homework in elementary school research articles

Is Homework Good for Kids? Here’s What the Research Says

A s kids return to school, debate is heating up once again over how they should spend their time after they leave the classroom for the day.

The no-homework policy of a second-grade teacher in Texas went viral last week , earning praise from parents across the country who lament the heavy workload often assigned to young students. Brandy Young told parents she would not formally assign any homework this year, asking students instead to eat dinner with their families, play outside and go to bed early.

But the question of how much work children should be doing outside of school remains controversial, and plenty of parents take issue with no-homework policies, worried their kids are losing a potential academic advantage. Here’s what you need to know:

For decades, the homework standard has been a “10-minute rule,” which recommends a daily maximum of 10 minutes of homework per grade level. Second graders, for example, should do about 20 minutes of homework each night. High school seniors should complete about two hours of homework each night. The National PTA and the National Education Association both support that guideline.

But some schools have begun to give their youngest students a break. A Massachusetts elementary school has announced a no-homework pilot program for the coming school year, lengthening the school day by two hours to provide more in-class instruction. “We really want kids to go home at 4 o’clock, tired. We want their brain to be tired,” Kelly Elementary School Principal Jackie Glasheen said in an interview with a local TV station . “We want them to enjoy their families. We want them to go to soccer practice or football practice, and we want them to go to bed. And that’s it.”

A New York City public elementary school implemented a similar policy last year, eliminating traditional homework assignments in favor of family time. The change was quickly met with outrage from some parents, though it earned support from other education leaders.

New solutions and approaches to homework differ by community, and these local debates are complicated by the fact that even education experts disagree about what’s best for kids.

The research

The most comprehensive research on homework to date comes from a 2006 meta-analysis by Duke University psychology professor Harris Cooper, who found evidence of a positive correlation between homework and student achievement, meaning students who did homework performed better in school. The correlation was stronger for older students—in seventh through 12th grade—than for those in younger grades, for whom there was a weak relationship between homework and performance.

Cooper’s analysis focused on how homework impacts academic achievement—test scores, for example. His report noted that homework is also thought to improve study habits, attitudes toward school, self-discipline, inquisitiveness and independent problem solving skills. On the other hand, some studies he examined showed that homework can cause physical and emotional fatigue, fuel negative attitudes about learning and limit leisure time for children. At the end of his analysis, Cooper recommended further study of such potential effects of homework.

Despite the weak correlation between homework and performance for young children, Cooper argues that a small amount of homework is useful for all students. Second-graders should not be doing two hours of homework each night, he said, but they also shouldn’t be doing no homework.

Not all education experts agree entirely with Cooper’s assessment.

Cathy Vatterott, an education professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, supports the “10-minute rule” as a maximum, but she thinks there is not sufficient proof that homework is helpful for students in elementary school.

“Correlation is not causation,” she said. “Does homework cause achievement, or do high achievers do more homework?”

Vatterott, the author of Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs , thinks there should be more emphasis on improving the quality of homework tasks, and she supports efforts to eliminate homework for younger kids.

“I have no concerns about students not starting homework until fourth grade or fifth grade,” she said, noting that while the debate over homework will undoubtedly continue, she has noticed a trend toward limiting, if not eliminating, homework in elementary school.

The issue has been debated for decades. A TIME cover in 1999 read: “Too much homework! How it’s hurting our kids, and what parents should do about it.” The accompanying story noted that the launch of Sputnik in 1957 led to a push for better math and science education in the U.S. The ensuing pressure to be competitive on a global scale, plus the increasingly demanding college admissions process, fueled the practice of assigning homework.

“The complaints are cyclical, and we’re in the part of the cycle now where the concern is for too much,” Cooper said. “You can go back to the 1970s, when you’ll find there were concerns that there was too little, when we were concerned about our global competitiveness.”

Cooper acknowledged that some students really are bringing home too much homework, and their parents are right to be concerned.

“A good way to think about homework is the way you think about medications or dietary supplements,” he said. “If you take too little, they’ll have no effect. If you take too much, they can kill you. If you take the right amount, you’ll get better.”

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• Coco Gauff Is Playing for Herself Now
• Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
• The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
• Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Katie Reilly at [email protected]

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

Should We Get Rid of Homework?

Some educators are pushing to get rid of homework. Would that be a good thing?

By Jeremy Engle and Michael Gonchar

Do you like doing homework? Do you think it has benefited you educationally?

Has homework ever helped you practice a difficult skill — in math, for example — until you mastered it? Has it helped you learn new concepts in history or science? Has it helped to teach you life skills, such as independence and responsibility? Or, have you had a more negative experience with homework? Does it stress you out, numb your brain from busywork or actually make you fall behind in your classes?

Should we get rid of homework?

In “ The Movement to End Homework Is Wrong, ” published in July, the Times Opinion writer Jay Caspian Kang argues that homework may be imperfect, but it still serves an important purpose in school. The essay begins:

Do students really need to do their homework? As a parent and a former teacher, I have been pondering this question for quite a long time. The teacher side of me can acknowledge that there were assignments I gave out to my students that probably had little to no academic value. But I also imagine that some of my students never would have done their basic reading if they hadn’t been trained to complete expected assignments, which would have made the task of teaching an English class nearly impossible. As a parent, I would rather my daughter not get stuck doing the sort of pointless homework I would occasionally assign, but I also think there’s a lot of value in saying, “Hey, a lot of work you’re going to end up doing in your life is pointless, so why not just get used to it?” I certainly am not the only person wondering about the value of homework. Recently, the sociologist Jessica McCrory Calarco and the mathematics education scholars Ilana Horn and Grace Chen published a paper, “ You Need to Be More Responsible: The Myth of Meritocracy and Teachers’ Accounts of Homework Inequalities .” They argued that while there’s some evidence that homework might help students learn, it also exacerbates inequalities and reinforces what they call the “meritocratic” narrative that says kids who do well in school do so because of “individual competence, effort and responsibility.” The authors believe this meritocratic narrative is a myth and that homework — math homework in particular — further entrenches the myth in the minds of teachers and their students. Calarco, Horn and Chen write, “Research has highlighted inequalities in students’ homework production and linked those inequalities to differences in students’ home lives and in the support students’ families can provide.”

Mr. Kang argues:

But there’s a defense of homework that doesn’t really have much to do with class mobility, equality or any sense of reinforcing the notion of meritocracy. It’s one that became quite clear to me when I was a teacher: Kids need to learn how to practice things. Homework, in many cases, is the only ritualized thing they have to do every day. Even if we could perfectly equalize opportunity in school and empower all students not to be encumbered by the weight of their socioeconomic status or ethnicity, I’m not sure what good it would do if the kids didn’t know how to do something relentlessly, over and over again, until they perfected it. Most teachers know that type of progress is very difficult to achieve inside the classroom, regardless of a student’s background, which is why, I imagine, Calarco, Horn and Chen found that most teachers weren’t thinking in a structural inequalities frame. Holistic ideas of education, in which learning is emphasized and students can explore concepts and ideas, are largely for the types of kids who don’t need to worry about class mobility. A defense of rote practice through homework might seem revanchist at this moment, but if we truly believe that schools should teach children lessons that fall outside the meritocracy, I can’t think of one that matters more than the simple satisfaction of mastering something that you were once bad at. That takes homework and the acknowledgment that sometimes a student can get a question wrong and, with proper instruction, eventually get it right.

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Should we get rid of homework? Why, or why not?

Is homework an outdated, ineffective or counterproductive tool for learning? Do you agree with the authors of the paper that homework is harmful and worsens inequalities that exist between students’ home circumstances?

Or do you agree with Mr. Kang that homework still has real educational value?

When you get home after school, how much homework will you do? Do you think the amount is appropriate, too much or too little? Is homework, including the projects and writing assignments you do at home, an important part of your learning experience? Or, in your opinion, is it not a good use of time? Explain.

In these letters to the editor , one reader makes a distinction between elementary school and high school:

Homework’s value is unclear for younger students. But by high school and college, homework is absolutely essential for any student who wishes to excel. There simply isn’t time to digest Dostoyevsky if you only ever read him in class.

What do you think? How much does grade level matter when discussing the value of homework?

Is there a way to make homework more effective?

If you were a teacher, would you assign homework? What kind of assignments would you give and why?

Want more writing prompts? You can find all of our questions in our Student Opinion column . Teachers, check out this guide to learn how you can incorporate them into your classroom.

Students 13 and older in the United States and Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Jeremy Engle joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2018 after spending more than 20 years as a classroom humanities and documentary-making teacher, professional developer and curriculum designer working with students and teachers across the country. More about Jeremy Engle

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.

Should Kids Get Homework?

Homework gives elementary students a way to practice concepts, but too much can be harmful, experts say.

Getty Images

Effective homework reinforces math, reading, writing or spelling skills, but in a way that's meaningful.

How much homework students should get has long been a source of debate among parents and educators. In recent years, some districts have even implemented no-homework policies, as students juggle sports, music and other activities after school.

Parents of elementary school students, in particular, have argued that after-school hours should be spent with family or playing outside rather than completing assignments. And there is little research to show that homework improves academic achievement for elementary students.

But some experts say there's value in homework, even for younger students. When done well, it can help students practice core concepts and develop study habits and time management skills. The key to effective homework, they say, is keeping assignments related to classroom learning, and tailoring the amount by age: Many experts suggest no homework for kindergartners, and little to none in first and second grade.

Value of Homework

Homework provides a chance to solidify what is being taught in the classroom that day, week or unit. Practice matters, says Janine Bempechat, clinical professor at Boston University 's Wheelock College of Education & Human Development.

"There really is no other domain of human ability where anybody would say you don't need to practice," she adds. "We have children practicing piano and we have children going to sports practice several days a week after school. You name the domain of ability and practice is in there."

Homework is also the place where schools and families most frequently intersect.

"The children are bringing things from the school into the home," says Paula S. Fass, professor emerita of history at the University of California—Berkeley and the author of "The End of American Childhood." "Before the pandemic, (homework) was the only real sense that parents had to what was going on in schools."

Harris Cooper, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University and author of "The Battle Over Homework," examined more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 and found that — when designed properly — homework can lead to greater student success. Too much, however, is harmful. And homework has a greater positive effect on students in secondary school (grades 7-12) than those in elementary.

"Every child should be doing homework, but the amount and type that they're doing should be appropriate for their developmental level," he says. "For teachers, it's a balancing act. Doing away with homework completely is not in the best interest of children and families. But overburdening families with homework is also not in the child's or a family's best interest."

Negative Homework Assignments

Not all homework for elementary students involves completing a worksheet. Assignments can be fun, says Cooper, like having students visit educational locations, keep statistics on their favorite sports teams, read for pleasure or even help their parents grocery shop. The point is to show students that activities done outside of school can relate to subjects learned in the classroom.

But assignments that are just busy work, that force students to learn new concepts at home, or that are overly time-consuming can be counterproductive, experts say.

Homework that's just busy work.

Effective homework reinforces math, reading, writing or spelling skills, but in a way that's meaningful, experts say. Assignments that look more like busy work – projects or worksheets that don't require teacher feedback and aren't related to topics learned in the classroom – can be frustrating for students and create burdens for families.

"The mental health piece has definitely played a role here over the last couple of years during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the last thing we want to do is frustrate students with busy work or homework that makes no sense," says Dave Steckler, principal of Red Trail Elementary School in Mandan, North Dakota.

Homework on material that kids haven't learned yet.

With the pressure to cover all topics on standardized tests and limited time during the school day, some teachers assign homework that has not yet been taught in the classroom.

Not only does this create stress, but it also causes equity challenges. Some parents speak languages other than English or work several jobs, and they aren't able to help teach their children new concepts.

" It just becomes agony for both parents and the kids to get through this worksheet, and the goal becomes getting to the bottom of (the) worksheet with answers filled in without any understanding of what any of it matters for," says professor Susan R. Goldman, co-director of the Learning Sciences Research Institute at the University of Illinois—Chicago .

Homework that's overly time-consuming.

The standard homework guideline recommended by the National Parent Teacher Association and the National Education Association is the "10-minute rule" – 10 minutes of nightly homework per grade level. A fourth grader, for instance, would receive a total of 40 minutes of homework per night.

But this does not always happen, especially since not every student learns the same. A 2015 study published in the American Journal of Family Therapy found that primary school children actually received three times the recommended amount of homework — and that family stress increased along with the homework load.

Young children can only remain attentive for short periods, so large amounts of homework, especially lengthy projects, can negatively affect students' views on school. Some individual long-term projects – like having to build a replica city, for example – typically become an assignment for parents rather than students, Fass says.

"It's one thing to assign a project like that in which several kids are working on it together," she adds. "In (that) case, the kids do normally work on it. It's another to send it home to the families, where it becomes a burden and doesn't really accomplish very much."

Private vs. Public Schools

Do private schools assign more homework than public schools? There's little research on the issue, but experts say private school parents may be more accepting of homework, seeing it as a sign of academic rigor.

Of course, not all private schools are the same – some focus on college preparation and traditional academics, while others stress alternative approaches to education.

"I think in the academically oriented private schools, there's more support for homework from parents," says Gerald K. LeTendre, chair of educational administration at Pennsylvania State University—University Park . "I don't know if there's any research to show there's more homework, but it's less of a contentious issue."

How to Address Homework Overload

First, assess if the workload takes as long as it appears. Sometimes children may start working on a homework assignment, wander away and come back later, Cooper says.

"Parents don't see it, but they know that their child has started doing their homework four hours ago and still not done it," he adds. "They don't see that there are those four hours where their child was doing lots of other things. So the homework assignment itself actually is not four hours long. It's the way the child is approaching it."

But if homework is becoming stressful or workload is excessive, experts suggest parents first approach the teacher, followed by a school administrator.

"Many times, we can solve a lot of issues by having conversations," Steckler says, including by "sitting down, talking about the amount of homework, and what's appropriate and not appropriate."

Study Tips for High School Students

Tags: K-12 education , students , elementary school , children

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

The Cult of Homework

America’s devotion to the practice stems in part from the fact that it’s what today’s parents and teachers grew up with themselves.

America has long had a fickle relationship with homework. A century or so ago, progressive reformers argued that it made kids unduly stressed , which later led in some cases to district-level bans on it for all grades under seventh. This anti-homework sentiment faded, though, amid mid-century fears that the U.S. was falling behind the Soviet Union (which led to more homework), only to resurface in the 1960s and ’70s, when a more open culture came to see homework as stifling play and creativity (which led to less). But this didn’t last either: In the ’80s, government researchers blamed America’s schools for its economic troubles and recommended ramping homework up once more.

The 21st century has so far been a homework-heavy era, with American teenagers now averaging about twice as much time spent on homework each day as their predecessors did in the 1990s . Even little kids are asked to bring school home with them. A 2015 study , for instance, found that kindergarteners, who researchers tend to agree shouldn’t have any take-home work, were spending about 25 minutes a night on it.

But not without pushback. As many children, not to mention their parents and teachers, are drained by their daily workload, some schools and districts are rethinking how homework should work—and some teachers are doing away with it entirely. They’re reviewing the research on homework (which, it should be noted, is contested) and concluding that it’s time to revisit the subject.

Read: My daughter’s homework is killing me

Hillsborough, California, an affluent suburb of San Francisco, is one district that has changed its ways. The district, which includes three elementary schools and a middle school, worked with teachers and convened panels of parents in order to come up with a homework policy that would allow students more unscheduled time to spend with their families or to play. In August 2017, it rolled out an updated policy, which emphasized that homework should be “meaningful” and banned due dates that fell on the day after a weekend or a break.

“The first year was a bit bumpy,” says Louann Carlomagno, the district’s superintendent. She says the adjustment was at times hard for the teachers, some of whom had been doing their job in a similar fashion for a quarter of a century. Parents’ expectations were also an issue. Carlomagno says they took some time to “realize that it was okay not to have an hour of homework for a second grader—that was new.”

Most of the way through year two, though, the policy appears to be working more smoothly. “The students do seem to be less stressed based on conversations I’ve had with parents,” Carlomagno says. It also helps that the students performed just as well on the state standardized test last year as they have in the past.

Earlier this year, the district of Somerville, Massachusetts, also rewrote its homework policy, reducing the amount of homework its elementary and middle schoolers may receive. In grades six through eight, for example, homework is capped at an hour a night and can only be assigned two to three nights a week.

Jack Schneider, an education professor at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell whose daughter attends school in Somerville, is generally pleased with the new policy. But, he says, it’s part of a bigger, worrisome pattern. “The origin for this was general parental dissatisfaction, which not surprisingly was coming from a particular demographic,” Schneider says. “Middle-class white parents tend to be more vocal about concerns about homework … They feel entitled enough to voice their opinions.”

Schneider is all for revisiting taken-for-granted practices like homework, but thinks districts need to take care to be inclusive in that process. “I hear approximately zero middle-class white parents talking about how homework done best in grades K through two actually strengthens the connection between home and school for young people and their families,” he says. Because many of these parents already feel connected to their school community, this benefit of homework can seem redundant. “They don’t need it,” Schneider says, “so they’re not advocating for it.”

That doesn’t mean, necessarily, that homework is more vital in low-income districts. In fact, there are different, but just as compelling, reasons it can be burdensome in these communities as well. Allison Wienhold, who teaches high-school Spanish in the small town of Dunkerton, Iowa, has phased out homework assignments over the past three years. Her thinking: Some of her students, she says, have little time for homework because they’re working 30 hours a week or responsible for looking after younger siblings.

As educators reduce or eliminate the homework they assign, it’s worth asking what amount and what kind of homework is best for students. It turns out that there’s some disagreement about this among researchers, who tend to fall in one of two camps.

In the first camp is Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. Cooper conducted a review of the existing research on homework in the mid-2000s , and found that, up to a point, the amount of homework students reported doing correlates with their performance on in-class tests. This correlation, the review found, was stronger for older students than for younger ones.

This conclusion is generally accepted among educators, in part because it’s compatible with “the 10-minute rule,” a rule of thumb popular among teachers suggesting that the proper amount of homework is approximately 10 minutes per night, per grade level—that is, 10 minutes a night for first graders, 20 minutes a night for second graders, and so on, up to two hours a night for high schoolers.

In Cooper’s eyes, homework isn’t overly burdensome for the typical American kid. He points to a 2014 Brookings Institution report that found “little evidence that the homework load has increased for the average student”; onerous amounts of homework, it determined, are indeed out there, but relatively rare. Moreover, the report noted that most parents think their children get the right amount of homework, and that parents who are worried about under-assigning outnumber those who are worried about over-assigning. Cooper says that those latter worries tend to come from a small number of communities with “concerns about being competitive for the most selective colleges and universities.”

According to Alfie Kohn, squarely in camp two, most of the conclusions listed in the previous three paragraphs are questionable. Kohn, the author of The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing , considers homework to be a “reliable extinguisher of curiosity,” and has several complaints with the evidence that Cooper and others cite in favor of it. Kohn notes, among other things, that Cooper’s 2006 meta-analysis doesn’t establish causation, and that its central correlation is based on children’s (potentially unreliable) self-reporting of how much time they spend doing homework. (Kohn’s prolific writing on the subject alleges numerous other methodological faults.)

In fact, other correlations make a compelling case that homework doesn’t help. Some countries whose students regularly outperform American kids on standardized tests, such as Japan and Denmark, send their kids home with less schoolwork , while students from some countries with higher homework loads than the U.S., such as Thailand and Greece, fare worse on tests. (Of course, international comparisons can be fraught because so many factors, in education systems and in societies at large, might shape students’ success.)

Kohn also takes issue with the way achievement is commonly assessed. “If all you want is to cram kids’ heads with facts for tomorrow’s tests that they’re going to forget by next week, yeah, if you give them more time and make them do the cramming at night, that could raise the scores,” he says. “But if you’re interested in kids who know how to think or enjoy learning, then homework isn’t merely ineffective, but counterproductive.”

His concern is, in a way, a philosophical one. “The practice of homework assumes that only academic growth matters, to the point that having kids work on that most of the school day isn’t enough,” Kohn says. What about homework’s effect on quality time spent with family? On long-term information retention? On critical-thinking skills? On social development? On success later in life? On happiness? The research is quiet on these questions.

Another problem is that research tends to focus on homework’s quantity rather than its quality, because the former is much easier to measure than the latter. While experts generally agree that the substance of an assignment matters greatly (and that a lot of homework is uninspiring busywork), there isn’t a catchall rule for what’s best—the answer is often specific to a certain curriculum or even an individual student.

Given that homework’s benefits are so narrowly defined (and even then, contested), it’s a bit surprising that assigning so much of it is often a classroom default, and that more isn’t done to make the homework that is assigned more enriching. A number of things are preserving this state of affairs—things that have little to do with whether homework helps students learn.

Jack Schneider, the Massachusetts parent and professor, thinks it’s important to consider the generational inertia of the practice. “The vast majority of parents of public-school students themselves are graduates of the public education system,” he says. “Therefore, their views of what is legitimate have been shaped already by the system that they would ostensibly be critiquing.” In other words, many parents’ own history with homework might lead them to expect the same for their children, and anything less is often taken as an indicator that a school or a teacher isn’t rigorous enough. (This dovetails with—and complicates—the finding that most parents think their children have the right amount of homework.)

Barbara Stengel, an education professor at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College, brought up two developments in the educational system that might be keeping homework rote and unexciting. The first is the importance placed in the past few decades on standardized testing, which looms over many public-school classroom decisions and frequently discourages teachers from trying out more creative homework assignments. “They could do it, but they’re afraid to do it, because they’re getting pressure every day about test scores,” Stengel says.

Second, she notes that the profession of teaching, with its relatively low wages and lack of autonomy, struggles to attract and support some of the people who might reimagine homework, as well as other aspects of education. “Part of why we get less interesting homework is because some of the people who would really have pushed the limits of that are no longer in teaching,” she says.

“In general, we have no imagination when it comes to homework,” Stengel says. She wishes teachers had the time and resources to remake homework into something that actually engages students. “If we had kids reading—anything, the sports page, anything that they’re able to read—that’s the best single thing. If we had kids going to the zoo, if we had kids going to parks after school, if we had them doing all of those things, their test scores would improve. But they’re not. They’re going home and doing homework that is not expanding what they think about.”

“Exploratory” is one word Mike Simpson used when describing the types of homework he’d like his students to undertake. Simpson is the head of the Stone Independent School, a tiny private high school in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, that opened in 2017. “We were lucky to start a school a year and a half ago,” Simpson says, “so it’s been easy to say we aren’t going to assign worksheets, we aren’t going assign regurgitative problem sets.” For instance, a half-dozen students recently built a 25-foot trebuchet on campus.

Simpson says he thinks it’s a shame that the things students have to do at home are often the least fulfilling parts of schooling: “When our students can’t make the connection between the work they’re doing at 11 o’clock at night on a Tuesday to the way they want their lives to be, I think we begin to lose the plot.”

When I talked with other teachers who did homework makeovers in their classrooms, I heard few regrets. Brandy Young, a second-grade teacher in Joshua, Texas, stopped assigning take-home packets of worksheets three years ago, and instead started asking her students to do 20 minutes of pleasure reading a night. She says she’s pleased with the results, but she’s noticed something funny. “Some kids,” she says, “really do like homework.” She’s started putting out a bucket of it for students to draw from voluntarily—whether because they want an additional challenge or something to pass the time at home.

Chris Bronke, a high-school English teacher in the Chicago suburb of Downers Grove, told me something similar. This school year, he eliminated homework for his class of freshmen, and now mostly lets students study on their own or in small groups during class time. It’s usually up to them what they work on each day, and Bronke has been impressed by how they’ve managed their time.

In fact, some of them willingly spend time on assignments at home, whether because they’re particularly engaged, because they prefer to do some deeper thinking outside school, or because they needed to spend time in class that day preparing for, say, a biology test the following period. “They’re making meaningful decisions about their time that I don’t think education really ever gives students the experience, nor the practice, of doing,” Bronke said.

The typical prescription offered by those overwhelmed with homework is to assign less of it—to subtract. But perhaps a more useful approach, for many classrooms, would be to create homework only when teachers and students believe it’s actually needed to further the learning that takes place in class—to start with nothing, and add as necessary.

Advertisement

Inattentive Behavior and Homework Performance in Elementary School: the Mediating Effects of Academic Enablers

• Published: 28 January 2021
• Volume 26 , pages 448–457, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Rylee Oram 1 &
• Maria Rogers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9152-2730 1  

725 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Early attention skills have been found to be a significant and consistent predictor of academic outcomes, grades, and achievement results (Rabiner et al., School Psychology Review, 45 (2), 250–267, 2016 ; Rhoades et al., Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26 (2), 182–191, 2011 ). A significant portion of students in elementary school experience attention difficulties, which can lead to difficulties attaining fundamental academic skills and enablers (DiPerna & Elliot, School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 293–297, 2002 ; Merrell & Tymms, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 43–56, 2001 ). The current study aimed to investigate the role of four academic enablers—motivation, study skills, interpersonal skills, and engagement—in the relationship between inattention and homework performance. Teachers completed questionnaires on inattention, academic enablers, and homework for 147 students in 1st through 4th grades. Using a multivariate path analytic approach, we tested the hypothesis that the academic enablers would have mediational, and potentially differential, effects on the relationship between inattention and two facets of homework performance—homework responsibility and homework competence. Our proposed model was supported by the data; results suggested that academic enablers play a significant role in the relationship between inattention and homework performance. These findings support a shift in focus to supporting students’ academic enabling behavior as a means of providing the necessary academic skills to mitigate the effects of attention difficulties on academic outcomes.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Intelligence as a Malleable Construct

Contribution of sustained attention abilities to real-world academic skills in children

Attention and Academic Performance: From Early Childhood to Adolescence

Abikoff, H. B., Jensen, P. S., Arnold, L. E., Hoza, B., Hechtman, L., Pollack, S., et al. (2002). Observed classroom behavior of children with ADHD: relationship to gender and comorbidity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30 (4), 349–359.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Arnett, A. B., Pennington, B. F., Friend, A., Willcutt, E. G., Byrne, B., Samuelsson, S., & Olson, R. K. (2013). The SWAN captures variance at the negative and positive ends of the ADHD symptom dimension. Journal of Attention Disorders, 17 (2), 152–162.

Balázs, J., & Keresztény, Á. (2014). Subthreshold attention deficit hyperactivity in children and adolescents: a systematic review. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23 (6), 393–408.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barkley, R. A. (2006). The relevance of the still lectures to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a commentary. Journal of Attention Disorders, 10 (2), 137–140.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–1182.

Bas, G., Senturk, C., & Cigerci, F. M. (2017). Homework and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research. Issues in Educational Research, 27 (1), 31–50.

Google Scholar  

Bear, G. G., & Minke, K. M. (2006). Children’s needs III: development, prevention, and intervention . National Association of School Psychologists.

Cantwell, D. P., & Baker, L. (1991). Association between attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24 (2), 88–95.

Coghill, D., Soutullo, C., d’Aubuisson, C., Preuss, U., Lindback, T., Silverberg, M., & Buitelaar, J. (2008). Impact of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder on the patient and family: results from a European survey. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2 (1), 31.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 47 (3), 85–91.

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

Daley, D., & Birchwood, J. (2010). ADHD and academic performance: why does ADHD impact on academic performance and what can be done to support ADHD children in the classroom? Child: Care, Health and Development, 36 (4), 455–464.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19 (2), 109–134.

Demaray, M. K., & Jenkins, L. N. (2011). Relations among academic enablers and academic achievement in children with and without high levels of parent-rated symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. Psychology in the Schools, 48 (6), 573–586.

Devine, T. G. (1987). Teaching study skills. A guide for teachers . Allyn and Bacon. 

DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1999). Development and validation of the academic competence evaluation scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17 (3), 207–225.

DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2000). Academic competence evaluation scales . San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.

DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student achievement: an introduction to the mini-series. School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 293–297.

DiPerna, J. C., Volpe, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). A model of academic enablers and elementary reading/language arts achievement. School Psychology Review, 31 , 298–312.

DiPerna, J. C., Volpe, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2005). A model of academic enablers and mathematics achievement in the elementary grades. Journal of School Psychology, 43 (5), 379–392.

Epstein, M. H., Polloway, E. A., Foley, R. M., & Patton, J. R. (1993). Homework: a comparison of teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of the problems experienced by students identified as having behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, or Mo disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14 (5), 40–50.

Evans, S. W., Schultz, B. K., White, L. C., Brady, C., Sibley, M. H., & Van Eck, K. (2009). A school-based organization intervention for young adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Mental Health, 1 (2), 78–88.

Fassinger, R. E. (1987). Use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (4), 425–436.

Gaub, M., & Carlson, C. L. (1997). Gender differences in ADHD: a meta-analysis and critical review. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36 (8), 1036–1045.

Gray, S. A., Dueck, K., Rogers, M., & Tannock, R. (2017). Qualitative review synthesis: the relationship between inattention and academic achievement. Educational Research, 59 (1), 17–35.

Green, A. L., & Rabiner, D. L. (2012). What do we really know about ADHD in college students? Neurotherapeutics, 9 (3), 559–568.

Habboushe, D. F., Daniel-Crotty, S., Karustis, J. L., Leff, S. S., Costigan, T. E., Goldstein, S. G., Eiraldi, R., & Power, T. J. (2001). A family-school homework intervention program for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 8 (2), 123–136.

Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2), 347–356.

Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51 (3), 335–337.

Hetherington, R. (2005). Homework: some is good, more is not better. About Kids Health .

Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (2000). Homework: Motivation and learning preference . Greenwood Publishing Group. 

Hong, S. B., Dwyer, D., Kim, J. W., Park, E. J., Shin, M. S., Kim, B. N., et al. (2014). Subthreshold attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is associated with functional impairments across domains: a comprehensive analysis in a large-scale community study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23 (8), 627–636.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jenkins, L. N., & Demaray, M. K. (2015). An investigation of relations among academic enablers and reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 52 (4), 379–389.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74 (7), 262–273.

Konrad, M., Fowler, C. H., Walker, A. R., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. (2007). Effects of self-determination interventions on the academic skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30 (2), 89–113.

Langberg, J. M., Dvorsky, M. R., Molitor, S. J., Bourchtein, E., Eddy, L. D., Smith, Z., Schultz, B. K., & Evans, S. W. (2016). Longitudinal evaluation of the importance of homework assignment completion for the academic performance of middle school students with ADHD. Journal of School Psychology, 55 , 27–38.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 313–327.

Loe, I. M., & Feldman, H. M. (2007). Academic and educational outcomes of children with ADHD. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32 (6), 643–654.

Marcus, D. K., & Barry, T. D. (2011). Does attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder have a dimensional latent structure? A taxometric analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120 (2), 427–442.

Malecki, C. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). Children’s social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: a longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17 (1), 1–23.

Marshall, R. M., Hynd, G. W., Handwerk, M. J., & Hall, J. (1997). Academic underachievement in ADHD subtypes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30 (6), 635–642.

Mautone, J. A., Marshall, S. A., Sharman, J., Eiraldi, R. B., Jawad, A. F., & Power, T. J. (2012). Development of a family-school intervention for young children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. School Psychology Review, 41 (4), 447–466.

Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (1), 121–131.

Merrell, C., & Tymms, P. B. (2001). Inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness: their impact on academic achievement and progress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 43–56.

Meyer, K., & Kelley, M. L. (2007). Improving homework in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: self vs. parent monitoring of homework behavior and study skills. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 29 (4), 25–42.

Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., Skibbe, L. E., & Foster, T. D. (2014). Social skills and problem behaviors as mediators of the relationship between behavioral self-regulation and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29 (3), 298–309.

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. School Field, 7 (2), 133–144.

O’Neill, S., Schneiderman, R. L., Rajendran, K., Marks, D. J., & Halperin, J. M. (2014). Reliable ratings or reading tea leaves: can parent, teacher, and clinician behavioral ratings of preschoolers predict ADHD at age six? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42 (4), 623–634.

Pendergast, L. L., Youngstrom, E. A., Merkitch, K. G., Moore, K. A., Black, C. L., Abramson, L. Y., & Alloy, L. B. (2014). Differentiating bipolar disorder from unipolar depression and ADHD: The utility of the General Behavior Inventory. Psychological assessment, 26 (1), 195.

Power, T. J., Karustis, J. L., & Habboushe, D. F. (2001). Homework success for children with ADHD: a family-school intervention program . Guilford Press.

Power, T. J., Werba, B. E., Watkins, M. W., Angelucci, J. G., & Eiraldi, R. B. (2006). Patterns of parent-reported homework problems among ADHD-referred and non-referred children. School Psychology Quarterly, 21 (1), 13–33.

Power, T. J., Dombrowski, S. C., Watkins, M. W., Mautone, J. A., & Eagle, J. W. (2007). Assessing children’s homework performance: Development of multi-dimensional, multi-informant rating scales. Journal of School Psychology, 45 (3), 333–348.

Power, T. J., Watkins, M. W., Mautone, J. A., Walcott, C. M., Coutts, M. J., & Sheridan, S. M. (2015). Examining the validity of the Homework Performance Questionnaire: multi-informant assessment in elementary and middle school. School Psychology Quarterly, 30 (2), 260–275.

Rabiner, D. L., Godwin, J., & Dodge, K. A. (2016). Predicting academic achievement and attainment: the contribution of early academic skills, attention difficulties, and social competence. School Psychology Review, 45 (2), 250–267.

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabilities: a case for the inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (5), 276–292.

Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1992). A process model of mathematics achievement and attitude. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23 (4), 306–328.

Rhoades, B. L., Warren, H. K., Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2011). Examining the link between preschool social–emotional competence and first grade academic achievement: the role of attention skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26 (2), 182–191.

Rogers, M., & Tannock, R. (2013). Are classrooms meeting the basic psychological needs of children with ADHD symptoms? A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Attention Disorders, 20 (10), 1–7.

Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Uysal, M. (2011). Survey research: sampling and questionnaire design. Research methods for leisure, recreation and tourism, 2, 94–113.

Swanson, J., Schuck, S., Mann, M., Carlson, C., Hartman, C., Sergeant, J., ... & Beck, R. (2001). Over-identification of extreme behavior in the evaluation and diagnosis of ADHD/HKD. Accessible online at http://www.ADHD.net . Accessed February 20.

Swanson, J. M., Schuck, S., Porter, M. M., Carlson, C., Hartman, C. A., Sergeant, J. A., & Wigal, T. (2012). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: history of the SNAP and the SWAN rating scales. The International journal of educational and psychological assessment, 10 (1), 51–70.

PubMed   PubMed Central   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 elementary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 463.

Volpe, R. J., DuPaul, G. J., DiPerna, J. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (2006). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and scholastic achievement: a model of mediation via academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 35 (1), 47–61.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63 (3), 249–294.

Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences on students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (2), 155–175.

Willcutt, E. G., & Pennington, B. F. (2000). Psychiatric comorbidity in children and adolescents with reading disability. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41 (8), 1039–1048.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean Jacques Lussier, VNR, Ottawa, ON, 4030, Canada

Rylee Oram & Maria Rogers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Rogers .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

All protocols in this study were approved by the university’s ethical review board, and participants provided written informed consent. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Oram, R., Rogers, M. Inattentive Behavior and Homework Performance in Elementary School: the Mediating Effects of Academic Enablers. Contemp School Psychol 26 , 448–457 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-021-00353-w

Download citation

Accepted : 07 January 2021

Published : 28 January 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-021-00353-w

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Inattention
• Study skills
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Reciprocal relationships between parental and scholastic homework assistance and students’ academic functioning at elementary school.

• IPN – Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Kiel, Germany

Homework assistance is provided both by parents and by institutions, for example, full-day schools. Previous research found evidence that the quality of homework assistance – measured by three dimensions derived from the self-determination theory, namely, responsiveness, structure, and control – is reciprocally related with students’ academic functioning (i.e., achievement and homework behavior). However, findings on parental homework assistance have been consistent only for the secondary level, whereas elementary school students have been studied less and previous results obtained for this population are inconclusive. Moreover, research on homework assistance that is given at school is scarce. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate whether reciprocal associations between the quality of homework assistance and students’ academic functioning in elementary school can be found (1) for parental homework assistance and (2) for scholastic homework assistance. We calculated cross-lagged panel models based on longitudinal data from 335 German fourth graders collected in autumn 2019 (September and October) and winter 2020 (February and March). The analyses for scholastic homework assistance were based on a subsample of 112 students. Whereas responsiveness and structure did not predict students’ outcomes in the way we expected, control had unfavorable relationships in both homework settings. Moreover, parental control was reciprocally related with students’ mean grades in three subjects. The positive forms of homework assistance (responsiveness and structure) were predicted by different indicators of academic functioning in the two homework settings.

1. Introduction

Parents can be involved in their children’s school career in various ways, for example, in school-to-home communication, involvement at school, and involvement in learning activities at home ( Epstein, 1986 ). Although there has been discussion about the justification of homework due to the high costs for children, parents, and teachers (e.g., time-related costs or arguments within the family; Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Dumont et al., 2012 ; Núñez et al., 2015 ), homework is an integral part of most students’ daily life ( Cooper et al., 2006 ). Moreover, previous research has found largely positive effects of the completion of homework tasks on students’ academic achievement ( Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ). Thus, parental homework assistance can be considered to be a form of parental involvement that is both very common and important for children’s educational careers ( Patall et al., 2008 ). At the same time, homework assistance is now often taken over or supported by institutions, for example, full-day schools. The importance of scholastic homework assistance in Germany has grown due to the demand for the compatibility of family and work life and also the demand to provide better learning conditions for all students in the context of social inequalities in education ( Nordt, 2020 ; Sauerwein and Rother, 2022 ). Moreover, scholastic homework assistance has the potential to relieve families because parental homework assistance often leads to conflicts between parents and children ( Dumont et al., 2012 ).

Prior quantitative research on the relationship of homework assistance with students’ outcomes focused almost exclusively on parental homework assistance, and literature on scholastic homework assistance is scarce. Regarding parental homework assistance, previous studies found that it can be both beneficial for and detrimental to students’ academic development ( Patall et al., 2008 ; Wilder, 2014 ; Xu et al., 2018 ). This suggests that parental homework assistance is not per se a positive resource but that its effects depend on specific circumstances. Along these lines, studies that focused on the quality of parental homework assistance instead of, or in addition to, the quantity showed that the quality is more relevant for students’ academic functioning (i.e., achievement and homework behavior; Dumont et al., 2014 ) than the quantity. These studies described high-quality homework assistance as being characterized by responsiveness, structure, emotional support, and autonomy support, whereas controlling and intrusive parental behavior represents low-quality assistance ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). Prior research provided evidence for bidirectional links, with students’ academic functioning being both the outcome and the antecedent of parental homework assistance (e.g., Niggli et al., 2007 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2017 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). This picture has been consistently shown in studies at the secondary level, with multiple studies reporting relationships between the quality of parental homework assistance, students’ academic achievement ( Niggli et al., 2007 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Núñez et al., 2015 ), and students’ homework behavior ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). However, at the elementary level, the pattern of results is less clear because less research has been conducted and the results varied across studies, across quality indicators of parental homework assistance, and across indicators of students’ academic functioning (e.g., Silinskas et al., 2013 ; Núñez et al., 2015 ; Cunha et al., 2018 ).

Due to the inconsistency of the results of previous research at the elementary level, in the present study, we examined whether similar bidirectional links between homework assistance and students’ academic functioning that have been found in secondary school can also be found for a sample of elementary school children in Germany. On the basis of the empirical evidence outlined above, we focused on the quality of parental homework assistance and included quality dimensions that have been found to be relevant in secondary school samples, namely, responsiveness, structure, and control ( Dumont et al., 2014 ). In addition, with research on scholastic homework assistance being scarce, we examined these links not only for parental but also for scholastic homework assistance.

1.1. The quality of parental homework assistance

Research on the quality of homework assistance ( Nordt, 2013 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ) often draws on the self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). The SDT concerns the role that contextual conditions play in motivational and personality development, which makes it a valuable theory to investigate the role of parental and scholastic homework assistance in students’ academic functioning. According to the SDT, students’ intrinsic motivation, personal growth, and well-being are promoted in learning environments that allow the satisfaction of three innate psychological needs, namely, competence, social relatedness, and autonomy ( Deci et al., 1991 ; Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). On the basis of the SDT, Dumont et al. (2014) proposed three quality dimensions of parental homework assistance: responsiveness , structure , and control . To measure the quality of parental homework assistance, student reports are commonly used because they offer several benefits (for an overview of the benefits, see Dumont et al., 2014 ). For example, it has been argued that the child’s perception of the parental involvement forms the way in which the child responds to it ( Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005 ).

Responsiveness refers to being approachable and supportive during the homework process. For instance, it is characterized by helping the child when they express the need for help, listening to the child’s thoughts, and supporting them to overcome obstacles during homework preparation. By showing interest and supportive involvement in the homework of their child, parents can support students’ need for social relatedness ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). Moreover, students’ autonomy is supported because the assistance is only provided at the request of the child. Previous research at the secondary level found that homework assistance that was perceived as responsive and supportive was positively related with students’ achievement, homework time management, homework effort, and expectancy to be able to master their homework; it was negatively related with homework procrastination ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Núñez et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ).

Structure during homework assistance refers to setting clear rules and guidelines for homework preparation, for example, by setting the rule that a student has to finish the homework first before meeting friends ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). Providing a structured learning environment allows students to increase both the time they spend on learning and their learning effectiveness ( Carroll, 1963 ). Therefore, it has the potential to positively affect students’ achievement and enhance their competency experience. In previous studies at the secondary level, parental homework assistance that was characterized by high structure was positively associated with students’ effort, but no associations with achievement were found ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ).

The third quality dimension, namely, control , is characterized by parents interfering without being asked for help or by parents threatening their children with punishment if they do not do their homework properly. It is theoretically assumed to negatively impact students’ academic functioning because it undermines their sense of competence and autonomy, by suggesting to the child that they are not able to solve the tasks independently, and their social relatedness, by creating a situation in which the child feels uncomfortable. Control is distinct from structure because it represents decidedly negative aspects of parental behavior, whereas structure refers to positive aspects of parental controlling behavior ( Grolnick and Pomerantz, 2009 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). In contrast to responsive and structuring homework assistance, controlling and intrusive behavior during the homework process showed unfavorable relationships with students’ academic functioning at the secondary level, for example, with lower academic achievement, more homework procrastination, less homework persistence, as well as lower academic self-concept, and lower expectancy to be able to master their homework ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Dumont et al., 2012 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ).

To sum up, on the basis of the SDT, it can be theoretically argued that parental responsiveness and structure have the potential to positively influence students’ academic functioning by supporting their psychological needs and, thus, promoting their intrinsic motivation. High intrinsic motivation can be assumed to be favorable for (a) students’ academic achievement because it promotes high-quality learning ( Ryan and Deci, 2020 ) and for (b) students’ homework behavior because it is more likely that students make great effort and procrastinate less if they are intrinsically motivated. In contrast, control is assumed to be detrimental to students’ academic functioning because it undermines students’ psychological needs and, thus, decreases their intrinsic motivation. Therefore, in the present study, we used responsiveness, structure, and control to measure the quality of parental homework assistance and we expected to find favorable relationships for responsiveness and structure and unfavorable relationships for control.

1.2. Reciprocal relationships between the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning

Researchers have proposed that parents are likely to adapt their involvement to students’ competencies and their level of motivation and behavior ( Grolnick and Slowiaczek, 1994 ; Grolnick and Apostoleris, 2002 ). Grolnick (2003) discussed different types of pressure related to parental involvement that can evoke controlling behavior in parents and, thus, can contribute to low-quality parental involvement. Among other sources, this pressure can come from contextual factors such as economic stress (referred to as pressure from above ) or from a child’s low academic functioning (referred to as pressure from below ; Grolnick, 2003 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Grolnick and Pomerantz, 2022 ). For example, parents may be alarmed about their child’s low academic achievement and, as a reaction to that, feel the need to exercise more control regarding their child’s homework (behavior). Along these lines, it has been argued that the relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic functioning is reciprocal ( Grolnick and Slowiaczek, 1994 ; Bronstein et al., 2005 ), with students’ academic functioning being both the outcome and the antecedent of parental involvement.

Indeed, previous research at the secondary level has provided evidence for reciprocal links between the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning: as described above, several studies found that the quality of parental homework assistance predicted children’s academic functioning (e.g., Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). Studies that looked at the effects of students’ academic functioning on the quality of parental homework assistance or at reciprocal relationships found that low levels of academic functioning (i.e., low achievement, unfavorable homework behavior, low parents’ perceptions of their child’s efficacy) predicted a lower quality of homework assistance (i.e., more control and interference, lower cognitive engagement and autonomy support; Niggli et al., 2007 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2017 ; Xu et al., 2018 ). Whereas Grolnick’s (2003) theoretical assumptions of pressure from below relate to controlling behavior only, Dumont et al. (2014) found effects of students’ academic functioning on all three dimensions of parental homework assistance (i.e., low academic functioning was related to lower responsiveness and structure and higher control). In this context, it is noteworthy that Dumont et al. (2014) found that students’ homework behavior was linked to the positive forms of homework assistance (responsiveness and structure), whereas achievement was linked to parental control, pointing to the possibility that the individual quality dimensions might be linked differentially to different student outcomes.

In sum, both theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence point to bidirectional relationships between parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning in secondary school. Because elementary school students have been studied less and previous results obtained for this population have been inconclusive, in the present study, we explicitly examined these reciprocal links in a sample of elementary school students.

1.3. Homework assistance for elementary school children

Extensive cross-sectional and longitudinal research has studied the relationship between parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning in secondary school (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Dumont et al., 2012 , 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Xu et al., 2018 ; Feng et al., 2019 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). However, as Nordt (2013) pointed out, findings on older students cannot simply be transferred to younger students. The reasons for this are that both students’ needs and their educational environment change over the course of different grade levels and with transitions to different school types. Both Eccles et al. (1993) and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) highlighted the importance of the compatibility between students’ developmental stage and their educational environment (i.e., its characteristics and demands) for their educational outcomes. They proposed that students benefit most if their educational environment matches their developmental needs and provides opportunities for growth. Thus, although students’ needs as proposed by the SDT and the quality dimensions of homework assistance derived from it are generally valid regardless of the developmental stage, it is still possible that there are age- and grade-level differences in the relative importance of the dimensions and in how easily students’ needs can be satisfied. For example, it might be easier for parents to meet younger students’ needs because younger children usually have more positive attitudes towards both schoolwork, such as homework, and parental attention, such as help, praise, or interest ( Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1995 ). Moreover, the move from childhood to adolescence and the transition to secondary school increase opportunities for students to experience autonomy outside their home (e.g., by spending more time with their peers), which leads students to be more independent and to gain more autonomy from their parents ( Eccles et al., 1993 ; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1995 ). In contrast to secondary school students, younger students might respond less negatively to parental control during homework assistance – as a type of behavior that undermines autonomy – because their need for autonomy is still less pronounced.

Regarding the quality dimensions that have been found to be relevant in secondary school samples ( Dumont et al., 2014 ), prior studies in elementary school samples only found weak evidence for a link between parental responsiveness and students’ academic functioning ( Núñez et al., 2015 ; Silinskas and Kikas, 2019 ). Whereas parental support (which is comparable with responsiveness) did not predict students’ achievement in any of the studies, Silinskas and Kikas (2019) found a positive link with students’ homework behavior (i.e., increased task persistence). Regarding structure at elementary school, to the best of our knowledge, only Cunha et al. (2018) included this dimension of parental homework assistance. They reported a negative correlation of parental environment-time management with students’ achievement. Because of the cross-sectional design of the study, the direction of the link is unclear; the negative association might also mirror parents’ increasing structure when their children are struggling with their academic achievement. However, bidirectional links between students’ academic functioning and the two positive forms of parental homework assistance (i.e., responsiveness and structure) have not yet been studied in elementary school. For parental control in elementary school, prior studies also only found weak evidence for links with students’ academic functioning. Only Núñez et al. (2015) reported a significant link with students’ achievement, whereas other studies did not report significant associations ( Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Wu et al., 2022 ). Studies that looked into bidirectional effects provided first evidence that students’ academic functioning (i.e., parents’ perceptions of their child’s efficacy, students’ self-concept, students’ reading and math skills) might predict controlling and monitoring parental behavior in elementary school ( Silinskas et al., 2013 ; Gonida and Cortina, 2014 ; Silinskas and Kikas, 2019 ). Taken together, with the exception of the associations between students’ prior academic functioning and subsequent controlling parental behavior, findings regarding possible reciprocal associations between the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning in elementary school are inconclusive.

To sum up, although students’ needs as proposed by the SDT and the quality dimensions of parental homework assistance are generally valid regardless of students’ developmental stage, it is still possible that there are age-related differences in how easily students’ needs can be satisfied and in the relative importance of the quality dimensions. Because prior research in elementary school has been largely inconclusive, we examined whether there are reciprocal relationships between the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning at the elementary school level that are similar to those that have been found at the secondary school level.

1.4. Homework assistance at school

In the past decades, homework assistance has partly shifted from the home to institutional environments. Following Sauerwein and Rother (2022) , the increasing prevalence of institutional homework assistance has two major reasons. First, institutional homework assistance takes over part of the care work while parents are working in their jobs and thereby contributes to the compatibility of family and work life. Second, institutional homework assistance has the potential to decrease social inequalities by providing assistance to students who do not receive (high-quality) homework assistance at home ( Nordt, 2020 ). In the context of the present study – elementary school students in Germany – homework assistance outside the students’ home is often provided as part of full-day school programs. 1 In fact, 89% of all elementary full-day schools offer this type of support ( StEG-Konsortium, 2019 ). Besides full-day schools, homework assistance is also provided by after-school care programs (e.g., Horte or Betreute Grundschulen ), which take place in different settings and have different providers. As the settings are quite similar in all forms of assistance, we subsume them under the term “homework assistance at school” in the present study. Traditionally, German elementary schools were organized as half-day schools, with children spending their afternoon and, thus, their homework time at home. Although full-day programs have been extended in Germany, still only about half of all elementary school students participate in a full-day school program (e.g., in 2019 about 47%; the Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs in the Federal Republic of Germany, 2021 ). Homework assistance at school is often organized on a voluntary basis; it takes place in a group setting in the afternoon after regular classes are finished. It is usually provided by pedagogical staff and less often by teachers or university students ( Brisson and Theis, 2020 ; Sauerwein and Rother, 2022 ). Nordt (2013) described the infrastructure at school, for instance, quiet rooms to work in and the provision of materials, as an advantage of homework assistance at school.

Because the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) proposes universal psychological needs, it can be used across contexts to assess the quality of homework assistance. Therefore, the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) also offers a useful theoretical framework for the assessment of scholastic homework assistance, which is similar to parental homework assistance. Moreover, qualitative empirical research has described quality dimensions that are related with the dimensions derived from the SDT ( Huang and Cho, 2009 ; Nordt, 2013 ; Gordon et al., 2020 ). With regard to the quality dimension of responsiveness , descriptions of high-functioning homework assistance at school included comparable behavior such as listening to the children’s thoughts during homework preparation, creating positive and open environments, offering emotional and social support, and being responsive and empathetic ( Huang and Cho, 2009 ; Nordt, 2013 ; Gordon et al., 2020 ). Regarding structure , prior studies reported that some homework assistants at school placed high value on setting rules that refer to the organization of the work space (e.g., students should have all important working materials with them; Nordt, 2013 ). They also reported that developing helpful study skills (e.g., time management, organizational skills) is one important aspect of homework assistance at school ( Huang and Cho, 2009 ; Gordon et al., 2020 ). Nordt (2013) described controlling homework assistance at school as being characterized by many rules (e.g., students should be quiet and should not walk around), by punishments if a student does not follow the rules, by a strict and authoritarian appearance of the supervisor, or by critical feedback that is provided even if the student does not ask for help or for feedback. Moreover, the results obtained by Nordt (2013) provide first indications that the relationship between control at school and students’ academic functioning might be reciprocal because some supervisors stated that they applied particularly strict rules when students showed less adaptive behavior (e.g., when they did not follow rules or when they struggled with concentration). However, there is a lack of quantitative empirical research on the quality dimensions of homework assistance at school and on links to student outcomes.

Although the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) can be applied to a variety of contexts, and qualitative research on scholastic homework assistance has proposed quality dimensions similar to those of parental homework assistance ( Dumont et al., 2014 ), it is important to test whether the associations with students’ academic functioning in the school setting are similar to those in the parental setting. Given that, unlike parental homework assistance, homework assistance at school is provided by (at least partially) trained personnel who can be assumed to be familiar with the benefits of need-supportive behavior ( Guill et al., 2020 ), the quality of homework assistance might be higher in the scholastic than in the parental context. However, because homework assistance at school often takes place in a group setting, whereas parental homework assistance is predominantly given in one-on-one settings, scholastic homework assistance might influence students’ achievement and homework behavior less than parental homework assistance. Regarding students’ academic functioning as an antecedent of the quality of homework assistance, these links might also be weaker in the scholastic than in the parental setting because homework assistants at school might feel less pressure if students have low academic achievement as they are more distanced from the students’ school careers.

In sum, homework assistance at school is highly important and becoming more and more common. Thus, empirical research on the quality of homework assistance at school and its links to students’ academic functioning is sorely needed. Therefore, in the present study, we applied the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) to the context of homework assistance at school by examining possible reciprocal relationships between the quality dimensions proposed for parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning.

1.5. The present study

The present study had two aims. The first aim was to examine whether there are reciprocal relationships between the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning at the elementary school level (Research Question 1 [RQ1]). The second aim of our study was to exploratively investigate possible reciprocal relationships between the quality of homework assistance and students’ academic functioning for the context of scholastic homework assistance (Research Question 2 [RQ2]).

To measure students’ academic functioning, we followed prior research ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ) and included four indicators of students’ academic functioning. First, we used two indicators to measure academic achievement, namely, students’ grades and a test score. Although test results are better suited to reliably assess students’ achievement, students’ grades might more directly influence the homework process as parents might be better informed about students’ grades than about test results ( Dumont et al., 2014 ). Whereas prior research focused on academic achievement in the reading domain ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ), we assessed students’ grades in three subjects (mathematics, German, and social studies) and conducted a mathematics test. Second, we used two indicators of homework behavior, namely, homework effort and homework procrastination ( Dumont et al., 2014 ). Students’ homework behavior is a relevant indicator of students’ academic functioning because it is one of the main goals of homework to improve students’ study skills and their self-regulated learning ( Cooper and Valentine, 2001 ; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ), which – in turn – might improve students’ academic achievement.

RQ1: On the basis of the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) and its application in the context of homework assistance ( Dumont et al., 2014 ), as well as prior research on secondary school students (e.g., Moroni et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ), we expected parental responsiveness and structure to be positively and reciprocally related with students’ academic achievement and homework effort, while we expected them to be negatively associated with students’ procrastination (Hypothesis 1a). In contrast, we expected parental control to be negatively and reciprocally related with students’ academic achievement and homework effort, whereas we expected it to be positively and reciprocally related with homework procrastination (Hypothesis 1b).

RQ2: To explore possible links between the quality of homework assistance at school and students’ academic functioning, we used a subsample of students who received scholastic homework assistance in addition to parental homework assistance. In line with our hypotheses regarding parental homework assistance, we expected scholastic responsiveness and structure to be positively and reciprocally related with students’ academic achievement and homework effort, while we expected them to be negatively associated with students’ procrastination (Hypothesis 2a). Further, we expected scholastic control to be negatively and reciprocally related with students’ academic achievement and homework effort, whereas we expected it to be positively and reciprocally related with homework procrastination (Hypothesis 2b).

The present study adds to previous research in two ways: First, we focused on elementary school students, a population under-researched in previous studies. Second, we explored associations in the context of homework assistance at school, a context of children’s schooling that is growing in importance.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. sample.

We drew on longitudinal data from two points of measurement that were collected for the purpose of this study. In June 2019, after the study was approved by the responsible ministry (Ministry of Education, Science, Research, and Culture in Schleswig-Holstein), 100 elementary schools (half-day and full-day schools of all types) were contacted, of which 10 schools agreed to participate in the study. The first point of measurement was from September to October 2019 (T1); the second was from February to March 2020 (T2) and ended before schools had to close due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participation in the study was voluntary; written consent was obtained from the parents. Students did not have any disadvantages if they decided not to participate in the study.

To test Hypotheses 1a and 1b (parental homework assistance), we drew on data from 335 fourth graders (50.2% girls) in 21 classes who participated in at least one of the two points of measurement (T1: n  = 312, T2: n  = 277). In Schleswig-Holstein, Grade 4 is the last grade of elementary school and students are assigned to different secondary school tracks based on their academic achievement at the end of elementary school. Thus, the students in our sample were relatively heterogeneous regarding their performance. In the total sample, 23.6% of the students stated that they spoke another language besides German at home, which indicates a migration background. Regarding the education of their parents, 55.6% of the students stated that at least one of their parents had the qualification to go to university (i.e., had obtained the school leaving certificate Abitur ), while 33.5% did not know whether their parents had this qualification.

To test Hypotheses 2a and 2b (homework assistance at school), we used data from a subsample of 112 students (57.3% girls) who additionally provided information on scholastic homework assistance on at least one of the two points of measurement (T1: n  = 85, T2: n  = 75). In the subsample, 20.7% indicated that they had a migration background and 49.5% stated that their parents had Abitur, while 37.1% did not know whether their parents had this qualification.

2.2. Instruments

All constructs were measured at both time points using the same instruments (the items are displayed in the Supplementary material in Supplementary Table S1 ). The data collection took place during regular school hours in class and lasted one school period (45 min). Each student first completed a paper-pencil mathematics test that took 12 min and afterwards filled in an online questionnaire on a tablet handed out by the administrators. The data collection was administered by trained research assistants who were undergraduate psychology students at the time.

2.2.1. Quality of homework assistance

Three dimensions of homework quality – responsiveness, structure, and control – were assessed using items from Dumont et al. (2014) . Students rated the quality of the homework assistance they received on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =  completely disagree to 4 =  completely agree ). Originally, the items referred to parental assistance only, but they were adapted in the present study to assess scholastic assistance as well. That is, the items were mostly used in parallel form, with “supervisor” replacing “parent” for the items referring to scholastic homework assistance. Students from the subsample that received any form of scholastic homework assistance answered the items twice, once for the homework setting at home (14 items) and once for the homework setting at school (12 items because two items measuring structure were not applicable for homework assistance at school). Responsiveness was measured with four items (Cronbach’s α/McDonald’s ω: parental: α T1  = 0.55/ω T1  = 0.57, α T2  = 0.73/ω T2  = 0.73; scholastic: α T1  = 0.66/ω T1  = 0.69, α T2  = 0.72/ω T2  = 0.74). Structure was operationalized with six items for parental homework assistance and with four items for scholastic homework assistance (parental: α T1  = 0.67/ω T1  = 0.67, α T2  = 0.69/ω T2  = 0.69; scholastic: α T1  = 0.65/ω T1  = 0.63, α T2  = 0.70/ω T2  = 0.71). Control was assessed with four items (parental: α T1  = 0.62/ω T1  = 0.64, α T2  = 0.67/ω T2  = 0.67; scholastic: α T1  = 0.84/ω T1  = 0.84, α T2  = 0.85/ω T2  = 0.85).

2.2.2. Academic functioning

We used four indicators to measure students’ academic functioning: (a) report card grades, (b) a mathematics test, (c) homework effort, and (d) homework procrastination. Report card grades and the mathematics test are indicators of academic achievement, whereas homework effort and homework procrastination are indicators of homework behavior.

2.2.2.1. Academic achievement

Students stated their last report card grades in mathematics, German, and social studies on a scale ranging from one (highest grade) to six (lowest grade). In the German school system, teachers have the option of adding a plus or a minus to grades (for example, 2+ for a student who achieves slightly better than a 2). We used the average of the grades in the three subjects and recoded the grades, including plus and minus, so that high values indicated better grades (1 =  lowest grade to 13 =  highest grade ). 2 Moreover, students completed a mathematics test that was adapted from Lipowsky et al. (2011) , which captured the four basic arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). The test consisted of 28 items at T1 and 31 items at T2, which were distributed across six pages with three to eight items on each page (α T1  = 0.85, α T2  = 0.88). Students had limited time for each page and were not allowed to go back to a previous page when the time was up (1.5 to 2 min per page). The items were scored as right (= 1 point ) or wrong (= 0 points ) and the score of each item was added up to a total score (0 =  lowest score to 28 [T1]/31 [T2] =  highest score ).

2.2.2.2. Homework behavior

Students rated their homework behavior regarding effort and procrastination on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =  completely disagree to 4 =  completely agree ; the items are displayed in the Supplementary material , Supplementary Table S1 ). Homework effort was assessed using five items that were adapted from Trautwein et al. (2006 ; α T1 = 0.81/ω T1 = 0.81, α T2 = 0.84/ω T2 = 0.85). One item for homework effort, which captured the amount of homework that students did as well as they could, was measured on a different scale (1 =  none to 4 =  all ). Procrastination was measured with three items ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; α T1  = 0.70/ω T1  = 0.71, α T2  = 0.78/ω T2  = 0.79).

2.2.3. Covariates

Students also reported on their gender (1 =  male , 2 =  female ) and on their family background in terms of a possible migration background and parental education. As an indicator of migration background, students were asked whether they spoke a language other than German at home (1 =  yes , 2 =  no ). To operationalize parents’ educational background, students stated whether their parents had a qualification for university study (in Germany: Abitur; 1 =  yes , 2 =  no , 3 =  I do not know ). We coded this information into two dummies; the first one indicated whether parents had Abitur (0 =  no / I do not know , 1 =  yes ), the second one indicated whether students knew whether their parents had Abitur (0 =  yes / no , 1 =  I do not know ). To make full use of the information from both points of measurement, we combined information from T1 and T2 for each covariate.

2.3. Statistical analyses

To get an overview of the data, we first computed descriptive statistics (reliabilities, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis) and bivariate correlations in SPSS (Version 27).The main analyses were calculated in M plus 8.5 ( Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2017 ). We used structural equation modeling (SEM; e.g., Little, 2013 ) to study the reciprocal relationships between parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning. Parental responsiveness, structure, and control, as well as students’ effort and procrastination, were specified as latent variables, while students’ grades and test results were modeled as manifest variables. Prior to the main analysis, we tested measurement invariance across time by using confirmatory factor analysis. Therefore, we tested configural, metric, and scalar invariance for each latent variable. The fit indices of each level of measurement invariance are displayed in Table 1 . To compare the models, we evaluated differences in CFI (ΔCFI) by comparing the configural with the metric and scalar invariance; values greater than or equal to −0.01 indicated equivalent model fit ( Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ). The ΔCFI ranged between −0.02 and 0.00 (configural vs. metric) and − 0.04 and 0.00 (configural vs. scalar). Although the ΔCFI exceeded the cut-off value proposed by Cheung and Rensvold (2002) for students’ procrastination and parental control, for reasons of parsimony (i.e., limiting the number of parameters that needed to be estimated in SEM), the factor loadings were modeled as invariant across time in all models in the following steps of the analyses. Moreover, the error terms of each indicator were allowed to correlate across time.

Table 1 . Measurement invariance of the quality dimensions of parental homework assistance and homework behavior across time.

To study the relationship between scholastic homework assistance and students’ academic functioning, we used a different approach because the sample size was relatively small ( n  = 112 students participated in at least one point of measurement). In SEM, high model complexity in combination with a small sample size can lead to estimation problems ( Ulitzsch et al., 2021 ). To decrease model complexity, we used a single-indicator approach ( Hayduk and Littvay, 2012 ; Savalei, 2019 ). In the single-indicator approach, the latent variable is measured with a composite indicator (i.e., scale score), and the error variance is fixed to the measurement error variance. More specifically, for scholastic responsiveness, structure, and control and for students’ effort and procrastination, we set the loading of the composite indicator to one and fixed the measurement error variance to s 2(1 − rel), where s 2 is the observed variance of the indicator and rel is an estimate of the composite’s score reliability (Cronbach’s alpha).

For the main analysis, we calculated cross-lagged panel models with homework assistance quality at T1 predicting academic functioning at T2 and vice versa, controlling for student gender, migration background, and parental education (i.e., homework assistance quality and academic functioning at T1 and T2 were regressed on the covariates). The models were calculated separately for each quality dimension of parental and scholastic homework assistance (responsiveness, structure, and control) and each indicator of students’ academic functioning (mean grade, test result, effort, and procrastination). Thus, each model included only one quality dimension and only one student outcome, resulting in 12 models for parental homework assistance and 12 models for scholastic homework assistance. Figure 1 illustrates how these models were constructed using the example of parental responsiveness as a quality dimension and students’ mean grades as an indicator of students’ academic functioning.

Figure 1 . Analytical model of the reciprocal relationship between parental responsiveness and students’ mean grades. Parental responsiveness and students’ mean grades at T2 were regressed on the covariates. T1/T2 = first/second point of measurement.

2.4. Missing data

The amount of missing data ranged between 7 and 32% in the total sample. Within the group of students who received scholastic homework assistance, the amount of missing data on the variables on the quality of scholastic homework assistance ranged between 26 and 37%. To handle missing data, full information maximum likelihood estimation, integrated into M plus , was used ( Enders, 2010 ).

3.1. Descriptives

The means, standard deviations, and bivariate intercorrelations are displayed in Table 2 (intercorrelations at T1), Table 3 (intercorrelations at T2), and Table 4 (intercorrelations between T1 and T2). Students reported relatively high (i.e., higher than the midpoint of the scale) mean parental responsiveness and structure as well as relatively low control at both points of measurement. To compare the quality of parental and scholastic homework assistance, we conducted paired t -tests for each quality dimension (e.g., parental responsiveness at T1 vs. scholastic responsiveness at T1) in the subsample of students who had provided information on both parental and scholastic homework assistance. Students reported levels of scholastic responsiveness and control that were similar to those of parental homework assistance at both points of measurement (T1/T2: p  > 0.05), but they reported significantly lower levels of scholastic structure than parental structure at both points of measurement (T1: t [79] = 5.99, p  < 0.001; T2: t [72] = 7.00, p  < 0.001).

Table 2 . Intercorrelations between the manifest variables at T1.

Table 3 . Intercorrelations between the manifest variables at T2.

Table 4 . Intercorrelations between the manifest variables at T1 (table rows) and T2 (table columns).

The quality dimensions were only partly associated with each other. One finding that was consistent across the environments and points of measurement was that responsiveness and structure were positively related with each other (0.29 ≤  r  ≤ 0.57). In contrast, control showed different relationships depending on the environment and the point of measurement. While parental control was positively related with responsiveness at T1 ( r  = 0.16), scholastic control was positively related with structure at T2 ( r  = 0.33).

Of the three quality dimensions at T1, only control was significantly correlated with academic functioning at T2. That is, both parental and scholastic control at T1 were linked to more procrastination at T2 (parental: r  = 0.15; scholastic: r  = 0.45). Additionally, parental control was negatively linked to the mean grade ( r  = −0.28). The four indicators of academic functioning at T1 were only partly correlated with the quality dimensions of parental and scholastic homework assistance at T2, and the relationships varied between the two contexts. The only finding that was consistent across the two contexts was that effort at T1 and structure at T2 were positively correlated (parental: r  = 0.15; scholastic: r  = 0.31).

3.2. Cross-lagged models

In the following, we present our findings on the cross-lagged relationships between the three quality dimensions of parental and scholastic homework assistance (responsiveness, structure, and control) and the four indicators of students’ academic functioning (achievement: mean grade and test result; homework behavior: homework effort and homework procrastination). The sequence in which the findings are described follows the hypotheses as stated above.

3.2.1. Parental homework assistance and academic functioning

The models for parental homework assistance are displayed in Figures 2 – 4 . Tables displaying the detailed results can be found in the online Supplementary material . We report standardized coefficients (stdyx for all latent and manifest continuous outcomes and predictors and stdy for categorical variables, i.e., the covariates).

Figure 2 . (A–D) Cross-lagged models for parental responsiveness and students’ academic functioning. Standardized coefficients. All covariates were included. Statistically significant cross-lagged coefficients are in bold. T1/T2 = first/second point of measurement. * p  ≤ 0.05, ** p  ≤ 0.01, *** p  ≤ 0.001.

Figure 3 . (A–D) Cross-lagged models for parental structure and students’ academic functioning. Standardized coefficients. All covariates were included. Statistically significant cross-lagged coefficients are in bold. T1/T2 = first/second point of measurement. * p  ≤ 0.05, ** p  ≤ 0.01, *** p  ≤ 0.001.

Figure 4 . (A–D) Cross-lagged models for parental control and students’ academic functioning. Standardized coefficients. All covariates were included. Statistically significant cross-lagged coefficients are in bold. T1/T2 = first/second point of measurement. * p  ≤ 0.05, ** p  ≤ 0.01, *** p  ≤ 0.001.

Hypothesis 1a : We expected parental responsiveness and structure to be positively and reciprocally related with students’ (a) mean grades, (b) test result, and (c) homework effort, while we expected them to be negatively associated with (d) homework procrastination.

Against our expectations, no significant links were found between perceived parental responsiveness and structure and students’ mean grades. Contrary to our hypothesis, parental responsiveness at T1 negatively predicted students’ test result at T2 (β = −0.13, p  = 0.046, see Figure 2B ). Thus, students scored lower on the mathematics achievement test at T2 the more parental responsiveness they perceived at T1. However, this relationship was not reciprocal because parental responsiveness at T2 was not predicted by students’ test result at T1. Moreover, parental structure was neither unidirectionally nor reciprocally related with students’ test result. In contrast to our hypothesis, parental responsiveness and structure were not related with students’ homework effort. However, while parental responsiveness and structure at T1 also did not predict students’ procrastination at T2, both responsiveness and structure at T2 were predicted by students’ procrastination at T1. Thus, students reported lower parental responsiveness (β = −0.22, p  = 0.006, see Figure 2D ) and parental structure at T2 (β = −0.18, p  = 0.027, see Figure 3D ) the more they procrastinated at T1.

To sum up, Hypothesis 1a was only minimally supported. Out of the expected links between parental responsiveness and structure and students’ academic functioning, only two proved to be significant: students’ prior procrastination predicted subsequent parental responsiveness and structure during homework assistance. However, we also found one relationship that was contrary to our expectations because prior parental responsiveness negatively predicted subsequent test results.

Hypothesis 1b : We expected parental control to be negatively and reciprocally related with students’ (a) mean grades, (b) test result, and (c) homework effort, whereas we expected it to be positively and reciprocally related with (d) homework procrastination.

In line with our hypothesis, we found a reciprocal association between parental control and students’ mean grades (see Figure 4A ). Control at T1 negatively predicted students’ mean grades at T2 (β = −0.22, p  = 0.002), while students’ mean grades at T1 negatively predicted control at T2 (β = −0.16, p  = 0.041). Thus, students had lower subsequent mean grades the more they reported parental control during homework assistance. Vice versa, students perceived more subsequent control the lower their prior grades were. However, parental control was not associated with students’ test results or their homework behavior.

To sum up, Hypothesis 1b was partially supported because we found a reciprocal relationship between parental control and students’ mean grades, but we did not find a reciprocal relationship for the other indicators of academic achievement.

3.2.2. Scholastic homework assistance and academic functioning

The models for scholastic homework assistance are displayed in Figures 5 – 7 . Tables displaying the results can be found in the online Supplementary material .

Figure 5 . (A–D) Cross-lagged models for scholastic responsiveness and students’ academic functioning. Standardized coefficients. All covariates were included. Statistically significant cross-lagged coefficients are in bold. T1/T2 = first/second point of measurement. * p  ≤ 0.05, ** p  ≤ 0.01, *** p  ≤ 0.001.

Figure 6 . (A–D) Cross-lagged models for scholastic structure and students’ academic functioning. Standardized coefficients. All covariates were included. Statistically significant cross-lagged coefficients are in bold. T1/T2 = first/second point of measurement. * p  = 0.05, ** p  ≤ 0.01, *** p  ≤ 0.001.

Figure 7 . (A–D) Cross-lagged models for scholastic control and students’ academic functioning. Standardized coefficients. All covariates were included. Statistically significant cross-lagged coefficients are in bold. T1/T2 = first/second point of measurement. * p  ≤ 0.05, ** p  ≤ 0.01, *** p  ≤ 0.001.

Hypothesis 2a : We expected scholastic responsiveness and structure to be positively and reciprocally related with students’ (a) mean grades, (b) test result, and (c) homework effort, while we expected them to be negatively associated with (d) students’ procrastination.

While responsiveness and structure during homework assistance at school at T1 did not predict students’ mean grades at T2, students’ mean grades at T1 positively predicted responsiveness at T2 (β = 0.33, p  = 0.027, see Figure 5A ) but did not predict structure. Therefore, students with higher prior mean grades perceived higher subsequent responsiveness during homework assistance at school. However, no significant relationships were found between scholastic responsiveness or structure and students’ test result or homework behavior.

To sum up, Hypothesis 2a was only minimally supported. We did not find that responsiveness or structure during homework assistance at school predicted any of the indicators of students’ academic functioning. However, students’ mean grades predicted scholastic responsiveness.

Hypothesis 2b : We expected scholastic control to be negatively and reciprocally related with students’ (a) mean grade, (b) test result, and (c) homework effort, whereas we expected it to be positively and reciprocally related with (d) homework procrastination.

No significant unidirectional or reciprocal relationships were found between control during homework assistance at school and students’ academic achievement or their homework effort. However, in line with our hypothesis, control during homework assistance at school at T1 positively predicted students’ homework procrastination at T2 (β = 0.47, p  = 0.017, see Figure 7D ). Therefore, students reported higher subsequent homework procrastination the more they perceived control during homework assistance at school. Vice versa, students’ homework procrastination at T1 did not significantly predict control during homework assistance at school at T2.

To sum up, Hypothesis 2b was only minimally supported because control predicted students’ homework procrastination but did not predict any of the other indicators of students’ academic functioning. Vice versa, students’ academic functioning did not predict control during homework assistance at school.

4. Discussion

Our study had two aims. The first aim was to examine reciprocal relationships between the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning at the elementary school level, where previous findings have been inconsistent (e.g., Silinskas et al., 2013 ; Núñez et al., 2015 ; Cunha et al., 2018 ). The second aim of our study was to investigate whether there are reciprocal relationships between the quality of scholastic homework assistance and students’ academic functioning. Our reason for investigating this is the growing importance of scholastic homework assistance and the lack of quantitative research that addresses homework assistance in this environment.

The main findings are summarized in Table 5 . Overall, we found a complex pattern of results. Regarding parental homework assistance, we found reciprocal relationships between parental control and mean grades. In addition, we found several unidirectional links, namely, a negative link between procrastination at T1 and both parental responsiveness and structure at T2. Unexpectedly, parental responsiveness at T1 was negatively related with students’ test score in a mathematics achievement test at T2. All other links did not reach statistical significance. Regarding scholastic homework assistance, only two unidirectional links proved to be significant: scholastic control at T1 was positively related with procrastination at T2, and mean grades at T1 positively predicted scholastic responsiveness at T2. There were no other statistically significant unidirectional or bidirectional links. In sum, even though several of the assumed associations were not found in the present study, the findings provide valuable information on the quality of homework assistance both at home and at school.

Table 5 . Overview of the main findings.

4.1. Parental homework assistance

4.1.1. links between parental responsiveness, structure, and students’ academic functioning (h1a).

Although previous studies reported that parental responsiveness and structure positively predicted students’ academic functioning at secondary school (e.g., Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ), the missing link in our study is in line with the findings of Núñez et al. (2015) , who did not find significant relationships between parental support and academic functioning at elementary school. Similar to the present study, students in the study of Núñez et al. (2015) were at the end of elementary school – albeit in Grades 5 and 6 as elementary school in Spain comprises Grades 1 to 6. Therefore, the lack of significant relationships found might partly be due to the timing of Núñez et al.’s (2015) and our study. It is possible that the dynamics between students and their parents are relatively consolidated at the end of elementary school, which might make it harder to find changes in the quality of homework assistance and students’ academic functioning. This assumption is reflected in our study as we found relatively high stabilities of both the quality dimensions and the indicators of academic functioning (see Figures 2 , 3 ). Moreover, parents of elementary school students might generally provide high levels of responsiveness and structure because their children’s study skills and self-management are not yet fully developed ( Dufresne and Kobasigawa, 1989 ; Patall et al., 2008 ). At the same time, there might be less variation in younger students’ homework behavior because their intrinsic motivation is usually higher as intrinsic motivation only starts to decline with increasing age ( Gottfried et al., 2001 ; Gnambs and Hanfstingl, 2016 ). Both assumptions are also reflected in our findings, as students perceived high mean responsiveness and structure and reported high mean effort and low mean procrastination (see Tables 2 , 3 ). Taken together, high levels of parental responsiveness and structure, in combination with favorable homework behavior of the students, might be the reason for why we did not find significant relationships between the constructs.

The negative association we found between parental responsiveness and students’ mathematics test result is unexpected and incongruent with prior longitudinal research on parental support ( Moroni et al., 2015 ). However, one other study ( Cooper and Nye, 2000 ) also found a negative link between responsiveness, measured as the frequency of direct homework involvement (i.e., helping if it is needed), and students’ standardized test result. However, the finding of Cooper et al. was based on cross-sectional data and, therefore, might rather mirror increases in parental involvement if students have low academic achievement. One possible explanation for the negative link found in our study is that high levels of responsiveness might lead to students relying strongly on the help of their parents, which might make it difficult for students to take an achievement test on their own. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because parental responsiveness at T1 and students’ test result at T2 did not show a significant relationship in the bivariate correlations. Therefore, more research with standardized achievement tests is needed to verify the negative link we found between parental responsiveness and test results at the elementary school level.

For the links in the opposite direction, that is, students’ academic functioning at T1 predicting parental responsiveness and structure at T2, we also found only limited evidence. Only one indicator of academic functioning, namely, homework procrastination, was linked to parental responsiveness and structure. Interestingly, this is in line with prior research on secondary school students by Dumont et al. (2014) , who did not find an effect of students’ reading achievement on responsiveness and structure, whereas students’ homework behavior predicted both quality dimensions. Dumont et al. (2014) concluded that students’ homework behavior might be particularly important for positive forms of parental homework assistance. Because the homework situation is often perceived as a situation with the potential for conflict ( Dumont et al., 2012 ), parents of children who often procrastinate in homework situations may become stressed or irritated by their children’s behavior and feel less inclined to assist with homework in the future.

4.1.2. Links between parental control and students’ academic functioning (H1b)

For parental control, we found a reciprocal relationship with students’ mean grades. All other expected links – bidirectional as well as unidirectional – were not significant. These findings are interesting in several regards. First, the reciprocal link between parental control and mean grades is in line with prior research on unidirectional associations that found that parental control negatively predicted students’ grades at both the elementary and the secondary level ( Moroni et al., 2015 ; Núñez et al., 2015 ) and that, conversely, students’ achievement predicted parental controlling or monitoring behavior (e.g., Silinskas et al., 2013 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2017 ). Following Dumont et al. (2014) , reciprocal relationships of control are alarming because students and parents might get into a vicious circle of increasing control and simultaneously decreasing academic functioning. This vicious circle might be particularly harmful for low achievers because they have been found to be more sensitive to controlling behavior ( Ng et al., 2004 ; Grolnick and Pomerantz, 2022 ). In contrast to mean grades, no links were found between parental control and the other achievement variable, students’ test results, (in either direction). This differs from research on secondary school students, which has shown that parental control negatively predicted the results of standardized reading tests ( Moroni et al., 2015 ), but it is in line with prior research on elementary school students that also did not find a link between controlling behavior and standardized test results ( Silinskas et al., 2013 ; Wu et al., 2022 ). One possible explanation for the missing link is that grades are more salient and meaningful for parents than the results of standardized achievement tests. Parents receive a considerable amount of information on their children’s performance levels in the form of grades, but they often have little information on children’s standing in objective achievement tests. Moreover, grades are key determinants of children’s educational careers and, thus, are of high relevance for parents.

The missing link between prior parental control and students’ subsequent homework behavior is in contrast to prior research on secondary school students that found unfavorable effects of parental control on students’ homework behavior ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Dumont et al., 2012 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ), but it is in line with prior research on elementary school students ( Núñez et al., 2015 ). This lack of associations for elementary school students might be explained by younger students’ less pronounced need for autonomy and their positive attitude towards school and towards their parents, which might be relatively robust to external influences such as parents’ controlling behavior ( Eccles et al., 1993 ; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler, 1995 ). Regarding students’ homework behavior as a predictor of parental control, our finding that students’ unfavorable homework behavior did not result in more control is again in line with the findings of Dumont et al. (2014) on secondary school students. They argued that unfavorable homework behavior might be less alarming for parents than low grades and, therefore, only leads to decreases in positive forms of parental homework assistance (i.e., responsiveness and structure, see H1a) and not to increases in controlling behavior.

To sum up, we were able to apply the quality dimensions of homework assistance derived from the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) to students at elementary school. However, our results suggest that findings on the effects of the quality dimensions on students’ academic functioning from prior research on secondary students cannot be simply transferred to elementary students. Therefore, more research that compares different age groups is needed. Regarding the effects of students’ academic functioning on the quality dimensions, the pattern we found for elementary school students is similar to the pattern that was found by Dumont et al. (2014) for older students. However, more research is needed to verify these results.

4.2. Scholastic homework assistance

The second aim of our study was to test whether there are reciprocal relationships between the quality of scholastic homework assistance and students’ academic functioning. The reason we investigated this is the high relevance of homework assistance at school and the lack of quantitative research on the quality of homework assistance provided in the scholastic environment.

4.2.1. Links between scholastic responsiveness, structure, and students’ academic functioning (H2a)

Similar to the results on parental homework assistance found in our study and in contrast to the results of research on parental homework assistance for older students ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ), we did not find that scholastic responsiveness and structure predicted students’ academic functioning. The lack of links found for structure is especially surprising because prior research on secondary school students has found positive effects when structuring homework assistance is given by persons other than the parents, namely, private tutors ( Guill et al., 2020 ). However, similar to our considerations regarding the comparable results for parental homework assistance, due to students’ young age and their higher need for support, there might be too little variance in the responsiveness and structure provided by homework assistants at school to result in significant relationships. Moreover, one could assume that scholastic homework assistants, who are often pedagogical staff, show high mean levels of responsiveness and structure due to their professional knowledge. However, the surprising finding that structure was lower in the scholastic than in the parental setting could be because, at school, it is harder to achieve high levels of structure (for example, a quiet learning environment) than at home because homework assistance at school mostly takes place in a group setting.

Regarding our finding that scholastic responsiveness was positively predicted by students’ mean grades, it is possible that students with better grades have other characteristics that favor more responsiveness that we did not control for, for example, more socially adjusted behavior that might make it easier for them to ask for help in an appropriate way. Moreover, it is possible that students with better grades rate their homework environment more positively as they might have a more positive attitude to school and homework in general or might be able to make better use of the support provided by the homework assistants. Still, this finding is alarming because it points to potential inequalities in educational support, which may further increase existing differences.

The missing link between students’ prior procrastination and subsequent scholastic responsiveness and structure is one major difference between our results and prior results on parental homework assistance. Possibly, supervisors at school are less emotionally involved when their students procrastinate because students’ homework behavior might be less personally important to them than it is to the students’ parents.

4.2.2. Links between scholastic control and students’ academic functioning (H2b)

Unlike our findings for parental homework assistance, no links were found between prior scholastic control and students’ subsequent academic achievement. One possible explanation for this is that students received scholastic homework assistance in addition to parental homework assistance (45.1% of the students at T1 and 38.4% of the students at T2 stated that they received scholastic homework assistance only one to two times per week). Thus, for students who receive scholastic homework assistance less often, the level of scholastic control might play a smaller role than the level of parental control. Therefore, future research should investigate a (sub-)sample consisting of students who receive homework assistance predominantly at school.

The missing link between students’ academic achievement at T1 and scholastic control at T2 is particularly surprising because this association has been consistently found in prior research on parental homework assistance for both elementary and secondary school students (e.g., Silinskas et al., 2013 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2017 ) and we also found this link for parental homework assistance in the present study. However, it has been discussed that controlling behavior might stem from pressure that is related to parental involvement. This pressure can come from multiple sources, for example, a child’s low achievement or parents’ or others’ expectations regarding the child’s performance ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Grolnick and Pomerantz, 2022 ). Compared to parents, homework assistants at school might feel less pressure if students have low academic achievement because they are more distanced from the students’ school career.

However, we found that students reported more procrastination the more control they perceived during scholastic homework assistance, which is in line with prior research on parental homework assistance ( Dumont et al., 2014 ) and homework assistance given by both parents and private tutors ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ).

Taken together, we were able to apply the quality dimensions of homework assistance derived from the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) to the context of scholastic homework assistance. However, only few of the relationships we had expected to find were statistically significant. On a descriptive level, one common finding for parental and scholastic homework assistance was that responsiveness and structure did not predict students’ academic functioning. However, control was related with students’ outcomes in both environments, but with different indicators of their academic functioning. Another difference between the two homework environments was that the two positive forms of homework assistance (i.e., responsiveness and structure) were predicted by different indicators of academic functioning. However, more research is needed to verify these commonalities and differences between the two homework environments.

4.3. Strengths and limitations

Our study has several strengths. First, we investigated homework assistance provided for elementary school students; this population has been studied less than other populations and previous results obtained for this population have been inconclusive. Second, we investigated homework assistance at school, which has not yet been addressed in quantitative studies. Third, we measured the quality of homework assistance instead of its quantity, which has been shown to be the more important predictor, and we included structure as a quality dimension that has been less studied up until now, although it has been argued that it distinguishes positive types of controlling behavior from intrusive ones ( Grolnick and Pomerantz, 2009 ; Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). Fourth, we considered both grades and a test result to measure students’ academic achievement. Finally, the major strength of our study is the longitudinal design, which allowed us to control for the prior quality of homework assistance and students’ prior indicators of academic functioning.

However, there are also some limitations that should be considered when interpreting our results. First of all, we were not able to control for students being nested in classes because of the combination of the relatively small number of classes in our sample and the complexity of the analytical models (i.e., the number of parameters that need to be estimated in SEM). It might be important to control for clustering in classes because there might be class effects due to differences in the quality of homework assignments ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ) that might influence students’ achievement and their homework behavior by being more or less interesting and activating. Moreover, the subsample for scholastic homework assistance was relatively small, which might have made it less likely to yield statistically significant and reliable results. Although the scales measuring the quality of homework assistance showed good reliability in prior studies at the secondary school level ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Guill et al., 2020 ), some of the scales showed rather low reliability in our sample (e.g., parental responsiveness at T1, with a value of α = 0.55). Another limitation was that, following the criteria proposed by Cheung and Rensvold (2002) , metric measurement invariance and conventional norms for acceptable fit were violated for some constructs (i.e., parental control and students’ procrastination). Although Robitzsch and Lüdtke (2022) recently questioned whether measurement invariance is a prerequisite for group comparisons and comparisons across time points, it cannot be ruled out that different psychometric properties of the measurements across the two time points might have impeded the accuracy of our results ( Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ). Moreover, although we controlled for measurement errors, the stabilities of the constructs, and a considerable number of relevant covariates, there might be other unobserved confounders (e.g., students’ self-regulation, which might influence both the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ outcomes) that could lead to distorted estimates of cross-lagged effects in cross-lagged panel designs ( Lüdtke and Robitzsch, 2022 ).

Additionally, there are some limitations regarding the assessment of the constructs. It might be productive to assess the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ homework behavior subject-specifically. Regarding the quality of homework assistance, Wild and Gerber (2007) argued that the quality might depend on students’ performance, which differs between the subjects, and on parents’ subject-specific perception of their own competence. Students’ homework behavior might also be subject-specific because of subject-specific differences in students’ competencies, interest, and intrinsic motivation ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ). Finally, we relied solely on student reports although it might be more informative to additionally use reports from multiple sources, for example, from parents, teachers, or observers ( Grolnick and Slowiaczek, 1994 ; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005 ).

4.4. Theoretical, practical, and scientific implications

We were able to apply the quality dimensions of parental homework assistance derived from the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) to elementary school students and to homework assistance that is given at school. Theoretically, this supports the assumption that the SDT is generally valid across developmental stages and different learning environments. However, our findings differed from the findings of prior research on secondary school students and on homework assistance given by parents. This provides first indications that the quality dimensions might affect students’ outcomes differently at different developmental stages, which is in line with the theoretical assumptions of Eccles et al. (1993) and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) that students benefit most if their educational environment matches their developmental needs. Taken together, when measuring the quality of homework assistance on the basis of the satisfaction of students’ needs, it might be beneficial to use an approach that keeps in mind that students’ needs change over the course of their development.

Despite the limitations of our study, practical implications can be derived from its results. Because control was negatively related with students’ academic functioning in both environments, both parents and homework assistants at school should be informed about the negative consequences of controlling and intrusive behavior for students’ academic functioning. Interventions and training for parents on homework assistance seem to be a promising approach as Patall et al. (2008) as well as Wild and Gerber (2009) reported encouraging effects. As homework assistance at school is becoming more and more important, it might be promising to also offer these interventions and this training for homework assistants at schools. It has been argued that low-quality homework assistance partly stems from pressure that is related to parental involvement ( Dumont et al., 2014 ; Grolnick and Pomerantz, 2022 ). Therefore, reducing pressure might be a promising approach to decrease the use of control during homework assistance and to break the vicious circle between control and low academic achievement. This might be achieved by creating positive school climates for parents or by supporting effective school-parent communication ( Grolnick and Pomerantz, 2022 ). Moreover, homework assistants at schools should be sensitized to the importance of being equally responsive to students regardless of their academic achievement. One promising approach to increase homework assistants’ awareness of and responsiveness to students’ needs could be a mindfulness-based professional development program that has shown encouraging findings in increasing teachers’ social and emotional competence and classroom interactions ( Jennings et al., 2017 ). Although we did not find positive relationships of prior parental responsiveness and structure with students’ subsequent academic functioning, we still argue that parents should continue to provide responsiveness and structure even if their child shows unfavorable homework behavior because – following the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) – these positive forms of homework assistance have the potential to support students’ needs and, although there has not been enough research on younger students, there have been promising findings for older students (e.g., Dumont et al., 2014 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ; Guill et al., 2020 ). Moreover, because responsiveness and structure have been found to be relevant for secondary school students, it makes sense that parents already begin to establish and maintain positive forms of homework assistance in the early years of schooling.

Finally, scientific implications for future research can be derived from our study. Because we found partly different results for elementary school students to those found in prior research on secondary school students, future research should compare the relationships for students from different age groups. Therefore, future research should follow Núñez et al. (2015) and compare the links found between the quality of homework assistance and students’ outcomes in different age groups or should use longitudinal data with longer time periods to determine which types of homework assistance are suitable for which age group. Moreover, more research on different homework settings and research that compares these settings is needed to verify our results. Due to the expansion of full-day schools in Germany, future research should pay special attention to scholastic homework assistance. In this context, it would be valuable to distinguish between different providers of homework assistance (e.g., pedagogical staff, teachers, or university students) who have heterogeneous qualifications and, thus, are likely to differ in the quality of the homework assistance they provide. For example, homework assistance can be provided by pedagogical staff who can be assumed to be aware of the benefits of need-supportive behavior or by university students who are not yet fully trained and might have less expertise ( Guill et al., 2020 ). Finally, it needs to be considered that the expansion of full-day schools has raised questions about the role of homework and that some full-day schools have developed substitute or complementary programs for homework. For example, Brisson and Theis (2020) reported that study periods that were integrated into compulsory education had benefits compared to traditional homework regarding task quality, perceived cost and competence, and students’ well-being.

5. Conclusion

Whereas prior research has relatively consistently shown that there are reciprocal relationships between the quality of parental homework assistance and students’ academic functioning at secondary school, less is known about links between the two constructs for elementary school students and for homework assistance that is given at school. The present study therefore adds to the body of literature on homework assistance and its links with students’ outcomes. Taken together, we found fewer associations than expected based on the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) and on the findings from prior research on secondary school students. Therefore, our results show that findings from prior research cannot simply be transferred to other age groups and other homework settings. Moreover, our findings are complex because they differed between the quality dimensions, the indicators of academic functioning, and the two settings that we investigated. Therefore, more research is needed that compares the associations between homework assistance and students’ academic functioning for different age groups, including students at elementary school, and in different homework settings.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Culture in Schleswig-Holstein. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author contributions

LB was responsible for the data analysis and interpretation, for the literature search, and for writing the manuscript. KK made important contributions to the structure and content of the manuscript. OL made important contributions to the data analysis strategy. KG designed the study and supervised the data collection. KK, JR, OL, and KG provided important input on how to improve the manuscript draft. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Gráinne Newcombe for language editing.

Conflict of interest

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.

Publisher’s note

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.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1106362/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ In Germany, there are three types of full-day schools. The difference between the three types lies in whether the full-day program is compulsory for all students ( gebundene Ganztagsschule ), for just some students ( teilgebundene Ganztagsschule ), or is an optional addition to compulsory half-day school ( offene Ganzstagsschule ). Optional full-day programs are the most common type ( StEG-Konsortium, 2019 ).

2. ^ There was no option for 1+, 5+, 5–, 6+, and 6– because these grades are rarely given.

Brisson, B. M., and Theis, D. (2020). Traditionelle Hausaufgaben oder integrierte Lernzeiten? Ein Vergleich der Erfahrungen und Leistungsentwicklungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit unterschiedlichen Übungsformaten [traditional homework or integrated learning time? A comparison of students’ experiences and performance developments with different practice formats]. Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 67, 294–312. doi: 10.2378/peu2020.art22d

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bronstein, P., Ginsburg, G. S., and Herrera, I. S. (2005). Parental predictors of motivational orientation in early adolescence: a longitudinal study. J. Youth Adolesc. 34, 559–575. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-8946-0

Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model for school learning. Teacher Coll. Rec. 64, 1–9. doi: 10.1177/016146816306400801

Cheung, G. W., and Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Cooper, L., and Nye, (2000). Homework in the home: how student, family, and parenting-style differences relate to the homework process. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 464–487. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1036

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Cunha, J., Xu, J., Rosário, P., and Núñez, J. C. (2018). Validity and reliability of the parental homework management scale. Psicothema 30, 337–343. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2017.426

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., and Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: the self-determination perspective. Educ. Psychol. 26, 325–346. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137

Dufresne, A., and Kobasigawa, A. (1989). Children’s spontaneous allocation of study time: differential and sufficient aspects. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 47, 274–296. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(89)90033-7

Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2012). Familiärer Hintergrund und die Qualität elterlicher Hausaufgabenhilfe [family background and the quality of parental homework involvement]. Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 59, 109–121. doi: 10.2378/peu2012.art08d

Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Nagy, G., and Nagengast, B. (2014). Quality of parental homework involvement: predictors and reciprocal relations with academic functioning in the reading domain. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 144–161. doi: 10.1037/a0034100

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: the impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. Am. Psychol. 48, 90–101. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90

Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Methodology in the social sciences . New York: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents’ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elem. Sch. J. 86, 277–294. doi: 10.1086/461449

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

Feng, X., Xie, K., Gong, S., Gao, L., and Cao, Y. (2019). Effects of parental autonomy support and teacher support on middle school students’ homework effort: homework autonomous motivation as mediator. Front. Psychol. 10:612. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00612

Gnambs, T., and Hanfstingl, B. (2016). The decline of academic motivation during adolescence: an accelerated longitudinal cohort analysis on the effect of psychological need satisfaction. Educ. Psychol. 36, 1691–1705. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2015.1113236

Gonida, E. N., and Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: relations with parent and student achievement-related motivational beliefs and achievement. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 376–396. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12039

Gordon, C. S., Pink, M., and Jones, S. C. (2020). Children and tutor’s perspectives on a homework support program in Melbourne: a university-school partnership. Health Soc. Care Community 28, 1611–1621. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12986

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., and Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: a longitudinal study. J. Educ. Psychol. 93, 3–13. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.3

Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Grolnick, W. S., and Apostoleris, H. N. (2002). “What makes parents controlling?” in Handbook of self-determination research . eds. E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan (Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press)

Grolnick, W. S., and Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). Issues and challenges in studying parental control: toward a new conceptualization. Child Dev. Perspect. 3, 165–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00099.x

Grolnick, W. S., and Pomerantz, E. M. (2022). Should parents be involved in their children’s schooling? Theory Pract. 61, 325–335. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2022.2096382

Grolnick, W. S., and Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: a multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Dev. 65, 237–252. doi: 10.2307/1131378

Guill, K., Bahr, I., and Ömerogullari, M. (2020). Qualität der Hausaufgabenhilfe in Elternhaus und Nachhilfeunterricht als Prädiktoren des hausaufgabenbezogenen Arbeitsverhaltens [quality of homework support in the parental home and private tutoring as predictors of homework-related study behavior]. Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 67. doi: 10.2378/peu2020.art08d

Hayduk, L. A., and Littvay, L. (2012). Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 12:159. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-159

Hoover-Dempsey, V. K., and Sandler, M. H. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: why does it make a difference? Teach. Coll. Rec. 97, 310–331. doi: 10.1177/016146819509700202

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., et al. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. Elem. Sch. J. 106, 105–130. doi: 10.1086/499194

Huang, D., and Cho, J. (2009). Academic enrichment in high-functioning homework afterschool programs. J. Res. Child. Educ. 23, 382–392. doi: 10.1080/02568540909594668

Jennings, P. A., Brown, J. L., Frank, J. L., Doyle, S., Oh, Y., Davis, R., et al. (2017). Impacts of the CARE for Teachers program on teachers’ social and emotional competence and classroom interactions. J. Educ. Psychol. 109, 1010–1028. doi: 10.1037/edu0000187

Lipowsky, F., Faust, G., and Karst, K. (2011). Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente des Projekts Persönlichkeits- und Lernentwicklung von Grundschulkindern (PERLE) - Teil 2. Materialien zur Bildungsforschung [documentation of the survey instruments of the project personality and learning development of primary school children] . Conyers: GFPF.

Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling . New York: Guilford Press.

Lüdtke, O., and Robitzsch, A. (2022). A comparison of different approaches for estimating cross-lagged effects from a causal inference perspective. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 29, 888–907. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2022.2065278

Moroni, S., Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., and Baeriswyl, F. (2015). The need to distinguish between quantity and quality in research on parental involvement: the example of parental help with homework. J. Educ. Res. 108, 417–431. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2014.901283

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Ng, F. F.-Y., Kenney-Benson, G. A., and Pomerantz, E. M. (2004). Children’s achievement moderates the effects of mothers’ use of control and autonomy support. Child Dev. 75, 764–780. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00705.x

Niggli, A., Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Lüdtke, O., and Neumann, M. (2007). Elterliche Unterstützung kann hilfreich sein, aber Einmischung schadet: Familiärer Hintergrund, elterliches Hausaufgabenengagement und Leistungsentwicklung [Parental homework support can be beneficial, but parental intrusion is detrimental]. Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 54, 1–14.

Nordt, G. (2013). Lernen und Fördern in der Hausaufgabenpraxis der offenen Ganztagsgrundschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen [learning and support in the homework practice of open full-day elementary schools in North Rhine-Westphalia] . Montreal: Waxmann.

Nordt, G. (2020). “Hausaufgaben – Schulaufgaben – Lernzeiten [Homework - school work - study time]” in Handbuch Ganztagsbildung . eds. P. Bollweg, J. Buchna, T. Coelen, and H.-U. Otto (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien).

Núñez, J. C., Epstein, J. L., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., and Valle, A. (2017). How do student prior achievement and homework behaviors relate to perceived parental involvement in homework? Front. Psychol. 8:1217. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01217

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

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., and Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework: a research synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1039–1101. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325185

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

Robitzsch, A., and Lüdtke, O. (2022). Why measurement invariance is not necessary for valid group comparisons. PsyArXiv. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/cjyqp,

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Sauerwein, M., and Rother, P. (2022). Hilfestellung in der Hausaufgabenbetreuung und den Lernzeiten aus der Perspektive von Schüler*innen [help in homework supervision and study periods from the perspective of students]. Z. Erzieh. 25, 975–998. doi: 10.1007/s11618-022-01071-6

Savalei, V. (2019). A comparison of several approaches for controlling measurement error in small samples. Psychol. Methods 24, 352–370. doi: 10.1037/met0000181

Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs in the Federal Republic of Germany. (2021). Allgemeinbildende Schulen in Ganztagsform in den Ländern in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Statistik 2015 bis 2019 [Full-day general education schools in the federal states of Germany]. Available at: https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Statistik/Dokumentationen/GTS_2019_Bericht.pdf (Accessed March 04, 2023).

Silinskas, G., and Kikas, E. (2019). Parental involvement in math homework: links to children’s performance and motivation Scand. J. Educ. Res. 63, 17–37. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2017.1324901

Silinskas, G., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M.-K., and Nurmi, J.-E. (2013). Children’s poor academic performance evokes parental homework assistance—but does it help? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 37, 44–56. doi: 10.1177/0165025412456146

StEG-Konsortium. (2019). Ganztagsschule 2017/2018. Deskriptive Befunde einer bundesweiten Befragung. Studie zur Entwicklung von Ganztagsschulen [descriptive findings of a nationwide survey. Study on the development of full-day schools]. DIPF, DJI, IFS, Justus-Liebig-Universität.

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

Ulitzsch, E., Lüdtke, O., and Robitzsch, A. (2021). Alleviating estimation problems in small sample structural equation modeling-a comparison of constrained maximum likelihood, Bayesian estimation, and fixed reliability approaches. Psychol. Methods . doi: 10.1037/met0000435

Wild, E., and Gerber, J. (2007). Charakteristika und Determinanten der Hausaufgabenpraxis in Deutschland von der vierten zur siebten Klassenstufe [characteristics and determinants of doing homework in Germany from fourth grade to seventh grade]. Z. Erzieh. 10, 356–380. doi: 10.1007/s11618-007-0041-8

Wild, E., and Gerber, J. (2009). Lernlust statt Lernfrust - evaluation eines Elterntrainings zur Verringerung von Hausaufgabenkonflikten bei Schülern mit Lernschwierigkeiten [evaluation of parent training to reduce homework conflicts among pupils with learning difficulties]. Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 56, 303–318.

Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: a meta-synthesis. Educ. Rev. 66, 377–397. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2013.780009

Wu, J., Barger, M. M., Oh, D. D., and Pomerantz, E. M. (2022). Parents’ daily involvement in children’s math homework and activities during early elementary school. Child Dev. Adv. 93, 1347–1364. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13774

Xu, J., Du, J., Wu, S., Ripple, H., and Cosgriff, A. (2018). Reciprocal effects among parental homework support, effort, and achievement? An empirical investigation. Front. Psychol. 9:2334. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02334

Keywords: parental homework assistance, homework assistance at school, homework behavior, academic functioning, academic achievement, elementary school

Citation: Benckwitz L, Kohl K, Roloff J, Lüdtke O and Guill K (2023) Reciprocal relationships between parental and scholastic homework assistance and students’ academic functioning at elementary school. Front. Psychol . 14:1106362. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1106362

Received: 23 November 2022; Accepted: 30 March 2023; Published: 28 April 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Benckwitz, Kohl, Roloff, Lüdtke and Guill. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) 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: Lisa Benckwitz, [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.

• Our Mission

What’s the Right Amount of Homework?

Decades of research show that homework has some benefits, especially for students in middle and high school—but there are risks to assigning too much.

Many teachers and parents believe that homework helps students build study skills and review concepts learned in class. Others see homework as disruptive and unnecessary, leading to burnout and turning kids off to school. Decades of research show that the issue is more nuanced and complex than most people think: Homework is beneficial, but only to a degree. Students in high school gain the most, while younger kids benefit much less.

The National PTA and the National Education Association support the “ 10-minute homework guideline ”—a nightly 10 minutes of homework per grade level. But many teachers and parents are quick to point out that what matters is the quality of the homework assigned and how well it meets students’ needs, not the amount of time spent on it.

The guideline doesn’t account for students who may need to spend more—or less—time on assignments. In class, teachers can make adjustments to support struggling students, but at home, an assignment that takes one student 30 minutes to complete may take another twice as much time—often for reasons beyond their control. And homework can widen the achievement gap, putting students from low-income households and students with learning disabilities at a disadvantage.

However, the 10-minute guideline is useful in setting a limit: When kids spend too much time on homework, there are real consequences to consider.

Small Benefits for Elementary Students

As young children begin school, the focus should be on cultivating a love of learning, and assigning too much homework can undermine that goal. And young students often don’t have the study skills to benefit fully from homework, so it may be a poor use of time (Cooper, 1989 ; Cooper et al., 2006 ; Marzano & Pickering, 2007 ). A more effective activity may be nightly reading, especially if parents are involved. The benefits of reading are clear: If students aren’t proficient readers by the end of third grade, they’re less likely to succeed academically and graduate from high school (Fiester, 2013 ).

For second-grade teacher Jacqueline Fiorentino, the minor benefits of homework did not outweigh the potential drawback of turning young children against school at an early age, so she experimented with dropping mandatory homework. “Something surprising happened: They started doing more work at home,” Fiorentino writes . “This inspiring group of 8-year-olds used their newfound free time to explore subjects and topics of interest to them.” She encouraged her students to read at home and offered optional homework to extend classroom lessons and help them review material.

Moderate Benefits for Middle School Students

As students mature and develop the study skills necessary to delve deeply into a topic—and to retain what they learn—they also benefit more from homework. Nightly assignments can help prepare them for scholarly work, and research shows that homework can have moderate benefits for middle school students (Cooper et al., 2006 ). Recent research also shows that online math homework, which can be designed to adapt to students’ levels of understanding, can significantly boost test scores (Roschelle et al., 2016 ).

There are risks to assigning too much, however: A 2015 study found that when middle school students were assigned more than 90 to 100 minutes of daily homework, their math and science test scores began to decline (Fernández-Alonso, Suárez-Álvarez, & Muñiz, 2015 ). Crossing that upper limit can drain student motivation and focus. The researchers recommend that “homework should present a certain level of challenge or difficulty, without being so challenging that it discourages effort.” Teachers should avoid low-effort, repetitive assignments, and assign homework “with the aim of instilling work habits and promoting autonomous, self-directed learning.”

In other words, it’s the quality of homework that matters, not the quantity. Brian Sztabnik, a veteran middle and high school English teacher, suggests that teachers take a step back and ask themselves these five questions :

• How long will it take to complete?
• Have all learners been considered?
• Will an assignment encourage future success?
• Will an assignment place material in a context the classroom cannot?
• Does an assignment offer support when a teacher is not there?

More Benefits for High School Students, but Risks as Well

By the time they reach high school, students should be well on their way to becoming independent learners, so homework does provide a boost to learning at this age, as long as it isn’t overwhelming (Cooper et al., 2006 ; Marzano & Pickering, 2007 ). When students spend too much time on homework—more than two hours each night—it takes up valuable time to rest and spend time with family and friends. A 2013 study found that high school students can experience serious mental and physical health problems, from higher stress levels to sleep deprivation, when assigned too much homework (Galloway, Conner, & Pope, 2013 ).

Homework in high school should always relate to the lesson and be doable without any assistance, and feedback should be clear and explicit.

Teachers should also keep in mind that not all students have equal opportunities to finish their homework at home, so incomplete homework may not be a true reflection of their learning—it may be more a result of issues they face outside of school. They may be hindered by issues such as lack of a quiet space at home, resources such as a computer or broadband connectivity, or parental support (OECD, 2014 ). In such cases, giving low homework scores may be unfair.

Since the quantities of time discussed here are totals, teachers in middle and high school should be aware of how much homework other teachers are assigning. It may seem reasonable to assign 30 minutes of daily homework, but across six subjects, that’s three hours—far above a reasonable amount even for a high school senior. Psychologist Maurice Elias sees this as a common mistake: Individual teachers create homework policies that in aggregate can overwhelm students. He suggests that teachers work together to develop a school-wide homework policy and make it a key topic of back-to-school night and the first parent-teacher conferences of the school year.

Parents Play a Key Role

Homework can be a powerful tool to help parents become more involved in their child’s learning (Walker et al., 2004 ). It can provide insights into a child’s strengths and interests, and can also encourage conversations about a child’s life at school. If a parent has positive attitudes toward homework, their children are more likely to share those same values, promoting academic success.

But it’s also possible for parents to be overbearing, putting too much emphasis on test scores or grades, which can be disruptive for children (Madjar, Shklar, & Moshe, 2015 ). Parents should avoid being overly intrusive or controlling—students report feeling less motivated to learn when they don’t have enough space and autonomy to do their homework (Orkin, May, & Wolf, 2017 ; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008 ; Silinskas & Kikas, 2017 ). So while homework can encourage parents to be more involved with their kids, it’s important to not make it a source of conflict.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

About 1 in 5 U.S. teens who’ve heard of ChatGPT have used it for schoolwork

Roughly one-in-five teenagers who have heard of ChatGPT say they have used it to help them do their schoolwork, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17. With a majority of teens having heard of ChatGPT, that amounts to 13% of all U.S. teens who have used the generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot in their schoolwork.

Teens in higher grade levels are particularly likely to have used the chatbot to help them with schoolwork. About one-quarter of 11th and 12th graders who have heard of ChatGPT say they have done this. This share drops to 17% among 9th and 10th graders and 12% among 7th and 8th graders.

There is no significant difference between teen boys and girls who have used ChatGPT in this way.

The introduction of ChatGPT last year has led to much discussion about its role in schools , especially whether schools should integrate the new technology into the classroom or ban it .

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand American teens’ use and understanding of ChatGPT in the school setting.

The Center conducted an online survey of 1,453 U.S. teens from Sept. 26 to Oct. 23, 2023, via Ipsos. Ipsos recruited the teens via their parents, who were part of its KnowledgePanel . The KnowledgePanel is a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. The survey was weighted to be representative of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 who live with their parents by age, gender, race and ethnicity, household income, and other categories.

This research was reviewed and approved by an external institutional review board (IRB), Advarra, an independent committee of experts specializing in helping to protect the rights of research participants.

Here are the  questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its  methodology .

Teens’ awareness of ChatGPT

Overall, two-thirds of U.S. teens say they have heard of ChatGPT, including 23% who have heard a lot about it. But awareness varies by race and ethnicity, as well as by household income:

• 72% of White teens say they’ve heard at least a little about ChatGPT, compared with 63% of Hispanic teens and 56% of Black teens.
• 75% of teens living in households that make $75,000 or more annually have heard of ChatGPT. Much smaller shares in households with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 (58%) and less than $30,000 (41%) say the same.

Teens who are more aware of ChatGPT are more likely to use it for schoolwork. Roughly a third of teens who have heard a lot about ChatGPT (36%) have used it for schoolwork, far higher than the 10% among those who have heard a little about it.

When do teens think it’s OK for students to use ChatGPT?

For teens, whether it is – or is not – acceptable for students to use ChatGPT depends on what it is being used for.

There is a fair amount of support for using the chatbot to explore a topic. Roughly seven-in-ten teens who have heard of ChatGPT say it’s acceptable to use when they are researching something new, while 13% say it is not acceptable.

However, there is much less support for using ChatGPT to do the work itself. Just one-in-five teens who have heard of ChatGPT say it’s acceptable to use it to write essays, while 57% say it is not acceptable. And 39% say it’s acceptable to use ChatGPT to solve math problems, while a similar share of teens (36%) say it’s not acceptable.

Some teens are uncertain about whether it’s acceptable to use ChatGPT for these tasks. Between 18% and 24% say they aren’t sure whether these are acceptable use cases for ChatGPT.

Those who have heard a lot about ChatGPT are more likely than those who have only heard a little about it to say it’s acceptable to use the chatbot to research topics, solve math problems and write essays. For instance, 54% of teens who have heard a lot about ChatGPT say it’s acceptable to use it to solve math problems, compared with 32% among those who have heard a little about it.

Note: Here are the  questions used for this analysis , along with responses, and its  methodology .

• Artificial Intelligence
• Technology Adoption
• Teens & Tech

Olivia Sidoti is a research assistant focusing on internet and technology research at Pew Research Center

Jeffrey Gottfried is an associate director focusing on internet and technology research at Pew Research Center

Many Americans think generative AI programs should credit the sources they rely on

Americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, q&a: how we used large language models to identify guests on popular podcasts, striking findings from 2023, what the data says about americans’ views of artificial intelligence, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

“Homework Should Be…but We Do Not Live in an Ideal World”: Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives on Quality Homework and on Homework Assigned in Elementary and Middle Schools

Pedro rosário.

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

Jennifer Cunha

Tânia nunes, ana rita nunes, tânia moreira, josé carlos núñez.

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

Associated Data

Existing literature has analyzed homework characteristics associated with academic results. Researchers and educators defend the need to provide quality homework, but there is still much to be learned about the characteristics of quality homework (e.g., purposes, type). Acknowledging that teachers play an important role in designing and assigning homework, this study explored teachers’ perspectives regarding: (i) the characteristics of quality homework and (ii) the characteristics of the homework tasks assigned. In the current study, mathematics teachers from elementary and middle schools ( N = 78) participated in focus group discussions. To enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, homework tasks assigned by 25% of the participants were analyzed for triangulation of data purposes. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis for elementary and middle school separately. Teachers discussed the various characteristics of quality homework (e.g., short assignments, adjusted to the availability of students) and shared the characteristics of the homework tasks typically assigned, highlighting a few differences (e.g., degree of individualization of homework, purposes) between these two topics. Globally, data on the homework tasks assigned were consistent with teachers’ reports about the characteristics of the homework tasks they usually assigned. Findings provide valuable insights for research and practice aimed to promote the quality of homework and consequently students’ learning and progress.

Introduction

The extensive literature on homework suggests the importance of completing homework tasks to foster students’ academic achievement (e.g., Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2009 ; Hagger et al., 2015 ; Núñez et al., 2015a ; Valle et al., 2016 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2017 ). However, existing research also indicate that the amount of homework assigned is not always related to high academic achievement ( Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2012 ). In the words of Dettmers et al. (2010) “homework works if quality is high” (p. 467). However, further research is needed to answer the question “What is quality homework?”.

Teachers are responsible for designing and assigning homework, thus our knowledge on their perspectives about this topic and the characteristics of the homework typically assigned is expected to be a relevant contribution to the literature on the quality of homework. Moreover, data on the characteristics of homework could provide valuable information to unveil the complex network of relationships between homework and academic achievement (e.g., Cooper, 2001 ; Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ; Trautwein et al., 2009a ; Xu, 2010 ).

Thus, focusing on the perspective of mathematics teachers from elementary and middle school, the aims of the present study are twofold: to explore the characteristics of quality homework, and to identify the characteristics of the homework tasks typically assigned at these school levels. Findings may help deepen our understanding of why homework may impact differently the mathematics achievement of elementary and middle school students (see Fan et al., 2017 ).

Research Background on Homework Characteristics

Homework is a complex educational process involving a diverse set of variables that each may influence students’ academic outcomes (e.g., Corno, 2000 ; Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ; Cooper et al., 2006 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2012 ). Cooper (1989 , 2001 ) presented a model outlining the factors that may potentially influence the effect of homework at the three stages of the homework process (i.e., design of the homework assignment, completion of homework and homework follow-up practices). At the first stage teachers are expected to consider class characteristics (e.g., students’ prior knowledge, grade level, number of students per class), and also variables that may influence the impact of homework on students’ outcomes, such as homework assignment characteristics. In 1989, Cooper (see also Cooper et al., 2006 ) presented a list of the characteristics of homework assignments as follows: amount (comprising homework frequency and length), purpose, skill area targeted, degree of individualization, student degree of choice, completion deadlines, and social context. Based on existing literature, Trautwein et al. (2006b) proposed a distinct organization for the assignment characteristics. The proposal included: homework frequency (i.e., how often homework assignments are prescribed to students), quality, control, and adaptivity. “Homework frequency” and “adaptivity” are similar to “amount” and “degree of individualization” in Cooper’s model, respectively. Both homework models provide a relevant theoretical framework for the present study.

Prior research has analyzed the relationship between homework variables, students’ behaviors and academic achievement, and found different results depending on the variables examined (see Trautwein et al., 2009b ; Fan et al., 2017 ). For example, while homework frequency consistently and positively predicted students’ academic achievement (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2002 ; Trautwein, 2007 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ), findings regarding the amount of homework assigned (usually assessed by the time spent on homework) have shown mixed results (e.g., Trautwein, 2007 ; Dettmers et al., 2009 ; Núñez et al., 2015a ). Data indicated a positive association between the amount of homework and students’ academic achievement in high school (e.g., OECD, 2014a ); however, this relationship is almost null in elementary school (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ; Rosário et al., 2009 ). Finally, other studies reported a negative association between time spent on homework and students’ academic achievement at different school levels (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2009b ; Rosário et al., 2011 ; Núñez et al., 2015a ).

Homework purposes are among the factors that may influence the effect of homework on students’ homework behaviors and academic achievement ( Cooper, 2001 ; Trautwein et al., 2009a ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2012 ; Rosário et al., 2015 ). In his model Cooper (1989 , 2001 ) reported instructional purposes (i.e., practicing or reviewing, preparation, integration and extension) and non-instructional purposes (i.e., parent-child communication, fulfilling directives, punishment, and community relations). Depending on their nature, homework instructional purposes may vary throughout schooling ( Muhlenbruck et al., 2000 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ). For example, in elementary school, teachers are likely to use homework as an opportunity to review the content taught in class, while in secondary school (6th–12th grade), teachers are prone to use homework to prepare students for the content to be learned in subsequent classes ( Muhlenbruck et al., 2000 ). Still, studies have recently shown that practicing the content learned is the homework purpose most frequently used throughout schooling (e.g., Xu and Yuan, 2003 ; Danielson et al., 2011 ; Kaur, 2011 ; Bang, 2012 ; Kukliansky et al., 2014 ). Studies using quantitative methodologies have analyzed the role played by homework purposes in students’ effort and achievement ( Trautwein et al., 2009a ; Rosário et al., 2015 , 2018 ), and reported distinct results depending on the subject analyzed. For example, Foyle et al. (1990) found that homework assignments with the purposes of practice and preparation improved the performance of 5th-grade students’ social studies when compared with the no-homework group. However, no statistical difference was found between the two types of homework purposes analyzed (i.e., practice and preparation). When examining the homework purposes reported by 8th-grade teachers of French as a Second Language (e.g., drilling and practicing, motivating, linking school and home), Trautwein et al. (2009a) found that students in classes assigned tasks with high emphasis on motivation displayed more effort and achieved higher outcomes than their peers. On the contrary, students in classes assigned tasks with high drill and practice reported less homework effort and achievement ( Trautwein et al., 2009a ). A recent study by Rosário et al. (2015) analyzed the relationship between homework assignments with various types of purposes (i.e., practice, preparation and extension) and 6th-grade mathematics achievement. These authors reported that homework with the purpose of “extension” impacted positively on students’ academic achievement while the other two homework purposes did not.

Cooper (1989 , 2001 ) identified the “degree of individualization” as a characteristic of homework focused on the need to design homework addressing different levels of performance. For example, some students need to be assigned practice exercises with a low level of difficulty to help them reach school goals, while others need to be assigned exercises with high levels of complexity to foster their motivation for homework ( Trautwein et al., 2002 ). When there is a disparity between the level of difficulty of homework assignments and students’ skills level, students may have to spend long hours doing homework, and they may experience negative emotions or even avoid doing homework ( Corno, 2000 ). On the contrary, when homework assignments meet students’ learning needs (e.g., Bang, 2012 ; Kukliansky et al., 2014 ), both students’ homework effort and academic achievement increase (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006a ; Zakharov et al., 2014 ). Teachers may also decide on the time given to students to complete their homework ( Cooper, 1989 ; Cooper et al., 2006 ). For example, homework may be assigned to be delivered in the following class (e.g., Kaur et al., 2004 ) or within a week (e.g., Kaur, 2011 ). However, research on the beneficial effects of each practice is still limited.

Trautwein et al. (2006b) investigated homework characteristics other than those previously reported. Their line of research analyzed students’ perception of homework quality and homework control (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006b ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ). Findings on homework quality (e.g., level of difficulty of the mathematics exercises, Trautwein et al., 2002 ; homework “cognitively activating” and “well prepared”, Trautwein et al., 2006b , p. 448; homework selection and level of challenge, Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Rosário et al., 2018 ) varied regarding the various measures and levels of analysis considered. For example, focusing on mathematics, Trautwein et al. (2002) concluded that “demanding” exercises improved 7th-grade students’ achievement at student and class levels, while “repetitive exercises” impacted negatively on students’ achievement. Dettmers et al. (2010) found that homework assignments perceived by students as “well-prepared and interesting” (p. 471) positively predicted 9th- and 10th-grade students’ homework motivation (expectancy and value beliefs) and behavior (effort and time) at student and class level, and mathematics achievement at class level only. These authors also reported that “cognitively challenging” homework (p. 471), as perceived by students, negatively predicted students’ expectancy beliefs at both levels, and students’ homework effort at student level ( Dettmers et al., 2010 ). Moreover, this study showed that “challenging homework” significantly and positively impacted on students’ mathematics achievement at class level ( Dettmers et al., 2010 ). At elementary school, homework quality (assessed through homework selection) predicted positively 6th-grade students’ homework effort, homework performance, and mathematics achievement ( Rosário et al., 2018 ).

Finally, Trautwein and colleagues investigated the variable “homework control” perceived by middle school students and found mixed results. The works by Trautwein and Lüdtke (2007 , 2009 ) found that “homework control” predicted positively students’ homework effort in mathematics, but other studies (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2002 , 2006b ) did not predict homework effort and mathematics achievement.

The Present Study

A vast body of research indicates that homework enhances students’ academic achievement [see the meta-analysis conducted by Fan et al. (2017) ], however, maladaptive homework behaviors of students (e.g., procrastination, lack of interest in homework, failure to complete homework) may affect homework benefits ( Bembenutty, 2011a ; Hong et al., 2011 ; Rosário et al., 2019 ). These behaviors may be related to the characteristics of the homework assigned (e.g., large amount of homework, disconnect between the type and level of difficulty of homework assignments and students’ needs and abilities, see Margolis and McCabe, 2004 ; Trautwein, 2007 ).

Homework is only valuable to students’ learning when its quality is perceived by students ( Dettmers et al., 2010 ). Nevertheless, little is known about the meaning of homework quality for teachers who are responsible for assigning homework. What do teachers understand to be quality homework? To our knowledge, the previous studies exploring teachers’ perspectives on their homework practices did not relate data with quality homework (e.g., Xu and Yuan, 2003 ; Danielson et al., 2011 ; Kaur, 2011 ; Bang, 2012 ; Kukliansky et al., 2014 ). For example, Kukliansky et al. (2014) found a disconnect between middle school science teachers’ perspectives about their homework practices and their actual homework practices observed in class. However, results were not further explained.

The current study aims to explore teachers’ perspectives on the characteristics of quality homework, and on the characteristics underlying the homework tasks assigned. Findings are expected to shed some light on the role of teachers in the homework process and contribute to maximize the benefits of homework. Our results may be useful for either homework research (e.g., by informing new quantitative studies grounded on data from teachers’ perspectives) or educational practice (e.g., by identifying new avenues for teacher training and the defining of guidelines for homework practices).

This study is particularly important in mathematics for the following reasons: mathematics is among the school subjects where teachers assign the largest amount of homework (e.g., Rønning, 2011 ; Xu, 2015 ), while students continue to yield worrying school results in the subject, especially in middle and high school ( Gottfried et al., 2007 ; OECD, 2014b ). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis focused on mathematics and science homework showed that the relationship between homework and academic achievement in middle school is weaker than in elementary school ( Fan et al., 2017 ). Thus, we collected data through focus group discussions with elementary and middle school mathematics teachers in order to analyze any potential variations in their perspectives on the characteristics of quality homework, and on the characteristics of homework tasks they typically assign. Regarding the latter topic, we also collected photos of homework tasks assigned by 25% of the participating teachers in order to triangulate data and enhance the trustworthiness of our findings.

Our exploratory study was guided by the following research questions:

• simple (1) How do elementary and middle school mathematics teachers perceive quality homework?
• simple (2) How do elementary and middle school mathematics teachers describe the homework tasks they typically assign to students?

Materials and Methods

The study context.

Despite recommendations of the need for clear homework policies (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ; Bembenutty, 2011b ), Portugal has no formal guidelines for homework (e.g., concerning the frequency, length, type of tasks). Still, many teachers usually include homework as part of students’ overall grade and ask parents to monitor their children’s homework completion. Moreover, according to participants there is no specific training on homework practices for pre-service or in-service teachers.

The Portuguese educational system is organized as follows: the last two years of elementary school encompass 5th and 6th grade (10 and 11 years old), while middle school encompasses 7th, 8th, and 9th grade (12 to 14 years old). At the two school levels mentioned, mathematics is a compulsory subject and students attend three to five mathematics lessons per week depending on the duration of each class (270 min per week for Grades 5 and 6, and 225 min per week for Grades 7–9). All students are assessed by their mathematics teacher (through continuous assessment tests), and at the end of elementary and middle school levels (6th and 9th grade) students are assessed externally through a national exam that counts for 30% of the overall grade. In Portuguese schools assigning homework is a frequently used educational practice, mostly in mathematics, and usually counts toward the overall grade, ranging between 2% and 5% depending on school boards ( Rosário et al., 2018 ).

Participants

In the current study, all participants were involved in focus groups and 25% of them, randomly selected, were asked to submit photos of homework tasks assigned.

According to Morgan (1997) , to maximize the discussion among participants it is important that they share some characteristics and experiences related to the aims of the study in question. In the current study, teachers were eligible to participate when the following criteria were met: (i) they had been teaching mathematics at elementary or middle school levels for at least two years; and (ii) they would assign homework regularly, at least twice a week, in order to have enough experiences to share in the focus group.

All mathematics teachers ( N = 130) from 25 elementary and middle schools in Northern Portugal were contacted by email. The email informed teachers of the purposes and procedures of the study (e.g., inclusion criteria, duration of the session, session videotaping, selection of teachers to send photos of homework tasks assigned), and invited them to participate in the study. To facilitate recruitment, researchers scheduled focus group discussions considering participants’ availability. Of the volunteer teachers, all participants met the inclusion criteria. The research team did not allocate teachers with hierarchical relationships in the same group, as this might limit freedom of responses, affect the dynamics of the discussion, and, consequently, the outcomes ( Kitzinger, 1995 ).

Initially we conducted four focus groups with elementary school teachers (5th and 6th grade, 10 and 11 years old) and four focus groups with middle school teachers (7th, 8th, and 9th grade, 12, 13 and 14 years old). Subsequently, two additional focus group discussions (one for each school level) were conducted to ensure the saturation of data. Finally, seventy-eight mathematics teachers (61 females and 17 males; an acceptance rate of 60%) from 16 schools participated in our study (see Table 1 ). The teachers enrolled in 10 focus groups comprised of seven to nine teachers per group. Twenty teachers were randomly selected and asked to participate in the second data collection; all answered positively to our invitation (15 females and 5 males).

Participants’ demographic information.

According to our participants, in the school context, mathematics teachers may teach one to eight classes of different grade levels. In the current research, participants were teaching one to five classes of two or three grade levels at schools in urban or near urban contexts. The participants practiced the mandatory nationwide curriculum and a continuous assessment policy.

Data Collection

We carried out this study following the recommendations of the ethics committee of the University of Minho. All teachers gave written informed consent to participate in the research in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The collaboration involved participating in one focus group discussion, and, for 25% of the participants, submitting photos by email of the homework tasks assigned.

In the current study, aiming to deepen our comprehension of the research questions, focus group interviews were conducted to capture participants’ thoughts about a particular topic ( Kitzinger, 1995 ; Morgan, 1997 ). The focus groups were conducted by two members of the research team (a moderator and a field note-taker) in the first term of the school year and followed the procedure described by Krueger and Casey (2000) . To prevent mishandling the discussions and to encourage teachers to participate in the sessions, the two facilitators attended a course on qualitative research offered at their home institution specifically targeting focus group methodology.

All focus group interviews were videotaped. The sessions were held in a meeting room at the University of Minho facilities, and lasted 90 to 105 min. Before starting the discussion, teachers filled in a questionnaire with sociodemographic information, and were invited to read and sign a written informed consent form. Researchers introduced themselves, and read out the information regarding the study purpose and the focus group ground rules. Participants were ensured of the confidentiality of their responses (e.g., names and researchers’ personal notes that might link participants to their schools were deleted). Then, the investigators initiated the discussion (see Table 2 ). At the end of each focus group discussion, participants were given the opportunity to ask questions or make further contributions.

Focus group questions.

After the focus group discussions, we randomly selected 25% of the participating teachers (i.e., 10 teachers from each school level), each asked to submit photos of the homework tasks assigned by email over the course of three weeks (period between two mathematics assessment tests). This data collection aimed to triangulate data from focus groups regarding the characteristics of homework usually assigned. To encourage participation, the research team sent teachers a friendly reminder email every evening throughout the period of data collection. In total, we received 125 photos (51% were from middle school teachers).

Data Analysis

Videotapes were used to assist the verbatim transcription of focus group data. Both focus group data and photos of the homework assignments were analyzed using thematic analysis ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ), assisted by QSR International’s NVivo 10 software ( Richards, 2005 ). In this analysis there are no rigid guidelines on how to determine themes; to assure that the analysis is rigorous, researchers are expected to follow a consistent procedure throughout the analysis process ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). For the current study, to identify themes and sub-themes, we used the extensiveness of comments criterion (number of participants who express a theme, Krueger and Casey, 2000 ).

Firstly, following an inductive process one member of the research team read the first eight focus group transcriptions several times, took notes on the overall ideas of the data, and made a list of possible codes for data at a semantic level ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). Using a cluster analysis by word similarity procedure in Nvivo, all codes were grouped in order to identify sub-themes and themes posteriorly. All the themes and sub-themes were independently and iteratively identified and compared with the literature on homework ( Peterson and Irving, 2008 ). Then, the themes and sub-themes were compared with the homework characteristics already reported in the literature (e.g., Cooper, 1989 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ; Trautwein et al., 2006b ). New sub-themes emerged from participants’ discourses (i.e., “adjusted to the availability of students,” “teachers diagnose learning”), and were grouped in the themes reported in the literature. After, all themes and sub-themes were organized in a coding scheme (for an example see Table 3 ). Finally, the researcher coded the two other focus group discussions, no new information was added related to the research questions. Given that the generated patterns of data were not changed, the researcher concluded that thematic saturation was reached.

Examples of the coding scheme.

An external auditor, trained on the coding scheme, revised all transcriptions, the coding scheme and the coding process in order to minimize researchers’ biases and increase the trustworthiness of the study ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ). The first author and the external auditor examined the final categorization of data and reached consensus.

Two other members of the research team coded independently the photos of the homework assignments using the same coding scheme of the focus groups. To analyze data, the researchers had to define the sub-themes “short assignments” (i.e., up to three exercises) and “long assignments” (i.e., more than three exercises). In the end, the two researchers reviewed the coding process and discussed the differences found (e.g., some exercises had several sub questions, so one of the researchers coded it as “long assignments”; see the homework sample 4 of the Supplementary Material ). However, the researchers reached consensus, deciding not to count the number of sub questions of each exercise individually, because these types of questions are related and do not require a significant amount of additional time.

Inter-rater reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) was calculated. The Cohen’s Kappa was 0.86 for the data analysis of the focus groups and 0.85 for data analysis of the photos of homework assignments, which is considered very good according to Landis and Koch (1977) . To obtain a pattern of data considering the school levels, a matrix coding query was run for each data source (i.e., focus groups and photos of homework assignments). Using the various criteria options in NVivo 10, we crossed participants’ classifications (i.e., school level attribute) and nodes and displayed the frequencies of responses for each row–column combination ( Bazeley and Jackson, 2013 ).

In the end of this process of data analysis, for establishing the trustworthiness of findings, 20 teachers (i.e., ten participants of each grade level) were randomly invited, and all agreed, to provide a member check of the findings ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ). Member checking involved two phases. First, teachers were asked individually to read a summary of the findings and to fill in a 5-point Likert scale (1, completely disagree; 5, completely agree) with four items: “Findings reflect my perspective regarding homework quality”; “Findings reflect my perspective regarding homework practices”; “Findings reflect what was discussed in the focus group where I participated”, and “I feel that my opinion was influenced by the other teachers during the discussion” (inverted item). Secondly, teachers were gathered by school level and asked to critically analyze and discuss whether an authentic representation was made of their perspectives regarding quality homework and homework practices ( Creswell, 2007 ).

This study explored teachers’ perspectives on the characteristics of quality homework, and on the characteristics of the homework tasks typically assigned. To report results, we used the frequency of occurrence criterion of the categories defined by Hill et al. (2005) . Each theme may be classified as “General” when all participants, or all except one, mention a particular theme; “Typical” when more than half of the cases mention a theme; “Variant” when more than 3, and less than half of the cases mention a theme; and “Rare” when the frequency is between 2 and 3 cases. In the current study, only general and typical themes were reported to discuss the most salient data.

The results section was organized by each research question. Throughout the analysis of the results, quotes from participants were presented to illustrate data. For the second research question, data from the homework assignments collected as photographs were also included.

Initial Data Screening

All participating teachers defended the importance of completing homework, arguing that homework can help students to develop their learning and to engage in school life. Furthermore, participants also agreed on the importance of delivering this message to students. Nevertheless, all teachers acknowledged that assigning homework daily present a challenge to their teaching routine because of the heavy workload faced daily (e.g., large numbers of students per class, too many classes to teach, teaching classes from different grade levels which means preparing different lessons, administrative workload).

Teachers at both school levels talked spontaneously about the nature of the tasks they usually assign, and the majority reported selecting homework tasks from a textbook. However, participants also referred to creating exercises fit to particular learning goals. Data collected from the homework assigned corroborated this information. Most of participating teachers reported that they had not received any guidance from their school board regarding homework.

How do Elementary and Middle School Teachers Perceive Quality Homework?

Three main themes were identified by elementary school teachers (i.e., instructional purposes, degree of individualization/adaptivity, and length of homework) and two were identified by middle school teachers (i.e., instructional purposes, and degree of individualization/adaptivity). Figure 1 depicts the themes and sub-themes reported by teachers in the focus groups.

Characteristics of quality homework reported by mathematics teachers by school level.

In all focus group discussions, all teachers from elementary and middle school mentioned “instructional purposes” as the main characteristic of quality homework. When asked to further explain the importance of this characteristic, teachers at both school levels in all focus group talked about the need for “practicing or reviewing” the content delivered in class to strengthen students’ knowledge. A teacher illustrated this idea clearly: “it is not worth teaching new content when students do not master the material previously covered” (P1 FG3). This idea was supported by participants in all focus groups; “at home they [students] have to work on the same content as those taught in class” (P1 FG7), “students have to revisit exercises and practice” (P2 FG9), “train over and over again” (P6 FG1), “practice, practice, practice” (P4 FG2).

While discussing the benefits of designing homework with the purpose of practicing the content learned, teachers at both school levels agreed on the fact that homework may be a useful tool for students to diagnose their own learning achievements while working independently. Teachers were empathetic with their peers when discussing the instrumentality of homework as a “thermometer” for students to assess their own progress. This idea was discussed in similar ways in all focus group, as the following quotation illustrates:

P2 FG1: Homework should be a bridge between class and home… students are expected to work independently, learn about their difficulties when doing homework, and check whether they understood the content.

When asked to outline other characteristics of quality homework, several elementary school teachers in all focus group mentioned that quality homework should also promote “student development” as an instructional purpose. These participants explained that homework is an instructional tool that should be designed to “foster students’ autonomy” (P9 FG4), “develop study habits and routines” (P1 FG8), and “promote organization skills and study methods” (P6 FG7). These thoughts were unanimous among participants in all focus groups. While some teachers introduced real-life examples to illustrate the ideas posited by their colleagues, others nodded their heads in agreement.

In addition, some elementary school teachers observed that homework tasks requiring transference of knowledge could help develop students’ complex thinking, a highly valued topic in the current mathematics curriculum worldwide. Teachers discussed this topic enthusiastically in two opposite directions: while some teachers defended this purpose as a characteristic of quality homework, others disagreed, as the following conversation excerpt illustrates:

P7 FG5: For me good homework would be a real challenge, like a problem-solving scenario that stimulates learning transference and develops mathematical reasoning … mathematical insight. It’s hard because it forces them [students] to think in more complex ways; still, I believe this is the type of homework with the most potential gains for them.

P3 FG5: That’s a good point, but they [students] give up easily. They just don’t do their homework. This type of homework implies competencies that the majority of students do not master…

P1 FG5: Not to mention that this type of homework takes up a lot of teaching time… explaining, checking…, and we simply don’t have time for this.

Globally, participants agreed on the potential of assigning homework with the purpose of instigating students to transfer learning to new tasks. However, participants also discussed the limitations faced daily in their teaching (e.g., number of students per class, students’ lack of prior knowledge) and concluded that homework with this purpose hinders the successful development of their lesson plans. This perspective may help explain why many participants did not perceive this purpose as a significant characteristic of quality homework. Further commenting on the characteristics of quality homework, the majority of participants at both school levels agreed that quality homework should be tailored to meet students’ learning needs. The importance of individualized homework was intensely discussed in all focus groups, and several participants suggested the need for designing homework targeted at a particular student or groups of students with common education needs. The following statements exemplifies participants’ opinions:

P3 FG3: Ideally, homework should be targeted at each student individually. For André a simple exercise, for Ana a more challenging exercise … in an ideal world homework should be tailored to students’ needs.

P6 FG6: Given the diversity of students in our classes, we may find a rainbow of levels of prior knowledge… quality homework should be as varied as our students’ needs.

As discussed in the focus groups, to foster the engagement of high-achievers in homework completion, homework tasks should be challenging enough (as reported previously by P3 FG3). However, participants at both school levels observed that their heavy daily workload prevents them from assigning individualized homework:

P1 FG1: I know it’s important to assign differentiated homework tasks, and I believe in it… but this option faces real-life barriers, such as the number of classes we have to teach, each with thirty students, tons of bureaucratic stuff we have to deal with… All this raises real-life questions, real impediments… how can we design homework tasks for individual students?

Considering this challenge, teachers from both school levels suggested that quality homework should comprise exercises with increasing levels of difficulty. This strategy would respond to the heterogeneity of students’ learning needs without assigning individualized homework tasks to each student.

While discussing individualized homework, elementary school teachers added that assignments should be designed bearing in mind students’ availability (e.g., school timetable, extracurricular activities, and exam dates). Participants noted that teachers should learn the amount of workload their students have, and should be aware about the importance of students’ well-being.

P4 FG1: If students have large amounts of homework, this could be very uncomfortable and even frustrating… They have to do homework of other subjects and add time to extracurricular activities… responding to all demands can be very stressful.

P4 FG2: I think that we have to learn about the learning context of our students, namely their limitations to complete homework in the time they have available. We all have good intentions and want them to progress, but if students do not have enough time to do their homework, this won’t work. So, quality homework would be, for example, when students have exams and the teacher gives them little or no homework at all.

The discussion about the length of homework found consensus among the elementary school teachers in all focus group in that quality homework should be “brief”. During the discussions, elementary school teachers further explained that assigning long tasks is not beneficial because “they [students] end up demotivated” (P3 FG4). Besides, “completing long homework assignments takes hours!” (P5 FG4).

How do Elementary and Middle School Teachers Describe the Homework Tasks They Typically Assign to Students?

When discussing the characteristics of the homework tasks usually assigned to their students four main themes were identified by elementary school teachers (i.e., instructional purposes, degree of individualization/adaptivity, frequency and completion deadlines), and two main themes were raised by middle school (i.e., instructional purposes, and degree of individualization/adaptivity). Figure 2 gives a general overview of the findings. Data gathered from photos added themes to findings as follows: one (i.e., length) to elementary school and two (i.e., length and completion deadlines) to middle school (see Figure 3 ).

Characteristics of the homework tasks usually assigned as reported by mathematics teachers.

Characteristics of the homework tasks assigned by mathematics teachers.

While describing the characteristics of the homework tasks usually assigned, teachers frequently felt the need to compare the quality homework characteristics previously discussed with those practices. In fact, at this stage, teachers’ discourse was often focused on the analysis of the similarities and potential discrepancies found.

The majority of teachers at both school levels in all focus group reported that they assign homework with the purpose of practicing and reviewing the materials covered earlier. Participants at both school levels highlighted the need to practice the contents covered because by the end of 6th- and 9th-grade students have to sit for a national exam for which they have to be trained. This educational context may interfere with the underlying homework purposes teachers have, as this quotation illustrates:

P3 FG3: When teaching mathematics, we set several goals, but our main focus is always the final exam they [students] have to take. I like students who think for themselves, who push themselves out of their comfort zone. However, I’m aware that they have to score high on national exams, otherwise… so, I assign homework to practice the contents covered.

Beyond assigning homework with the purpose of practicing and reviewing, middle school teachers also mentioned assigning homework with the purpose of diagnosing skills and personal development (see Figure 2 ). Many teachers reported that they use homework as a tool to diagnose students’ skills. However, several recognized that they had previously defended the importance of homework to help students to evaluate their own learning (see Figure 1 ). When discussing the latter point, participants observed the need to find out about whether students had understood the content taught in class, and to decide which changes to teaching style, homework assigned, or both may be necessary.

Participant teachers at middle school in all focus groups profusely discussed the purpose of personal development when assigning homework. In fact, not many teachers at this school level mentioned this purpose as a characteristic of quality homework (it was a variant category, so it was not reported), yet it was referred to as a cornerstone in their homework practice. Reflecting on this discrepancy, middle school teachers explained in a displeased tone that their students were expected to have developed study habits and manage their school work with autonomy and responsibility. However, this “educational scenario is rare, so I feel the need to assign homework with this aim [personal development]” (P4 FG9).

Moving further in the discussion, the majority of teachers at both school levels reported to assign whole-class homework (homework designed for the whole class with no focus on special cases). “Individualized homework requires a great amount of time to be monitored” (P1 FG6), explained several participants while recalling earlier comments. Teachers justified their position referring to the impediments already mentioned (e.g., large number of students per class, number of classes from different grade levels which means preparing different lessons). Besides, teachers discussed the challenge of coping with heterogeneous classes, as one participant noted: “the class is so diverse that it is difficult to select homework tasks to address the needs of every single student. I would like to do it…but we do not live in an ideal world” (P9 FG4).

Moreover, teachers at both school levels (see Figure 2 ) reported to assign homework according to the availability of students; still, only elementary school teachers had earlier referred to the importance of this characteristic in quality homework. When teachers were asked to elaborate on this idea, they defended the need to negotiate with students about specific homework characteristics, for example, the amount of homework and submission deadline. In some classes, matching students’ requests, teachers might assign a “weekly homework pack” (P7 FG10). This option provides students with the opportunity to complete homework according to their availability (e.g., choosing some days during the week or weekend). Teachers agreed that ‘negotiation’ fosters students’ engagement and homework compliance (e.g., “I do not agree that students do homework on weekends, but if they show their wish and actually they complete it, for me that’s okay”, P7 FG10). In addition, teachers expressed worry about their students’ often heavy workload. Many students stay in school from 8.30 am to 6.30 pm and then attend extracurricular activities (e.g., soccer training, private music lessons). These activities leave students very little free time to enjoy as they wish, as the following statement suggests:

P8 FG4: Today I talked to a group of 5th-graders which play soccer after school three times a week. They told me that sometimes they study between 10.00 and 11.00 p.m. I was astonished. How is this possible? It’s clearly too much for these kids.

Finally, elementary school teachers in all focus group referred frequency and completion deadlines as characteristics of the homework they usually assign. The majority of teachers informed that they assign homework in almost every class (i.e., teachers reported to exclude tests eves of other subjects), to be handed in the following class.

The photos of the homework assignments (see some examples in Supplementary Material ) submitted by the participating teachers served to triangulate data. The analysis showed that teachers’ discourses about the characteristics of homework assigned and the homework samples are congruent, and added information about the length of homework (elementary and middle schools) and the completion deadlines (middle school) (see Figure 3 ).

Discussion and Implications for Practice and Research

Homework research have reported teachers’ perspectives on their homework practices (e.g., Brock et al., 2007 ; Danielson et al., 2011 ; Kaur, 2011 ; Bang, 2012 ; Kukliansky et al., 2014 ), however, literature lacks research on the quality of homework. This study adds to the literature by examining the perspectives of teachers from two school levels regarding quality homework. Moreover, participants described the characteristics of the homework assignments they typically assign, which triggered the discussion about the match between the characteristics of quality homework and the tasks actually assigned. While discussing these key aspects of the homework process, the current study provides valuable information which may help deepen our understanding of the different contributions of homework to students’ learning. Furthermore, findings are expected to inform teachers and school administrators’ homework practices and, hopefully, improve the quality of students’ learning.

All teachers at both school levels valued homework as an important educational tool for their teaching practice. Consistent with the literature, participants indicated practicing or reviewing the material covered in class as the main purpose of both the homework typically assigned ( Danielson et al., 2011 ; Kaur, 2011 ) and quality homework. Despite the extended use of this homework purpose by teachers, a recent study conducted with mathematics teachers found that homework with the purpose of practicing the material covered in class did not impact significantly the academic achievement of 6th-grade students; however, homework designed with the purpose of solving problems did (extension homework) ( Rosário et al., 2015 ). Interestingly, in the current study only teachers from elementary school mentioned the homework purpose “extension” as being part of quality homework, but these teachers did not report to use it in practice (at least it was not a typical category) (see Figure 2 ). Extension homework was not referenced by middle school teachers either as quality homework or as a characteristic of homework assigned. Given that middle school students are expected to master complex math skills at this level (e.g., National Research Council and Mathematics Learning Study Committee, 2001 ), this finding may help school administrators and teachers reflect on the value and benefits of homework to students learning progress.

Moreover, teachers at both school levels stressed the use of homework as a tool to help students evaluate their own learning as a characteristic of quality homework; however, this purpose was not said to be a characteristic of the homework usually assigned. If teachers do not explicitly emphasize this homework purpose to their students, they may not perceive its importance and lose opportunities to evaluate and improve their work.

In addition, elementary school teachers identified personal development as a characteristic of quality homework. However, only middle school teachers reported assigning homework aiming to promote students’ personal development, and evaluate students’ learning (which does not imply that students evaluate their own learning). These findings are important because existing literature has highlighted the role played by homework in promoting students’ autonomy and learning throughout schooling ( Rosário et al., 2009 , 2011 ; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Núñez et al., 2015b ).

Globally, data show a disconnect between what teachers believe to be the characteristics of quality homework and the characteristics of the homework assigned, which should be further analyzed in depth. For example, teachers reported that middle school students lack the autonomy and responsibility expected for this school level, which translates to poor homework behaviors. In fact, contrary to what they would expect, middle school teachers reported the need to promote students’ personal development (i.e., responsibility and autonomy). This finding is consistent with the decrease of students’ engagement in academic activities found in middle school (e.g., Cleary and Chen, 2009 ; Wang and Eccles, 2012 ). This scenario may present a dilemma to middle school teachers regarding the purposes of homework. On one hand, students should have homework with more demanding purposes (e.g., extension); on another hand, students need to master work habits, responsibility and autonomy, otherwise homework may be counterproductive according to the participating teachers’ perspective.

Additionally, prior research has indicated that classes assigned challenging homework demonstrated high mathematics achievement ( Trautwein et al., 2002 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ). Moreover, the study by Zakharov et al. (2014) found that Russian high school students from basic and advanced tracks benefited differently from two types of homework (i.e., basic short-answer questions, and open-ended questions with high level of complexity). Results showed that a high proportion of basic or complex homework exercises enhanced mathematics exam performance for students in the basic track; whereas only a high proportion of complex homework exercises enhanced mathematics exam performance for students in the advanced track. In fact, for these students, a low proportion of complex homework exercises was detrimental to their achievement. These findings, together with our own, may help explain why the relationship between homework and mathematics achievement in middle school is lower than in elementary school (see Fan et al., 2017 ). Our findings suggest the need for teachers to reflect upon the importance of assigning homework to promote students’ development in elementary school, and of assigning homework with challenging purposes as students advance in schooling to foster high academic outcomes. There is evidence that even students with poor prior knowledge need assignments with some degree of difficulty to promote their achievement (see Zakharov et al., 2014 ). It is important to note, however, the need to support the autonomy of students (e.g., providing different the types of assignments, opportunities for students to express negative feelings toward tasks, answer students’ questions) to minimize the threat that difficult homework exercises may pose to students’ sense of competence; otherwise an excessively high degree of difficulty can lead to students’ disengagement (see Patall et al., 2018 ). Moreover, teachers should consider students’ interests (e.g., which contents and types of homework tasks students like) and discuss homework purposes with their students to foster their understanding of the tasks assigned and, consequently, their engagement in homework ( Xu, 2010 , 2018 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2012 ; Rosário et al., 2018 ).

We also found differences between teachers’ perspectives of quality homework and their reported homework practices concerning the degree of individualization when assigning homework. Contrary to the perspectives that quality homework stresses individual needs, teachers reported to assign homework to the whole class. In spite of the educational costs associated with assigning homework adjusted to specific students or groups of students (mentioned several times by participants), research has reported benefits for students when homework assignments match their educational needs (e.g., Cooper, 2001 ; Trautwein et al., 2006a ; Zakharov et al., 2014 ). The above-mentioned study by Zakharov et al. (2014) also shed light on this topic while supporting our participants’ suggestion to assign homework with increasing level of difficulty aiming to match the variety of students’ levels of knowledge (see also Dettmers et al., 2010 ). However, teachers did not mention this idea when discussing the characteristic of homework typically assigned. Thus, school administrators may wish to consider training teachers (e.g., using mentoring, see Núñez et al., 2013 ) to help them overcome some of the obstacles faced when designing and assigning homework targeting students’ individual characteristics and learning needs.

Another interesting finding is related to the sub-theme of homework adjusted to the availability of students. This was reported while discussing homework quality (elementary school) and characteristics of homework typically assigned (elementary and middle school). Moreover, some elementary and middle school teachers explained by email the reasons why they did not assign homework in some circumstances [e.g., eves of assessment tests of other subjects, extracurricular activities, short time between classes (last class of the day and next class in the following morning)]. These teachers’ behaviors show concern for students’ well-being, which may positively influence the relationship between students and teachers. As some participants mentioned, “students value this attitude” (P1 FG5). Thus, future research may explore how homework adjusted to the availability of students may contribute to encouraging positive behaviors, emotions and outcomes of students toward their homework.

Data gathered from the photos of the assigned homework tasks allowed a detailed analysis of the length and completion deadlines of homework. Long assignments did not match elementary school teachers’ perspectives of quality homework. However, a long homework was assigned once and aimed to help students practice the material covered for the mathematics assessment test. Here, practices diverged. Some teachers assigned this homework some weeks before and others assign it in last class before the test. For this reason, the “long term” completion deadline was not a typical category, hence not reported. Future research could consider studying the impact of this homework characteristic on students’ behaviors and academic performance.

Finally, our findings show that quality homework, according to teachers’ perspectives, requires attention to a combination of several characteristics of homework. Future studies may include measures to assess characteristics of homework other than “challenge” and “selection” already investigated ( Trautwein et al., 2006b ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Rosário et al., 2018 ); for example, homework adjusted to the availability of students.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

The current study analyzed the teachers’ perspectives on the characteristics of quality homework and of the homework they typically assigned. Despite the incapability to generalize data, we believe that these findings provide important insights into the characteristics that may impact a homework assignment’s effectiveness, especially at middle school level. For example, our results showed a disconnect between teachers’ perspectives about the characteristics of quality homework and the characteristics of the homework they assign. This finding is relevant and emphasizes the need to reflect on the consistency between educational discourses and educational practices. Teachers and school administrators could consider finding opportunities to reflect on this disconnect, which may also occur in other educational practices (e.g., teacher feedback, types of questions asked in class). Present data indicate that middle school teachers reported to assign homework with the major purpose of practicing and reviewing the material, but they also aim to develop students’ responsibility and autonomy; still they neglect homework with the purpose of extension which is focused on encouraging students to display an autonomous role, solve problems and transfer the contents learned (see discussion section). Current findings also highlight the challenges and dilemmas teachers face when they assign homework, which is important to address in teachers’ training. In fact, assigning quality homework, that is, homework that works, is not an easy task for teachers and our findings provide empirical data to discuss and reflect upon its implications for research and educational practice. Although our findings cannot be generalized, still they are expected to provide important clues to enhance teachers’ homework practices in different contexts and educational settings, given that homework is among the most universal educational practices in the classroom, is a topic of public debate (e.g., some arguments against homework are related to the characteristics of the assignments, and to the malpractices in using this educational tool) and an active area of research in many countries ( Fan et al., 2017 ).

Moreover, these findings have identified some of the most common obstacles teachers struggle with; such data may be useful to school administrators when designing policies and to teacher training. The administrative obstacles (e.g., large number of students per class) reported by teachers may help understand some of the discrepancies found between teachers’ definition of quality homework and their actual homework practices (e.g., degree of individualization), and also identify which problems related to homework may require intervention. Furthermore, future research could further investigate this topic by interviewing teachers, videotaping classroom activities and discussing data in order to design new avenues of homework practices.

We share the perspective of Trautwein et al. (2006b) on the importance of mapping the characteristics of homework positively associated with students’ homework behaviors. Data from this study may inform future studies analyzing these relationships, promote adaptive homework behaviors and enhance learning.

Methodologically, this research followed rigorous procedures to increase the trustworthiness of findings, improving the validity of the study (e.g., Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ) that should be accounted for. Data from two data sources (i.e., focus groups and the homework assignments photographed) were consistent, and the member checking conducted in both phases allowed the opportunity to learn that the findings of the focus group seem to accurately reflect the overall teachers’ perspectives regarding quality homework and their homework practices.

Despite the promising contributions of this study to the body of research regarding homework practices, this specific research provides an incomplete perspective of the homework process as it has only addressed the perspectives of one of the agents involved. Future research may consider analyzing students’ perspectives about the same topic and contrast data with those of teachers. Findings are expected to help us identify the homework characteristics most highly valued by students and learn about whether they match those of teachers.

Furthermore, data from homework assignments (photos) were provided by 25% of the participating teachers and for a short period of time (i.e., three weeks in one school term). Future research may consider conducting small-scale studies by collecting data from various sources of information aiming at triangulating data (e.g., analyzing homework assignments given in class, interviewing students, conducting in-class observations) at different times of the school year. Researchers should also consider conducting similar studies in different subjects to compare data and inform teachers’ training.

Finally, our participants’ description does not include data regarding the teaching methodology followed by teachers in class. However, due to the potential interference of this variable in results, future research may consider collect and report data regarding school modality and the teaching methodology followed in class.

Homework is an instructional tool that has proved to enhance students’ learning ( Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ; Valle et al., 2016 ; Fan et al., 2017 ; Rosário et al., 2018 ). Still, homework is a complex process and needs to be analyzed thoroughly. For instance, when planning and designing homework, teachers need to choose a set of homework characteristics (e.g., frequency, purposes, degree of individualization, see Cooper, 2001 ; Trautwein et al., 2006b ) considering students’ attributes (e.g., Cooper, 2001 ), which may pose a daily challenge even for experienced teachers as those of the current study. Regardless of grade level, quality homework results from the balance of a set of homework characteristics, several of which were addressed by our participants. As our data suggest, teachers need time and space to reflect on their practices and design homework tasks suited for their students. To improve the quality of homework design, school administrators may consider organizing teacher training addressing theoretical models of homework assignment and related research, discussing homework characteristics and their influence on students’ homework behaviors (e.g., amount of homework completed, homework effort), and academic achievement. We believe that this training would increase teachers’ knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs to develop homework practices best suited to their students’ needs, manage work obstacles and, hopefully, assign quality homework.

Ethics Statement

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

Author Contributions

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

Conflict of Interest Statement

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

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Fuensanta Monroy and Connor Holmes for the English editing of the manuscript.

Funding. This study was conducted at Psychology Research Centre, University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds and when applicable co-financed by FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (UID/PSI/01662/2013). PR was supported by the research projects EDU2013-44062-P (MINECO) and EDU2017-82984-P (MEIC). TN was supported by a Ph.D. fellowship (SFRH/BD/80405/2011) from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00224/full#supplementary-material

• Bang H. (2012). Promising homework practices: teachers’ perspectives on making homework work for newcomer immigrant students. High Sch. J. 95 3–31. 10.1353/hsj.2012.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazeley P., Jackson K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bembenutty H. (2011a). Meaningful and maladaptive homework practices: the role of self-efficacy and self-regulation. J. Adv. Acad. 22 448–473. 10.1177/1932202X1102200304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bembenutty H. (2011b). The last word: an interview with Harris Cooper-Research, policies, tips, and current perspectives on homework. J. Adv. Acad. 22 340–350. 10.1177/1932202X1102200207 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brock C. H., Lapp D., Flood J., Fisher D., Han K. T. (2007). Does homework matter? An investigation of teacher perceptions about homework practices for children from nondominant backgrounds. Urban Educ. 42 349–372. 10.1177/0042085907304277 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleary T. J., Chen P. P. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle school: variations across grade level and math context. J. Sch. Psychol. 47 291–314. 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educ. Leadersh. 47 85–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H. (2001). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for Administrators, Teachers, and Parents , 2nd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Robinson J., Patall E. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 76 1–62. 10.3102/00346543076001001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corno L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Element. Sch. J. 100 529–548. 10.1086/499654 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Method: Choosing Among Five Approaches , 2nd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Danielson M., Strom B., Kramer K. (2011). Real homework tasks: a pilot study of types, values, and resource requirements. Educ. Res. Q. 35 17–32. [ 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. Effective. Sch. Improve. 20 375–405. 10.1080/09243450902904601 [ 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 ]
• 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 ten minutes: teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educ. Psychol. 36 181–193. 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan H., Xu J., Cai Z., He J., Fan X. (2017). Homework and students’ achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta-analysis, 1986–2015. Educ. Res. Rev. 20 35–54. 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Alonso R., Álvarez-Díaz M., Suárez-Álvarez J., Muñiz J. (2017). Students’ achievement and homework assignment strategies. Front. Psychol. 8 : 286 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ 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 ]
• Foyle H., Lyman L., Tompkins L., Perne S., Foyle D. (1990). Homework and Cooperative Learning: A Classroom Field Experiment. Emporia, KS: Emporia State University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottfried A. E., Marcoulides G. A., Gottfried A. W., Oliver P. H., Guerin D. W. (2007). Multivariate latent change modeling of developmental decline in academic intrinsic math motivation and achievement: childhood through adolescence. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 31 317–327. 10.1177/0165025407077752 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagger M., Sultan S., Hardcastle S., Chatzisarantis N. (2015). Perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation toward mathematics activities in educational and out-of-school contexts is related to mathematics homework behavior and attainment. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 41 111–123. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill C. E., Knox S., Thompson B. J., Williams E. N., Hess S. A., Ladany N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: an update. J. Couns. Psychol. 52 196–205. 10.1037/a0033361 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong E., Wan M., Peng Y. (2011). Discrepancies between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of homework. J. Adv. Acad. 22 280–308. 10.1177/1932202X1102200205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaur B. (2011). Mathematics homework: a study of three grade eight classrooms in Singapore. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 9 187–206. 10.1007/s10763-010-9237-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaur B., Yap S. F., Koay P. L. (2004). The learning of mathematics – expectations, homework and home support. Primary Math. 8 22–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitzinger J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 311 299–302. 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R. A., Casey M. A. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 3rd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 10.1037/10518-189 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kukliansky I., Shosberger I., Eshach H. (2014). Science teachers’ voice on homework: beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Int. J. Sci.Math. Educ. 14 229–250. 10.1007/s10763-014-9555-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis J. R., Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 159–174. 10.2307/2529310 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y. S., Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Margolis H., McCabe P. (2004). Resolving struggling readers’ homework difficulties: a social cognitive perspective. Read. Psychol. 25 225–260. 10.1080/02702710490512064 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D. L. (1997). Focus Group as Qualitative Research , 2nd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 10.4135/9781412984287 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muhlenbruck L., Cooper H., Nye B., Lindsay J. J. (2000). Homework and achievement: explaining the different strengths of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Soc. Psych. Educ. 3 295–317. 10.1023/A:1009680513901 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council and Mathematics Learning Study Committee. (2001). Adding it up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Rosário P., Vallejo G., González-Pienda J. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring program in middle school. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 38 11–21. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Cerezo R., González-Pienda J., Rosário P., Mourão R., et al. (2015a). Homework and academic achievement across Spanish compulsory education. Educ. Psychol. 35 726–746. 10.1080/01443410.2013.817537 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Rosário P., Vallejo G., Valle A., Epstein J. L. (2015b). Relationships between parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students. Metacogn. Learn. 10 375–406. 10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2014a). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: Does Homework Perpetuate Inequities in Education?, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2014b). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-Year-Olds Know and what they Can do With What They Know, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patall E. A., Hooper S., Vasquez A. C., Pituch K. A., Steingut R. R. (2018). Science class is too hard: perceived difficulty, disengagement, and the role of teacher autonomy support from a daily diary perspective. Learn. Instr. 58 220–231. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson E., Irving S. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learn. Instr. 18 238–250. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 ]
• Richards L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rønning M. (2011). Who benefits from homework assignments? Econ. Educ. Rev. 30 55–64. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Cunha J., Nunes A. R., Moreira T., Núñez C., Xu J. (2019). “Did you do your homework?” Mathematics teachers’ perspectives of homework follow-up practices at middle school. Psychol. Sch. 56 92–108. 10.1002/pits.22198 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Mourão R., Baldaque M., Nunes T., Núñez J., González- Pienda J., et al. (2009). Tareas para casa, autorregulación del aprendizaje y rendimiento en Matemáticas. Revista de Psicodidáctica 14 179–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Mourão R., Trigo L., Suárez N., Fernandéz E., Tuero-Herrero E. (2011). Uso de diarios de tareas para casa en el inglés como lengua extranjera: evaluación de pros y contras en el aprendizaje autorregulado y rendimiento. Psicothema 23 681–687. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Cunha J., Nunes T., Mourão R., et al. (2015). Does homework design matter? The role of homework’s purpose in student mathematics achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 43 10–24. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., 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. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.04.001 [ 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. (2007). Students’ self-reported effort and time on homework in six school subjects: between-students differences and within-student variation. J. Educ. Psychol. 99 432–444. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.432 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: the role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learn. Instr. 19 243–258. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Kastens C., Köller O. (2006a). Effort on homework in grades 5 through 9: development, motivational antecedents, and the association with effort on classwork. Child Dev. 77 1094–1111. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00921.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Schnyder I., Niggli A. (2006b). 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 ]
• Trautwein U., Niggli A., Schnyder I., Lüdke 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. 10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Schnyder I., Niggli A., Neumann M., Lüdtke O. (2009b). Chameleon effects in homework research: the homework-achievement association depends on the measures and the level of analysis chosen. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34 77–88. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ 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 elementary school. Front. Psychol. 7 : 463 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00463 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang M.-T., Eccles J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. J. Res. Adolesc. 22 31–39. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2010). Homework purposes reported by secondary school students: a multilevel analysis. J. Educ. Res. 103 171–182. 10.1080/00220670903382939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2015). Investigating factors that influence conventional distraction and tech-related distraction in math homework. Comput. Educ. 81 304–314. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2018). Reciprocal effects of homework self-concept, interest, effort, and math achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 55 42–52. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J., Yuan R. (2003). Doing homework: listening to students’, parents’, and teachers’ voices in one urban middle school community. Sch. Commun. J. 13 23–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zakharov A., Carnoy M., Loyalka P. (2014). Which teaching practices improve student performance on high stakes exams? Evidence from Russia. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 36 13–21. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.01.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Just how close are MIT and other universities to Israel? Protesting students want schools to cut research ties.

Two years ago, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ended a research partnership in Russia after the country’s invasion of Ukraine, he said, provoked “terrible consequences” for civilians.

Now MIT students who are protesting Israel’s war in Gaza are demanding that MIT respond similarly by severing ties with Israel itself and companies that are advancing its military efforts in Gaza as the death toll grows and the humanitarian crisis deepens. Protesters on other campuses are voicing similar demands.

MIT students have made some specific allegations, including that the school receives money from the Israeli Ministry of Defense for research, and have urged the university to be more transparent about its Israeli ties. A spokesperson for MIT, Kimberly Allen, declined to provide specifics, saying that the school’s faculty and researchers work with scientists and entities across the globe, including in Israel.

Advertisement

Publicly available documents provide some clues: MIT reported receiving $2.8 million in grants, gifts, and contracts from Israeli entities between 2020 and 2024, according to data from the US Department of Education. The department does not specify whether the funds come from individual, academic, or public sources, or how they are spent.

“MIT strongly supports the principles of academic freedom that enable our faculty to engage with a wide array of partners in the pursuit of knowledge,” Allen said. “Sponsored research projects on campus involve work that is open and publishable and that contributes to knowledge that is freely available to scientists worldwide.”

There are differences between the Russian invasion and the Israeli campaign. Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked; Israel is waging a war against Hamas after the militant group-led an attack on Israel last year that killed about 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, while another 250 were taken hostage.

Student protestors at MIT and other campuses who set up encampments in recent days, and are refusing to move until their demands are met, are focused on the toll of the Israel-Hamas war rather than its cause. The Israeli campaign has killed more than 30,000 Gazans, according to the local Ministry of Health, reduced entire neighborhoods to rubble, and displaced the vast majority of the territory’s residents.

When MIT took a position on the Russian invasion, there was little pushback. Russia, unlike Israel, is a US adversary. And the conflict did not create intense divisions on campus, where today some Jewish students allege the pro-Palestinian movement contains antisemitism within its ranks, and some pro-Palestinian students allege discrimination and suppression of their speech.

“Ending our connection to this academic community comes with considerable sadness, but the actions of the Russian government made our choice clear,” former MIT President L. Rafael Reif wrote in a news release days after Russia’s invasion began.

MIT’s project in Russia, aimed at creating a tech hub and graduate university on the outskirts of Moscow, is not the only time MIT has reconsidered some of its foreign research relationships. The Cambridge institute reassessed its ties to Saudi Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist killed by Saudi operatives in 2018. After an internal review, however, the university determined that professors should be able to continue research projects with students, researchers, and sponsors in Saudi Arabia.

MIT reported it received more than $20 million in grants, contracts, and gifts from sources in Saudi Arabia between 2020 and 2024, according to the Department of Education.

Nancy Kanwisher, a professor of neuroscience at MIT, said she was not surprised to hear that some research at the school is funded by Israeli sources. She said there should be an open, public discussion among faculty members, staff, and students about support for research.

“There are lots of questionable sources of funding on campus,” Kanwisher said.

The school’s graduate student union and undergraduate student association recently passed referendums calling on MIT to end research ties to Israel. Students hope the protest encampments will motivate administrators to stop accepting research dollars from Israeli sources, said Safiyyah Ogundipe, a senior at MIT studying chemical engineering.

“MIT does have the ability if it wants to cut these ties,” Ogundipe said.

In response to the referendum, which passed earlier this semester with 64 percent of the votes, chancellor Melissa Nobles wrote to the school community that MIT “relies on rigorous processes to ensure that all funded research complies with MIT policies and US law.”

“Within those standards, MIT faculty have the fundamental academic freedom to pursue funding for research of interest in their fields,” Nobles said. She added that undergraduate resolutions do not have binding power and “should not be construed by anyone as representing the MIT administration.”

Daniel Shen, a PhD candidate in electrical engineering and computer science who helped write the referendum for the graduate student union, said it is a “strong example of the collective democratic process our union is all about.”

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, holds two degrees from MIT. Allen declined to comment on Netanyahu’s engagement with the university.

Some student protesters at MIT and elsewhere are also calling on institutions to divest their endowments from Israeli companies, efforts they say are inspired by boycotts used to help end apartheid in South Africa. Israeli officials have rejected comparisons to apartheid. Many Jewish leaders say the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, a decades-old campaign against Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, is antisemitic because it villainizes and singles out the Jewish state.

Luis M. Viceira, a Harvard Business School professor, said divesting from Israeli companies does not make sense from an investment perspective, and would unfairly punish Israeli companies and individuals.

“It is completely legitimate to agree or to disagree with the policies of the current Israeli government . . . but a divesting program from Israel is akin to a hurtful slap on the face to the entire country, an established democracy, not just their government,” Viceira said.

Charles A. Skorina, managing partner of an executive search firm for investment professionals, said investment officers should not be swayed by student calls to divest.

“Most chief investment officers are agnostic, because they’re supposed to be,” Skorina said. “Their assignment is: Please make money for the school. Period.”

At MIT, student organizers said they are more focused on calling on administrators to end research ties with Israel, citing the university’s history as a federal contractor and work with the Department of Defense.

“Israel is enacting war crimes,” Ogundipe said. “What does it mean for MIT to continue to take their money?”

Hilary Burns can be reached at [email protected] . Follow her @Hilarysburns .