). Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized math test performance? J. Educ. Psychol. 102 729–740. 10.1037/a0018863 [ 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 ]
• Flink C., Boggiano A. K., Main D. S., Barrett M., Katz A. (1992). “ Children’s achievement-related behaviors: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational orientation ,” in Achievement and Motivation: A Social Developmental Perspective , eds Boggiano A. K., Pittman T. S. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 189–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garon-Carrier G., Boivin M., Guay F., Kovas Y., Dionne G., Lemelin J., et al. (2016). Intrinsic motivation and achievement in mathematics in elementary school: a longitudinal investigation of their association. Child Dev. 87 165–175. 10.1111/cdev.12458 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression Based Approach . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong E. (2001). Homework style, homework environment, and academic achievement. Learn. Environ. Res. 4 7–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• King R. B., Datu J. A. D. (2017). Materialism does not pay: materialistic students have lower motivation, engagement, and achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 49 289–301. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.03.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klassen R. M., Krawchuk L. L., Lynch S. L., Rajani S. (2008). Procrastination and motivation of undergraduates with learning disabilities: a mixed-methods inquiry. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 23 137–147. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00271.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kloomok S., Cosden M. (1994). Self-concept in children with learning disabilities: the relationship between global self-concept, academic “discounting”, nonacademic self-concept, and perceived social support. Learn. Disabil. Q. 17 140–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazowski R. A., Hulleman C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: a meta-analytic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 86 602–640. 10.3102/0034654315617832 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh H. W., Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Köller O., Baumert J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Dev. 76 397–416. 10.1037/0003-066X.33.4.344 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Epstein J. L., Suárez N., Rosário P., Vallejo G., Valle A. (2017). How do student prior achievement and homework behaviors relate to perceived parental involvement in homework? Front. Psychol . 8 : 1217 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01217 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Cerezo R., González-Pienda J. A., 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 perceived parental involvement in homework, students’ homework behavior 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 ]
• Ormrod J. E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pan I., Regueiro B., Ponte B., Rodríguez S., Piñeiro I., Valle A. (2013). Motivación, implicación en los deberes escolares y rendimiento académico [Motivation, involvement in homework and academic performance]. Aula Abierta 41 13–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patall E. A., Vasquez A. C., Steingut R. R., Trimble S. S., Pituch K. A. (2016). Daily interest, engagement, and autonomy support in the high school science classroom. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 46 180–194. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.06.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Linnenbrink-Garcia L. (2012). “ Academic emotions and student engagement ,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , eds Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 259–282. 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitzer J., Skinner E. (2017). Predictors of changes in students’ motivational resilience over the school year: the roles of teacher support, self-appraisals, and emotional reactivity. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 41 15–29. 10.1177/0165025416642051 [ 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 ]
• Regueiro B., Suárez N., Núñez J. C., Valle A., Epstein J. L. (2017a). “ Homework and academic schievement: Student, teacher and parent involvement ,” in Factors Affecting Academic Performance, Coords , eds González-Pienda J. A., Bernardo A., Núñez J. C., Rodríguez C. (New York, NY: Nova Science Pub.), 141–156. [ Google Scholar ]
• Regueiro B., Valle A., Núñez J. C., Rosário P., Rodríguez S., Suárez N. (2017b). Changes in involvement in homework throughout compulsory secondary education. Cult. Educ. 29 254–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Regueiro B., Suárez N., Valle A., Núñez J. C., Rosário P. (2015). Homework motivation and involvement throughout compulsory education. Rev. Psicodidact. 20 47–63. 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.12641 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Nunes T., Cunha J., Fuentes S., et al. (2018). Homework purposes, homework behaviors, and academic achievement. examining the mediating role of students’ perceived homework quality. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 53 168–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55 68–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schöber C., Schütte K., Köller O., McElvany N., Gelvany M. M. (2018). Reciprocal effects between self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics and reading. Learn. Ind. Diff. 63 1–11. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schunk D. H., Ertmer P. A. (2000). “ Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions ,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation , eds Boekaerts M., Pintrich P. R., Zeidner M. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 631–647. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schunk D. H., Mullen C. A. (2012). “ Self-efficacy as an engaged learner ,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , eds Christenson S., Reschly A., Wylie C. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 219–235. 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shifrer D. (2016). Stigma and stratification limiting the math course progression of adolescents labelled with a learning disability. Learn. Instr. 42 47–57. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U. (2007). The homework-achievement relation reconsidered: differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort. Learn. Instr. 17 372–388. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Köller O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement: still much of a mystery. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 15 115–145. 10.1023/A:1023460414243 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Köller O., Schmitz B., Baumert J. (2002). Do homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis in 7th grade mathematics. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27 26–50. 10.1006/ceps.2001.1084 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: the role of person and family caracteristics, 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 ]
• Valentine J. C., Dubois D. L. (2005). “ Effects of self-beliefs on academic achievement and vice versa: Separating the chicken from the egg ,” in New Frontiers for Self-Research, International Advances in Self-Research Vol. 2 eds Marsh H. W., Craven R., McInerney D. M. (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing; ), 53–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Pan I., Núñez J. C., Rosário P., Rodríguez S., Regueiro B. (2015a). Homework and academic achievement in primary education. Anal. Psicol. 31 562–569. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Pan I., Regueiro B., Suárez N., Tuero E., Nunes A. R. (2015b). Predicting approach to homework in primary school students. Psicothema 27 334–340. 10.7334/psicothema2015.118 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Regueiro B., Núñez J. C., Piñeiro I., Rodríguez S., Rosário P. (2018). Academic achievement levels and homework involvement in Spanish students of secondary education. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 11 19–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Regueiro B., Núñez J. C., Rodríguez S., Piñeiro I., Rosário P. (2016). Academic goals, student homework engagement, and academic achievement in primary education. Front. Psychol. 7 : 463 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00463 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vallerand R. J., Fortier M. S., Guay F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: toward a motivational model of high school dropout. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72 1161–1176. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1161 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker B., Holling C. S., Carpenter S. R., Kinzig A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 9 : 5 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Wigfield A., Cambria J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Dev. Rev. 30 1–35. 10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wigfield A., Eccles J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 68–81. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J., Corno L. (1998). Case studies of families doing third-grade homework. Teach. Coll. Rec. 100 402–436. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu M., Urhahne D., Rubie-Davies C. (2018). The longitudinal effects of teacher judgement and different treatment on students’ academic outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 38 648–668. 10.1080/01443410.2017.1412399 [ 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 ]

Get Started Today!

• Centre Details
• Ask A Question
• Change Location
• Programs & More

Infographic: How Does Homework Actually Affect Students?

Homework is an important part of engaging students outside of the classroom. How does homework affect students?

It carries educational benefits for all age groups, including time management and organization. Homework also provides students with the ability to think beyond what is taught in class.

The not-so-good news is these benefits only occur when students are engaged and ready to learn. But, the more homework they get, the less they want to engage.

The Negative Effects on Students

Homework can affect students’ health, social life and grades. The hours logged in class, and the hours logged on schoolwork can lead to students feeling overwhelmed and unmotivated. Navigating the line between developing learning skills and feeling frustrated can be tricky.

Homework is an important part of being successful inside and outside of the classroom, but too much of it can actually have the opposite effect. Students who spend too much time on homework are not always able to meet other needs, like being physically and socially active. Ultimately, the amount of homework a student has can impact a lot more than his or her grades.

Find out how too much homework actually affects students.

How Does Homework Affect Students’ Health?

Homework can affect both students’ physical and mental health. According to a study by Stanford University, 56 per cent of students considered homework a primary source of stress. Too much homework can result in lack of sleep, headaches, exhaustion and weight loss. Excessive homework can also result in poor eating habits, with families choosing fast food as a faster alternative.

How Does Homework Affect Students’ Social Life?

Extracurricular activities and social time gives students a chance to refresh their minds and bodies. But students who have large amounts of homework have less time to spend with their families and friends. This can leave them feeling isolated and without a support system. For older students, balancing homework and part-time work makes it harder to balance school and other tasks. Without time to socialize and relax, students can become increasingly stressed, impacting life at school and at home.

How Does Homework Affect Students’ Grades?

After a full day of learning in class, students can become burnt out if they have too much homework. When this happens, the child may stop completing homework or rely on a parent to assist with homework. As a result, the benefits of homework are lost and grades can start to slip.

Too much homework can also result in less active learning, a type of learning that occurs in context and encourages participation. Active learning promotes the analysis and application of class content in real world settings. Homework does not always provide these opportunities, leading to boredom and a lack of problem-solving skills.

Take a look at how homework affects students and how to help with homework.

How Can Parents Help?

Being an active part of children’s homework routine is a major part of understanding feelings and of be able to provide the needed support. As parents, you can help your child have a stress-free homework experience. Sticking to a clear and organized homework routine helps children develop better homework habits as they get older. This routine also comes in handy when homework becomes more difficult and time-consuming.

Learn more about the current world of homework, and how you can help your child stay engaged.

Embed this on your site

<a href=”https://www.oxfordlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/how-homework-affects-students-infographic.jpg” target=”_blank”><img style=”width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: auto;” alt=”How Does Homework Affect Students” src=”https://www.oxfordlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/how-homework-affects-students-infographic.jpg” /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <a href=”www.oxfordlearning.com”>Oxford Learning Centres</a>

Check Out These Additional Homework Resources

Does Your Child Struggle With Homework?

• Best Methods of Self Study for Students
• Developing a Growth Mindset — 5 Tips for Parents

Study Break Tips: How To Take A Study Break That Works

Related homework resources.

Homework, Organization, Studying

Homework procrastination: why do students procrastinate.

Understanding Dysgraphia and How Tutoring Can Help

Unwrapping the 12 Days of Holiday Skills

Canadian Attitudes Toward Homework

Find an oxford learning ® location near you, we have over 100 centres across canada.

HOW TECHNOLOGY IMPACTS STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM

The integration of technology in classrooms has become increasingly prevalent, presenting both opportunities and challenges for educators. This study examines the impact of technology on student performance and behavior, particularly in seventh and eighth-grade classrooms. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the shift to online learning, raising concerns about learning loss and disparities in access to technology. Using a needs-based assessment survey, this research investigates teachers' perceptions of technology's effects on student engagement, academic achievement, and retention of curriculum content. The study explores the positive and negative implications of technology use, as well as non-technological strategies employed by teachers to support student learning. Findings reveal that while technology offers benefits such as student-centered education and immediate feedback, it also poses challenges such as distractions and decreased engagement. The study underscores the importance of understanding how technology impacts student learning and behavior and provides insights for developing effective intervention strategies. By considering the perspectives of educators, this research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on technology integration in education and informs evidence-based practices for promoting student success in technology-rich classrooms.

Degree Type

• Master of Science
• Educational Studies

Campus location

Advisor/supervisor/committee chair, advisor/supervisor/committee co-chair, additional committee member 2, usage metrics.

• Secondary education

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Impact of Homework on the Student Academic Performance at Secondary School Level

Volume V Issue I

Homework is the means by which the relationship between home and school is demonstrated and developed, leading to more consistent progress in all aspects of school life. The current research was carried out in Gilgit Baltistan to find out the impact of homework on the academic performance of students at secondary level. The research was observed by teachers of Gilgit Baltistan public schools while 100 teachers were chosen by a random sampling technique as a sample. Questionnaires were as a research instrument. The study found that homework impacts learning for learners, its impact differs with the age of students, and it plays an important role in student achievement. The study proposed that homework should be purposeful, i.e. it should include the introduction of new content, the practise of skills, the creation of any data and the ability for students to explore topics of their own interest.

Related Papers

LUMEN Proceedings

Horatiu Catalano

FONG PENG CHEW

School homework has been synonymous with students- life in Chinese national type primary schools in Malaysia. Although many reports in the press claimed that students were burdened with too much of it, homework continues to be a common practice in national type schools that is believed to contribute to academic achievement. This study is conducted to identify the relationship between the burden of school homework and academic achievement among pupils in Chinese National Type Primary School in the state of Perak, Malaysia. A total of 284 students (142 from urban and 142 from rural) respectively were chosen as participants in this study. Variables of gender and location (urban/rural areas) has shown significant difference in student academic achievement. Female Chinese student from rural areas showed a higher mean score than males from urban area. Therefore, the Chinese language teachers should give appropriate and relevant homework to primary school students to achieve good academic ...

Robert Marzano

Shumaila Hameed

Vahit Ağa Yıldız

The study aimed to scrutinize the viewpoints of primary school teachers, students, and parents about homework in various parameters such as types, frequency, subject and functions of homework. In the study, the case study design based on the qualitative research method, was utilized. The participants comprised 32 teachers, 36 fourth-grade students and 28 parents from different primary schools in Erzurum, in the east of Turkey. The data were collected via semi-structured interview forms, and were processed using the content analysis method. The findings of the study released that although all participant students, most teachers and parents said homework increased the academic success, a closer look in to their responses to different interview questions illustrated that all of the participant groups also had some negative opinions about the homework in primary schools. The students reported that the most homework covered problem-solving tasks, and the least was practice with musical i...

Social Psychology of Education

Jim LIndsay

Four explanations were tested for why the correlation between homework and achievement is weaker in elementary school than secondary school. Eighty-two teachers answered questions about their homework practices, and their responses were related to their students&#x27; achievement test scores. No evidence was found to suggest the weaker correlation in elementary school associated with a restricted variation in amounts of homework in early grades nor that teachers assigned more homework to poor-performing classes. Evidence did suggest that teachers in early grades assigned homework more often to develop young students&#x27; management of time, a skill rarely measured on standardized achievement tests. Also consistent with this hypothesis, elementary school teachers were more likely to use homework to review class material and to go over homework in class, while secondary school teachers more often used homework to prepare for and enrich class lessons. Finally, there was weak evidence ...

International Journal of Enhanced Research in Educational Development

Sharath Kumar C R

Continuous comprehensive evaluation has become a boon to students in many ways as it has provided them with various opportunities for overall development of students. The student's attitude towards homework yield substantial incremental validity in predicting academic performance in terms of continuous comprehensive evaluation. Homework is the work assigned for students by the concerned teacher where the child study the concept well and then able to complete the assigned work. This helps the students to understand the concept better which in turn develops confidence and hence motivated towards a subject. It increases the level of knowledge and improves overall abilities of students. The present study was conducted to know the student's attitude towards homework among secondary level. Samples of 800 students were selected from Mysuru district including SBSE and ICSE board students of 400 each. After all the data analysis and interpretation it is found that 37.5% of the students show average favorable attitude towards homework whereas 15% of the students are having highly favorable and 0% of the students is found to have highly unfavorable attitude towards homework.

Tichaona Mapolisa

Abstract: The aim of this study was to assess how teachers in the primary schools of Bubi District were using homework to augment their classroom activities. The population comprised of all the 78 primary schools in the district with a teacher population of 994 teachers. Random sampling was employed to select a sample of 200 teachers and 20 heads of schools. The study employed the quantitative methodology and adopted the descriptive survey design. All the data were gathered by use of a questionnaire which had both open-ended and close-ended questions. The study revealed that primary schools in Bubi District were not assigning adequate homework activities to pupils as expected. Pupils also faced problems of resources to effectively do their homework activities. The study recommends that teachers should assign homework regularly so that pupils understand that it is as important as work they do in the classroom. The study also recommends that heads of schools should encourage to provide resources for use by their children when they are doing homework. Keywords: Homework, primary school, district, assessment and effectiveness.

Adem Turanlı

Atila Yıldırım

RELATED PAPERS

Ukrainian Antarctic Journal

Ivan Parnikoza

arun bhadran

Stem Spraak En Taalpathologie

Herman Depypere

Investigación Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Información

Adolfo Alonso

Cases Journal

Alejandro Martin-Gorgojo

Ingeniare. Revista chilena de ingeniería

Diana Torres Jaramillo

DÜMF Mühendislik Dergisi

Yunus Kayır

Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online

Clinical case reports

Essam Elgamal

Marine Geology

Tushar Mahmud

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Dr. Yoram Wolf

Zoomorphology

Torben Riehl

The Lancet Planetary Health

Sujeet Singh

Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

James R Rice

Revista signos

Parviz Maftoon

Revista de Estudios Sociales No.35

Juan Carlos Perez Arteaga

Ichraf OUECHTATI

Dalmas Oyugi

GigaScience

Joseph Cicero

Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology

camelia Bogdanici

yyjugf hfgerfd

Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology

Ittai gavrieli

Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences

Ozgur Balkilic

European Journal of Operational Research

MARIA ARACELI GARIN

Δελτίον της Ελληνικής Γεωλογικής Εταιρίας

Antonino Pezzino

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024