Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?
- Share this story on facebook
- Share this story on twitter
- Share this story on reddit
- Share this story on linkedin
- Get this story's permalink
- Print this story
Educators should be thrilled by these numbers. Pleasing a majority of parents regarding homework and having equal numbers of dissenters shouting "too much!" and "too little!" is about as good as they can hope for.
But opinions cannot tell us whether homework works; only research can, which is why my colleagues and I have conducted a combined analysis of dozens of homework studies to examine whether homework is beneficial and what amount of homework is appropriate for our children.
The homework question is best answered by comparing students who are assigned homework with students assigned no homework but who are similar in other ways. The results of such studies suggest that homework can improve students' scores on the class tests that come at the end of a topic. Students assigned homework in 2nd grade did better on math, 3rd and 4th graders did better on English skills and vocabulary, 5th graders on social studies, 9th through 12th graders on American history, and 12th graders on Shakespeare.
Less authoritative are 12 studies that link the amount of homework to achievement, but control for lots of other factors that might influence this connection. These types of studies, often based on national samples of students, also find a positive link between time on homework and achievement.
Yet other studies simply correlate homework and achievement with no attempt to control for student differences. In 35 such studies, about 77 percent find the link between homework and achievement is positive. Most interesting, though, is these results suggest little or no relationship between homework and achievement for elementary school students.
Why might that be? Younger children have less developed study habits and are less able to tune out distractions at home. Studies also suggest that young students who are struggling in school take more time to complete homework assignments simply because these assignments are more difficult for them.
These recommendations are consistent with the conclusions reached by our analysis. Practice assignments do improve scores on class tests at all grade levels. A little amount of homework may help elementary school students build study habits. Homework for junior high students appears to reach the point of diminishing returns after about 90 minutes a night. For high school students, the positive line continues to climb until between 90 minutes and 2½ hours of homework a night, after which returns diminish.
Beyond achievement, proponents of homework argue that it can have many other beneficial effects. They claim it can help students develop good study habits so they are ready to grow as their cognitive capacities mature. It can help students recognize that learning can occur at home as well as at school. Homework can foster independent learning and responsible character traits. And it can give parents an opportunity to see what's going on at school and let them express positive attitudes toward achievement.
Opponents of homework counter that it can also have negative effects. They argue it can lead to boredom with schoolwork, since all activities remain interesting only for so long. Homework can deny students access to leisure activities that also teach important life skills. Parents can get too involved in homework -- pressuring their child and confusing him by using different instructional techniques than the teacher.
My feeling is that homework policies should prescribe amounts of homework consistent with the research evidence, but which also give individual schools and teachers some flexibility to take into account the unique needs and circumstances of their students and families. In general, teachers should avoid either extreme.
Link to this page
Copy and paste the URL below to share this page.
Donate (opens in a new window)
Curriculum and Instruction
Key Lessons: What Research Says About the Value of Homework
Whether homework helps students — and how much homework is appropriate — has been debated for many years. Homework has been in the headlines again recently and continues to be a topic of controversy, with claims that students and families are suffering under the burden of huge amounts of homework. School board members, educators, and parents may wish to turn to the research for answers to their questions about the benefits and drawbacks of homework. Unfortunately, the research has produced mixed results so far, and more research is needed. Nonetheless, there are some findings that can help to inform decisions about homework. What follows is a summary of the research to date:
There is no conclusive evidence that homework increases student achievement across the board. Some studies show positive effects of homework under certain conditions and for certain students, some show no effects, and some suggest negative effects (Kohn 2006; Trautwein and Koller 2003).
Some studies have shown that older students gain more academic benefits from homework than do younger students, perhaps because younger students have less-effective study habits and are more easily distracted (Cooper 1989; Hoover-Dempsey et al. 2001; Leone and Richards 1989; Muhlenbruck et al. 2000).
Some researchers believe that students from higher-income homes have more resources (such as computers) and receive more assistance with homework, while low-income students may have fewer resources and less assistance and are therefore less likely to complete the homework and reap any related benefits (McDermott, Goldmen and Varenne 1984; Scott-Jones 1984).
Students with learning disabilities can benefit from homework if appropriate supervision and monitoring are provided (Cooper and Nye 1994; Rosenberg 1989).
A national study of the influence of homework on student grades across five ethnic groups found that homework had a stronger impact on Asian American students than on students of other ethnicities (Keith and Benson, 1992).
Certain nonacademic benefits of homework have been shown, especially for younger students. Indeed, some primary-level teachers may assign homework for such benefits, which include learning the importance of responsibility, managing time, developing study habits, and staying with a task until it is completed (Cooper, Robinson and Patall 2006; Corno and Xu 2004; Johnson and Pontius 1989; Warton 2001).
While research on the optimum amount of time students should spend on homework is limited, there are indications that for high school students, 1½ to 2½ hours per night is optimum. Middle school students appear to benefit from smaller amounts (less than 1 hour per night). When students spend more time than this on homework, the positive relationship with student achievement diminishes (Cooper, Robinson, and Patall 2006).
Some research has shown that students who spend more time on homework score higher on measures of achievement and attitude. Studies that have delved more deeply into this topic suggest, however, that the amount of homework assigned by teachers is unrelated to student achievement, while the amount of homework actually completed by students is associated with higher achievement (Cooper 2001; Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, and Greathouse 1998).
Studies of after-school programs that provide homework assistance have found few definite links to improved student achievement. Several studies, however, noted improvements in student motivation and work habits, which may indirectly affect achievement (Cosden, Morrison, Albanese, and Macias 2001; James-Burdumy et al. 2005).
Homework assignments that require interaction between students and parents result in higher levels of parent involvement and are more likely to be turned in than noninteractive assignments. Some studies have shown, however, that parent involvement in homework has no impact on student achievement. Other studies indicate that students whose parents are more involved in their homework have lower test scores and class grades — but this may be because the students were already lower performing and needed more help from their parents than did higher-performing students. (Balli, Wedman, and Demo 1997; Cooper, Lindsay, and Nye 2000; Epstein 1988; Van Voorhis 2003).
Most teachers assign homework to reinforce what was presented in class or to prepare students for new material. Less commonly, homework is assigned to extend student learning to different contexts or to integrate learning by applying multiple skills around a project. Little research exists on the effects of these different kinds of homework on student achievement, leaving policymakers with little evidence on which to base decisions (Cooper 1989; Foyle 1985; Murphy and Decker 1989).
Liked it? Share it!
Balli, S. J., Wedman, J. F., & Demo, D. H. (1997). Family involvement with middle-grades homework: Effects of differential prompting. Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 31-48.
Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
Cooper, H. (2001). Homework for all — in moderation. Educational Leadership, 58, 34-38.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J, Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 70-83.
Cooper, H., & Nye, B. (1994). Homework for students with learning disabilities: The implications of research for policy and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 470-479.
Cooper, H., Nye, B.A., & Lindsay, J.J. (2000). Homework in the home: How student, family and parenting style differences relate to the homework process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 464-487.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1-62.
Corno, L., & Xu, J. (2004). Homework as the job of childhood. Theory Into Practice, 43, 227-233.
Cosden, M., Morrison, G., Albanese, A. L., & Macias, S. (2001). When homework is not home work: After-school programs for homework assistance. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 211-221.
Epstein, J. L. (1998). Homework practices, achievements, and behaviors of elementary school students. Baltimore: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED301322]
Foyle, H. C. (1985). The effects of preparation and practice homework on student achievement in tenth-grade American history (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 8A.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M. & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195-209.
James-Burdumy, S., Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Deke, J., Mansfield, W., Pistorino, C. & Warner, E. (2005). When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education/Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Johnson, J. K., & Pontius, A. (1989). Homework: A survey of teacher beliefs and practices. Research in Education, 41, 71-78.
Keith, T. Z., & Benson, M. J. (1992). Effects of manipulable influences on high school grades across five ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 85-93.
Kohn, A. (2006, September). Abusing research: The study of homework and other examples. Phi Delta Kappan, 8-22.
Leone, C. M., & Richards, M. H. (1989). Classwork and homework in early adolescence: The ecology of achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 531-548.
McDermott, R. P., Goldman, S. V., & Varenne, H. (1984). When school goes home: Some problems in the organization of homework [Abstract]. Teachers College Record, 85, 391-409.
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. Social Psychology of Education, 3, 295-317.
Murphy, J. & Decker, K. (1989). Teachers’ use of homework in high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 82(5), 261-269.
Rosenberg, M. S. (1989). The effects of daily homework assignments on the acquisition of basic skills by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 314-323.
Scott-Jones, D. (1984). Family influences on cognitive development and school achievement. Review of Research in Education, 11, 259-304.
Trautwein, U., & Koller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement — still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 115-145.
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvements and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 323-338.
Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voice in homework: Views of students. Educational Psychologist, 36, 155-165.
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.
- Account settings
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- Front Psychol
Effects of homework creativity on academic achievement and creativity disposition: Evidence from comparisons with homework time and completion based on two independent Chinese samples
1 College of Educational Science, Bohai University, Jinzhou, China
2 Research Center of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, China
3 Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Foundations, College of Education, Mississippi State University, MS, United States
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
During the past several decades, the previous studies have been focusing on the related theoretical issues and measuring tool of homework behaviors (mainly including homework time, completion, and homework creativity). However, the effects of these homework behaviors on general creativity remain unknown. Employing a number of questionnaires, this study investigated two samples from middle schools of Mainland China. The results showed that (1) the eight-item version of Homework Creativity Behaviors Scale had acceptable validity and reliability; (2) compared with homework completion and homework time, homework creativity explained less variety of academic achievement (3.7% for homework creativity; 5.4% for completion and time); (3) homework creativity explained more variance of general creativity than that of homework completion and homework time accounted (7.0% for homework creativity; 1.3% for completion and time); and (4) homework creativity was negatively associated with grade level. Contrary to the popular beliefs, homework completion and homework creativity have positive effects on the students’ general creativity. Several issues that need further studies were also discussed.
Homework is an important part of the learning and instruction process. Each week, students around the world spend 3–14 hours on homework, with an average of 5 hours a week ( Dettmers et al., 2009 ; OECD, 2014 ). The results of the previous studies and meta-analysis showed that the homework time is correlated significantly with students’ gains on the academic tests ( Cooper et al., 2012 ; Fan et al., 2017 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2019 ).
Homework is a multi-faceted process which has many attributes – each attribute can be identified, defined, and measured independently ( Guo and Fan, 2018 ). Some attributes, such as homework time ( Núñez et al., 2013 ; Kalenkoski and Pabilonia, 2017 ), homework frequency ( Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ), homework completion ( Rosário et al., 2015 ), homework effort ( Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ), homework purpose ( Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2009 ; Xu, 2010 , 2021 ), homework performance and problems ( Power et al., 2007 ), homework management behavior ( Xu, 2008 ), homework expectation ( Xu, 2017 ), and self-regulation of homework behavior ( Yang and Tu, 2020 ), have been well recorded in the literature, and operationally defined and measured.
Recently, a research community has noticed the “creativity” in homework (in short form, “homework creativity”) who have raised some speculations about its effects on students’ academic achievement and general creativity disposition ( Kaiipob, 1951 ; Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007 ; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009 ; Guo, 2018 ; Guo and Fan, 2018 ; Chang, 2019 ). However, the scientific measurement of homework creativity has not been examined systematically. The relationship between homework creativity, academic achievement, and general creativity disposition, as well as the grade difference in homework creativity, are still in the state of conjectures consequently.
As a scientific probe to homework creativity, this study included three main sections. In the “Literature Review” section, the conceptualization and relevant measurement of homework creativity were summarized; the relationship between homework behaviors and academic achievements, general creativity, and the grade difference in homework behaviors and general creativity were also evaluated. These four main results related to the four research questions were also presented in the body of this article. They are reliability and validity of homework creativity behavior scale (HCBS), the relationships between the scores of HCBS and those of general creativity and academic achievement, and the grade effects of scores of HCBS. In the “Discussion” section, the scientific contributions and interpretations of the findings of this study were elaborated.
Conceptual background of homework creativity.
As an attribute of homework process, homework creativity refers to the novelty and uniqueness of homework ( Guo and Fan, 2018 ). Specifically, the ways relating to homework creativity with extant theoretical literature are presented below.
First, creativity is a natural part of homework process which serves as a sub-process of learning. Guilford (1950) is the first psychologist who linked creativity with learning, pointing out that the acquisition of creativity is a typical quality of human learning, and that a complete learning theory must take creativity into account.
Second, according to the Four-C Model of Creativity (e.g., Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009 ), the homework creativity can be divided mainly into the category of “Transformative Learning” (Mini-C creativity), which is different from the “Everyday Innovation” (Little-C creativity), “Professional Expertise” (Pro-C creativity), or “Eminent Accomplishments” (Big-C creativity, Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007 ; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009 ; Kozbelt et al., 2011 ).
The Mini-C is defined as a type of intrapersonal creativity which has personal meaning, not solid contribution or breakthrough in a field ( Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007 , p. 76, Table 1 ). The most important point which distinguishes Mini-C from other types of creativity is the level of novelty of product. The Mini-C creativity involves the personal insight or interpretation which is new to a particular individual, but may be ordinary to others. The Little-C creativity refers to any small, but solid innovation in daily life. The Pro-C creativity is represented in the form of professional contribution which is still not a breakthrough. The Big-C creativity generates a real breakthrough appears in some field which is considered as something new to all human beings. The other difference is related with the subjects of sub-types of creativity. The Mini-C creativity mainly happens in all kinds of students. The Little-C creativity can be widely found in normal people. The Pro-C creativity’s masters are those who are proficient in some field. The Big-C creativity is related frequently with those giants who has made eminent contribution to human being.
Basic information of samples 1 and 2 included.
The Mini-C creativity frequently happens in learning process. When the contribution of the Mini-C creativity grows big enough, it can move into the category of the Little-C creativity, or the Big-C creativity. Most homework creativity is of Mini-C creativity, and of which a small part may grow as the Little-C and Big-C creativities. For example, when students independently find a unique solution to a problem in homework which has scientific meaning, a Little-C or Big-C occurs.
Third, the education researchers have observed homework creativity for many years and been manipulating them in educational practice. Kaiipob (1951) described that homework is a semi-guide learning process in which homework such as composition, report, public speech, difficult and complex exercises, experiments, and making tools and models consumes a lot of time and accelerate the development of students’ creativity disposition (p. 153).
In the recent years, creativity has become a curriculum or instruction goal in many countries (the case of United Kingdom, see Smith and Smith, 2010 ; Chinese case, see Pang and Plucker, 2012 ). Homework is the most important way that accomplish this goal. Considering Chinese in primary and secondary schools in China as an example, the curriculum standards have clearly required homework to cultivate students’ creative spirit, creative thinking, and ability to imagination since the year 2000. The results of Qian’s (2006) investigation revealed that the percent of these creative homework items in each unit fluctuates between 29 and 45%.
Previous instruments of homework behaviors
Those existent instruments measuring homework behavior can be divided into the following two categories: The single-indicator instruments and the multi-dimension instruments ( Guo and Fan, 2018 ). The single-indicator instruments employ only one item to measure homework attributes, such as homework time (e.g., Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007 ), homework frequency (e.g., De Jong et al., 2000 ), homework completion (e.g., Xu et al., 2019 ), and effort (e.g., Liu et al., 2013 ).
The typical multi-dimension instruments include Homework Process Inventory ( Cooper et al., 1998 ), Homework Purpose Scale ( Xu, 2010 ), Homework Performance Questionnaire ( Pendergast et al., 2014 ), Homework Management Scale (HMS; Xu and Corno, 2003 ), Homework Evaluating Scale ( Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ), Homework Problem Checklist ( Anesko et al., 1987 ), Science Homework Scale ( Tas et al., 2016 ), Homework Expectancy Value Scale ( Yang and Xu, 2017 ), and Online Homework Distraction Scale ( Xu et al., 2020 ).
Although the previous tools measured some dimensions of homework ( Guo and Fan, 2018 ), there is hardly any tool that can be employed to gauge the homework creativity. Guo and Fan (2018) extracted several attributes (i.e., time, completion, quality, purpose, effort, creativity, sociality, liking) represented in the existent instruments of homework behaviors, and put forth a multi-faceted model of homework behaviors which intuitionally predicts the existence of homework creativity.
Under the guideline of the multi-faceted model ( Guo and Fan, 2018 ), Guo (2018) developed a multi-dimensional homework behavior instrument, which detected the homework creativity as a dimension in the homework behavior of middle school students. A typical item of homework creativity in Guo (2018) is “The way I do my homework is different from others.” The subscale homework creativity reported by Guo (2018) needs to be improved because it has a small number of items with lower reliability.
Following Guo’s (2018) work, Chang (2019) conducted a new investigation focusing on homework creativity behavior. Using an open-ended questionnaire, a total of 30 students from primary, middle, and high schools were invited to answer this question, that is, “What characteristics can be considered as creative in the process of completing the homework?” Here, “creativity” refers to novelty, uniqueness, and high quality. A group of 23 specific behaviors were reported, among which the top 10 are as follows: Learning by analogy, open minded, one question with multiple solutions, unique solution, summarizing the cause of errors, constructing a personal understanding, analyzing knowledge points clearly, classifying homework contents, making more applications, having rich imagination, and a neat handwriting (see Chang, 2019 , Table 4 , p. 14). Based on these results of open-ended questionnaire, Chang (2019) invented a nine-item scale (see Table 1 and Supplementary Table S3 for details) called as the HCBS which has a good reliability coefficient (α = 0.87).
Regression analyses of homework creative behavior on academic achievement and general creativity.
AA, academic achievement; WCAPt, total score of WCAP; TWk, time spent on homework in week days; TWw, time spent on homework in weekend; HCp, homework completion; HCb, homework creativity behavior.
Previous studies on the relationship between homework behaviors and academic achievement
In the literature, homework behaviors is one cluster of variables typically including homework time, homework completion, effort, purpose, frequency, etc. Academic achievement is an outcome of homework which is operationally measured using the scores on the standardized tests, or non-standardized tests (including final examinations, or teachers’ grades, or estimations by participants themselves, those forms were used widely in the literature, see Fan et al., 2017 ). Academic achievement may be affected by a lot of factors inherited in the process of learning (see Hattie, 2009 for an overview of its correlates). The relationship between homework behaviors and academic achievement is one of the most important questions in homework field, because it is related to the effectiveness of homework ( Cooper et al., 2006 , 2012 ; Fan et al., 2017 ).
Most of the previous studies focused on the relationship between homework time and academic achievement. Cooper et al. (2006) synthesized the primary studies published from 1989 to 2003, and found that the correlation between homework time of America students and their academic achievement was about 0.15. Fan et al. (2017) reviewed those individual studies published before June 2015, and reported that the averaged correlation between homework time of international students and their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) academic achievement was about 0.20. Fernández-Alonso et al. (2017) investigated a representative sample of Spanish students (more than 26,000), and the results of multi-level analysis indicated that the correlation between homework time and academic achievement was negative at student level, but positive at school level ( r = 0.16). Fernández-Alonso et al. (2019) took a survey on a big sample from 16 countries from Latin America, and reported that the relationship between homework time and academic achievement was very weak. Valle et al. (2019) analyzed the homework time, time management, and achievement of 968 Spain students finding that homework time management was positively related to academic achievement. Taken all these together, we will find that the homework has some small significant correlations with academic achievement, the average r = 0.15.
The correlation between homework completion and academic achievement has also been investigated for decades. Based on a review of 11 primary studies, Fan et al. (2017) reported a high correlation of 0.59 between them. Rosário et al. (2015) investigated 638 students, and demonstrated a correlation of 0.22 between amount of homework completed and math test scores. Xu et al. (2019) took a survey using a sample of 1,450 Chinese eighth graders, and found that the correlations between homework completion and the gains in math test scores ranged from 0.25 to 0.28. Dolean and Lervag (2022) employed the Randomized Controlled Trial design, and demonstrated that amount of homework completed has immediate effect on writing competency in which the effect of moderate amount of homework can last for 4 months. Integrating the aforementioned results, we can find that the averaged correlation between homework completion and academic achievement was higher than that between homework time with academic achievement.
Homework effort was also found to be correlated with academic achievement. Fan et al. (2017) reviewed four primary studies and returned that a medium correlation ( r = 0.31) between homework effort and academic achievement. Two recent investigations showed that this relationship is positively and reciprocally related ( r = 0.41–0.42) ( Xu, 2020 ; Xu et al., 2021 ).
The effect of homework purpose was also correlated with the academic achievement. Fan et al. (2017) summarized four existent primary studies and reported an averaged correlation of 0.11 between them. Later, Rosário et al. (2015) found a similar correlation coefficient of these two variables on a sample of 638 students. Xu’s (2018) investigation revealed that the correlation between purpose and academic achievement was about 0.40. Sun et al. (2021) investigated a larger sample ( N = 1,365), and found that the subscales of homework purpose had different correlation patterns with academic achievement (academic purpose is 0.40, self-regulatory purpose is 0.20, and approval-seeking purpose is 0.10).
Considering the case of homework creativity, there is only one study preliminarily investigated its relationship with academic achievement. Guo (2018) investigated a sample of 1,808 middle school students, and reported a significant correlation between homework creativity and academic achievement ( r = 0.34, p < 0.05).
Previous studies on the relationship between homework behaviors and general creativity
General creativity refers to the psychological attributes which can generate novel and valuable products ( Kaufman and Glăveanu, 2019 ; Sternberg and Karami, 2022 ). These psychological attributes typically included attitude (e.g., willing to take appropriate risk), motivations (e.g., intrinsic motivation, curiosity), abilities (e.g., divergent thinking), and personality (e.g., independence) ( Kaufman and Glăveanu, 2019 ; Long et al., 2022 ). These attributes can be assessed independently, or in the form of grouping ( Plucker et al., 2019 ; Sternberg, 2019 ). For instance, the divergent thinking was measured independently ( Kaufman et al., 2008 ). Also, the willing to take appropriate risk was measured in tools contain other variables ( Williams, 1979 ). There are many studies examined the relationship between learning and general creativity in the past several decades indicating that the correlation between them was around 0.22 (e.g., Gajda et al., 2017 ; Karwowski et al., 2020 ).
Regarding the relationship between homework behaviors and general creativity, there are few studies which presented some contradictory viewpoints. Kaiipob (1951) posited that homework could accelerate development of students’ general creativity disposition, because the tasks in homework provide opportunities to exercise creativity. Cooper et al. (2012) argued that homework can diminish creativity. Furthermore, Zheng (2013) insisted that homework will reduce curiosity and the ability to challenging – the two core components of creativity. The preliminary results of Chang (2019) indicated that the score of HCBS is significantly correlated with scores of a test of general creativity, Williams’ creativity packet ( r = 0.25–0.33, p < 0.05).
Previous studies on the relationship between homework behaviors and homework creativity
In Guo and Fan’s (2018) theoretical work, homework creativity was combined from two independent words, homework and creativity, which was defined as a new attribute of homework process and was considered as a new member of homework behaviors. Up till now, there are two works providing preliminary probe to the relationship between homework behaviors and homework creativity. Guo (2018) investigated a sample of 1808 middle school students, and found that homework creativity was correlated significantly with liking ( r = 0.33), correctness ( r = 0.47), completion ( r = 0.57), and purpose ( r = 0.53). Based on another sample of Chinese students (elementary school students, N = 300; middle school students, N = 518; high school students, N = 386), Chang (2019) showed that the score of homework creativity was correlated significantly with homework time ( r = 0.11), completion ( r = 0.39), correctness ( r = 0.63), effort ( r = 0.73), social interaction ( r = 0.35), quality ( r = 0.69), interpersonal relation purpose ( r = 0.17), and purpose of personal development ( r = 0.41).
Previous studies on grade differences of homework behaviors and general creativity
Grade differences of homework behaviors.
As a useful indicator, homework time was recorded frequently (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ). A recent meta-analysis included 172 primary studies (total N = 144,416) published from 2003 to 2019, and demonstrated that time Chinese K-12 students spent on homework increased significantly along with increasing of grades ( Zhai and Fan, 2021 , October).
Regarding homework managing time, some studies reported the grade difference was insignificant. Xu (2006) surveyed 426 middle school students and found that there was no difference between middle school students and high school students. Xu and Corno (2003) reported that urban junior school students ( N = 86) had no grade difference in homework Managing time. Yang and Tu (2020) surveyed 305 Chinese students in grades 7–9, and found that in managing time behavior, the grade differences were insignificant. The rest studies showed that the grade effect is significant. A survey by Xu et al. (2014) based on 1799 Chinese students in grades 10 and 11 showed that the higher level the grade, the lower level of time management.
Grade differences of general creativity
The findings from the previous studies suggested that the scores of general creativity deceases as the grade increases except for some dimensions. Kim (2011) reviewed the Torrance Tests of Creative thinking (TTCT) scores change using five datasets from 1974 to 2008, and reported that three dimensions of creative thinking (i.e., “Fluency,” “Originality,” and “Elaboration”) significantly decreased along with grades increase, while the rest dimension (i.e., “Abstractness of titles”) significantly increased when grades increase. Nie and Zheng (2005) investigated a sample of 3,729 participants from grades 3–12 using the Williams’ Creativity Assessment Packet (WCAP), and reported that the creativity scores decreased from grades 9–12. Said-Metwaly et al. (2021) synthesized 41 primary studies published in the past 60 years, and concluded that the ability of divergent thinking had a whole increase tendency from grades 1 to 12 with a decrease tendency from grades 8 to 11 at the same time.
The purpose and questions of this study
What we have known about homework creativity hitherto is nothing except for its notation and a preliminary version of measurement. To get deeper understanding of homework creativity, this study made an endeavor to examine its relationships with relevant variables based on a confirmation of the reliability and validity of HCBS. Specifically, there are four interrelated research questions, as the following paragraphs (and their corresponding hypotheses) described.
(i) What is the reliability and validity of the HCBS?
Because the earlier version of the HCBS showed a good Cronbach α coefficient of 0.87, and a set of well-fitting indices ( Chang, 2019 ), this study expected that the reliability and validity will also behave well in the current conditions as before. Then, we present the first set of hypotheses as follows:
H1a: The reliability coefficient will equal or greater than 0.80.
H1b: The one-factor model will also fit the current data well; and all indices will reach or over the criteria as the expertise suggested.
(ii) What degree is the score of the HCBS related with academic achievement?
As suggested by the review section, the correlations between homework behaviors and academic achievement ranged from 0.15 and 0.59 (e.g., Fan et al., 2017 ), then we expected that the relationship between homework creativity and academic achievement will fall into this range, because homework creativity is a member of homework behaviors.
The results of the previous studies also demonstrated that the correlation between general creativity and academic achievement changed in a range of 0.19–0.24 with a mean of 0.19 ( Gajda et al., 2017 ). Because it can be treated as a sub-category of general creativity, we predicted that homework creativity will have a similar behavior under the current condition.
Taken aforementioned information together, Hypothesis H2 is presented as follows:
H2: There will be a significant correlation between homework creativity and academic achievement which might fall into the interval of 0.15–0.59.
(iii) What degree is the relationship between HCBS and general creativity?
As discussed in the previous section, there are no inconsistent findings about the relationship between the score of HCBS and general creativity. Some studies postulated that these two variables be positive correlated (e.g., Kaiipob, 1951 ; Chang, 2019 ); other studies argued that this relationship be negative (e.g., Cooper et al., 2012 ; Zheng, 2013 ). Because homework creativity is a sub-category of general creativity, we expected that this relationship would be positive and its value might be equal or less than 0.33. Based on those reasoning, we presented our third hypothesis as follows:
H3: The correlation between homework creativity and general creativity would be equal or less than 0.33.
(iv) What effect does grade have on the HCBS score?
Concerning the grade effect of homework behaviors, the previous findings were contradictory ( Xu et al., 2014 ; Zhai and Fan, 2021 , October). However, the general creativity decreased as the level of grade increases from grade 8 to grade 11 ( Kim, 2011 ; Said-Metwaly et al., 2021 ). Taken these previous findings and the fact that repetitive exercises increase when grades go up ( Zheng, 2013 ), we were inclined to expect that the level of homework creativity is negative correlated with the level of grade. Thus, we presented our fourth hypothesis as follows:
H4: The score of HCBS might decrease as the level of grades goes up.
Materials and methods
To get more robust result, this study investigated two convenient samples from six public schools in a medium-sized city in China. Among them, two schools were of high schools (including a key school and a non-key school), and the rest four schools were middle schools (one is key school, and the rest is non-key school). All these schools included here did not have free lunch system and written homework policy. Considering the students were mainly prepared for entrance examination of higher stage, the grades 9 and 12 were excluded in this survey. Consequently, students of grades 7, 8, 10, and 11 were included in our survey. After getting permission of the education bureau of the city investigated, the headmasters administrated the questions in October 2018 (sample 1) and November 2019 (sample 2).
A total of 850 questionnaires were released and the valid number of questionnaires returned is 639 with a valid return rate of 75.18%. Therefore, there were 639 valid participants in sample 1. Among them, there were 273 boys and 366 girls (57.2%); 149 participants from grade 7 (23.31%), 118 from grade 8 (18.47%), 183 from grade 10 (28.64%), and 189 from grade 11 (29.58%); the average age was 15.25 years, with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.73 years. See Table 1 for the information about each grade.
Those participants included received homework assignments every day (see Table 1 for the distribution of homework frequency). During the working days, the averaged homework time was 128.29 minutes with SD = 6.65 minutes. In the weekend, the average homework time was 3.75 hours, with SD = 0.22 hours. The percentage distribution here is similar with that of a national representative sample ( Sun et al., 2020 ), because the values of Chi-squared (χ 2 ) were 7.46 (father) and 8.46 (mother), all p -values were above 0.12 (see Supplementary Table S1 for details).
Another package of 850 questionnaires were released. The valid number of questionnaires returned is 710 with a valid return rate of 83.53%. Among them, there were 366 girls (51.50%); 171 participants from grade 7 (24.23%), 211 from grade 8 (26.06%), 190 from the grade 10 (22.96%), and 216 from grade 11 (26.76%); the average age was 15.06 years, with SD = 1.47 years.
Those participants included received homework assignments almost each day (see Table 1 for details for the distribution of homework frequency). During the working days, the averaged homework time was 123.02 minutes with SD = 6.13 minutes. In weekend, the average homework time was 3.47 hours, with SD = 0.21 hours.
The percentage distribution here is insignificantly different from that of a national representative sample ( Sun et al., 2020 ), because the values of χ 2 were 5.20 (father) and 6.05 (mother), p -values were above 0.30 (see Supplementary Table S1 for details).
The homework creativity behavior scale.
The HCBS contains nine items representing students’ creativity behaviors in the process of completing homework (for example, “I do my homework in an innovative way”) ( Chang, 2019 , see Supplementary Table S3 for details). The HCBS employs a 5-point rating scale, where 1 means “completely disagree” and 5 means “completely agree.” The higher the score, the stronger the homework creative behavior students have. The reliability and validity of the HCBS can be found in Section “Reliability and validity of the homework creativity behavior scale” (see Table 2 and Figures 1 , ,2 2 for details).
Results of item discrimination analysis and exploratory factor analysis.
**p < 0.01, two side-tailed. The same for below.
a Correlations for sample 1; b Correlations for sample 2. c Seventh item should be removed away according to the results of CFA (see section “Reliability and validity of the HCBS” for details).
Parallel analysis scree plots of the HCBS data.
The standardized solution for HCBS eight-item model. hcb, homework creativity behavior; it 1∼9, item1 ∼6, 8∼9.
Homework management scale
The HMS contains 22 items describing specific behaviors related to self-management in homework (for example, “I will choose a quiet place to do my homework” or “Tell myself to calm down when encountering difficulties”) ( Xu and Corno, 2003 ; Xu, 2008 ). The HMS employs a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). All items can be divided into five dimensions, i.e., arranging environment, managing time, focusing attention, monitoring motivation, and monitoring and controlling emotion. Among them, the monitoring and controlling emotion dimension adopts a method of reverse scoring.
Except for the internal consistency of arranging environment in sample 1, which is 0.63, the internal consistency coefficients of the five dimensions based two samples in this study are all greater than 0.7, ranging from 0.70 to 0.79. The Cronbach’s coefficients of the overall HMS-based two samples are 0.88 and 0.87, respectively. The ω coefficients of the dimensions of HMS ranged from 0.64 to 0.80. The ω coefficients of the HMS total scores were 0.88 and 0.87 for samples 1 and 2, respectively. Those reliability coefficients were acceptable for research purpose ( Clark and Watson, 1995 ; Peterson and Kim, 2013 ).
Williams’ creativity assessment packet
The WCAP including a total of 40 items is a revised version to measure general disposition of creativity (for example, “I like to ask some questions out of other’s expectation” or “I like to imagine something novel, even if it looks useless”) ( Williams, 1979 ; Wang and Lin, 1986 ; Liu et al., 2016 ). The WCAP uses a 3-point Likert scales, in which 1 = disagree, 2 = uncertain, and 3 = agree. The higher WCAP score, the higher is the general creativity level. All items of WCAP can be scattered into four dimensions: adventure, curiosity, imagination, and challenge ( Williams, 1979 ; Wang and Lin, 1986 ; Liu et al., 2016 ). In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficients of adventure, curiosity, imagination, challenge, and total scale are 0.62, 0.71, 0.78, 0.64, and 0.90, respectively. The ω coefficients were in sequence 0.61, 0.70, 0.77, 0.63, and 0.90 for adventure, curiosity, imagination, challenge, and the total score of WCAP. The correlations between the four dimensions of WCAP are between 0.47 and 0.65. The patterns of reliability coefficients and correlations between dimensions are similar to those results reported by the previous studies ( Williams, 1979 ; Wang and Lin, 1986 ; Liu et al., 2016 ) which stand acceptable reliability and validity ( Clark and Watson, 1995 ; Peterson and Kim, 2013 ).
The participants were asked to report the time spent on homework in the past week. This technique has been employed widely in many international survey programs, such as PISA from OECD (e.g., Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007 ). The items are as follows: (1) “Every day, from Monday to Friday, in last week, how many minutes you spent on homework?” The options are as follows: (A) 0–30 min; (B) 31–60 min (C) 61–90 min (D) 91–120 min; (E) 121–180 min; (F) 181 min or more. (2) “In last weekend, how many hours you spent on homework?” The options are as follows: (A) 0–1 h; (B) 1.1–3 h; (C) 3.1–5 h; (D) 5.1–7 h; (E) 7.1 h or more.
The homework completion is a useful indicator demonstrated in the previous studies ( Welch et al., 1986 ; Austin, 1988 ; Swank, 1999 ; Pelletier, 2005 ; Wilson, 2010 ), and had large correlation with achievement, as a meta-analytic results suggested ( Fan et al., 2017 ). In the survey of this study, the participants were also asked to estimate a percent of the completion of homework in the past week and fill in the given blank space. It includes three items which are as follows: “What is the percentage of Chinese/Maths/English homework assignment you completed in the last week?” “Please estimate and write a number from 0 to 100 in the blank space.”
To record the academic achievement, an item required participants to make a choice based on their real scores of tests, not estimate their tests scores. The item is, “In the last examination, what is the rank of your score in your grade?” (A) The first 2%; (B) The first 3–13%; (C) The first 14–50%; (D) The first 51–84%; (E) The last 16%. The options here correspond to the percentage in the normal distribution, it is convenient to compute a Z -score for each student.
The method employed here is effective to retrieve participants’ test scores. First, the self-report method is more effective than other method under the condition of anonymous investigation. To our knowledge, participants do not have the will to provide their real information in the real name format. Second, this method transforms test scores from different sources into the same space of norm distribution which benefits the comparisons. Third, the validity of this method has been supported by empirical data. Using another sample ( N = 234), we got the academic achievement they reported and real test scores their teacher recorded. The correlation between ranks self-reported and the real scores from Chinese test were r = 0.81, p < 0.001; and the correlation coefficient for mathematics was also large, i.e., r = 0.79, p < 0.001.
Data collection procedure
There are three phases in data collection. The first one is the design stage. At this stage, the corresponding author of this study designed the study content, prepared the survey tools, and got the ethical approve of this project authorized from research ethic committee of school the corresponding author belongs to.
The second stage is to releasing questionnaire prepared. The questionnaire was distributed and retrieved by the head master of those classes involved. Neither the teachers nor the students knew the purpose of this research. During this stage, students can stop answering at any time, or simply withdraw from the survey. None of the teachers and students in this study received payment.
The third stage is the data entry stage. At this stage, the corresponding author of this study recruited five volunteers majored in psychology and education, and explained to them the coding rules, missing value processing methods, identification of invalid questionnaires, and illustrated how to deal with these issues. The volunteers used the same data template for data entry. The corresponding author of this study controlled the data entry quality by selective check randomly.
Data analysis strategies
R packages employed.
The “psych” package in R environment ( R Core Team, 2019 ) was employed to do descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, mean difference comparisons, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability Analysis ( Revelle, 2022 ); and the “lavaan” package was used in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance test ( Rosseel, 2012 ); and the “semPlot” package was employed to draw the picture of CFA’s outputs ( Epskamp et al., 2022 ).
Analysis strategies of exploratory factor analysis and reliability
Sample 1 was used for item analysis, EFA, reliability analysis. In EFA, factors were extracted using maximum likelihood, and the promax method served as the rotation method. The number of factors were determined according to the combination of the results from screen plot, and the rule of Eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, and parallel analysis ( Luo et al., 2019 ).
The Cronbach’s α and MacDonald’s ω test were employed to test the reliability of the scale. The rigorous criteria that α ≥ 0.70 ( Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994 ) and ω ≥ 0.7 ( Green and Yang, 2015 ) were taken as acceptable level of the reliability of HCBS.
Analysis strategies of confirmatory factor analysis
As suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) , two absolute goodness-of-fit indices, namely, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and two relative goodness-of-fit indices, namely, comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) were recruited as fitting indicators. The absolute goodness-of-fit indices are less than 0.08, and the relative goodness-of-fit indices greater than 0.90 are considered as a good fit. The CFA was conducted using the second sample.
Strategies for measurement invariance
Measurement invariance testing included four models, they are Configural invariance (Model 1), which is to test whether the composition of latent variables between different groups is the same; Weak invariance (Factor loading invariance, Model 2), which is to test whether the factor loading is equal among the groups; Intercept invariance (Model 3), that is, whether the intercepts of the observed variables are equal; Strict equivalent (Residual Variance invariance, Model 4), that is, to test whether the error variances between different groups are equal ( Chen, 2007 ; Putnick and Bornstein, 2016 ).
Since the χ 2 test will be affected easily by the sample size, even small differences will result in significant differences as the sample size will increase. Therefore, this study used the changes of model fitting index CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR (ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA, and ΔSRMR) to evaluate the invariance of the measurement. When ΔCFI ≤ 0.010, ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015, and ΔSRMR ≤ 0.030 (for metric invariance) or 0.015 (for scalar or residual invariance), the invariance model is considered acceptable ( Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ; Chen, 2007 ; Putnick and Bornstein, 2016 ).
Strategies of controlling common methods biases
The strategy of controlling common methods biases is mainly hided in the directions. Each part of the printed questionnaire had a sub-direction which invites participants answer the printed questions honestly. The answer formats between any two neighboring parts were different from each other which requested participants change their mind in time. For example, on some part, the answering continuum varied from “1 = totally disagreed” to “5 = total agreed,” while the answering continuum on the neighboring part is the from “5 = totally disagreed” to “1 = total agreed.” Additionally, according to the suggestion of the previous studies, the one factor CFA model and the bi-factor model can be used to detect the common methods biases (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2012 ).
Detection of common method biases
The fitting results of the one-common-factor model using CFA technique were as follows: χ 2 = 15,073, df = 3320, p < 0.001; χ 2 / df = 4.54, CFI = 0.323, TLI = 0.306, RMSEA = 0.071, 90% CI: 0.070–0.072, and SRMR = 0.101. The results of the bi-factor model under CFA framework were presented as follows: χ 2 = 2,225.826, df = 117, p < 0.001; χ 2 / df = 19.024, CFI = 0.650, TLI = 0.543, RMSEA = 0.159, 90% CI: 0.154–0.164, and SRMR = 0.127. These poor indices of the two models suggested that the one-common-factor model failed to fit the data well and that the biases of common method be ignored ( Podsakoff et al., 2012 ).
Reliability and validity of the homework creativity behavior scale
Based on the sample 1, the correlation coefficients between the items of the HCBS were between 0.34 and 0.64, p -values were below 0.01. The correlations between the items and the total score of HCBS vary from 0.54 to 0.75 ( p -values are below 0.01). On the condition of sample 2, the correlations between the items fluctuate between 0.31 and 0.58, the correlation coefficients between the items and the total score of the HCBS change from 0.63 to 0.75 ( p -values were below 0.01). All correlation coefficients between items and total score are larger than those between items and reached the criterion suggested ( Ferketich, 1991 ; see Table 2 for details).
Results of exploratory factor analysis
The EFA results (based on sample 1) showed that the KMO was 0.89, and the χ 2 of Bartlett’s test = 1,666.07, p < 0.01. The rules combining eigenvalue larger than 1 and the results of parallel analysis (see Figure 1 for details) suggested that one factor should be extracted. The eigenvalue of the factor extracted was 3.63. The average variance extracted was 0.40. This factor accounts 40% variance with factor loadings fluctuating from 0.40 to 0.76 (see Table 2 ).
Results of confirmatory factor analysis
In the CFA situation (based on sample 2) the fitting indices of the nine-item model of the HCBS are acceptable marginally, they are χ 2 = 266.141; df = 27; χ 2 / df = 9.857; CFI = 0.904; TLI = 0.872; RMSEA = 0.112; 90% CI: 0.100–0.124; SRMR = 0.053.
The modification indices of item 7 were too big (MI value = 74.339, p < 0.01), so it is necessary to consider to delete item 7. Considering its content of “I designed a neat, clean and clear homework format by myself,” item 7 is an indicator of strictness which is weakly linked with creativity. Therefore, the item 7 should be deleted.
After removing item 7, the fitting results were, χ 2 = 106.111; df = 20; χ 2 / df = 5.306; CFI = 0.957; TLI = 0.939; RMSEA = 0.078; 90% CI: 0.064–0.093; SRMR = 0.038). The changes of the fitting indices of the two nested models (eight-item vs. nine-item models) are presented as follows: Δχ 2 = 160.03, Δ df = 7, χ 2 (α = 0.01, df = 7) = 18.48, p < 0.05. After deleting item 7, both CFI and TLI indices increased to above 0.93, and RMSEAs decreased below 0.08 which suggested that the factor model on which eight items loaded fitted the data well. The average variance extracted was 0.50 which is adequate according to the criteria suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) . The standardized solution for the eight-item model of the HCBS was shown in Figure 2 .
Correlations between the homework creativity behavior scale and similar concepts
The results showed that the score of the HCBS was significantly correlated with the total score and four dimensions of WCAP and their correlation coefficients ranged from 0.20 to 0.29, p -values were below 0.01. Similarly, the correlations between the score of the HCBS and the scores of arranging environment, managing time, motivation management, and controlling emotion, and total score of the HMS ranged from 0.08 to 0.22, p -values were 0.01; at the meanwhile, the correlation between the score of HCBS and the distraction dimension of the HMS was r = –0.14, p -values were 0.01. The HCBS score was also significantly related to homework completion ( r = 0.18, p < 0.01), but insignificantly related to homework time (see Table 3 for details).
Correlation matrix between variables included and the corresponding descriptive statistics.
About correlation between variables, the results of sample 1 and sample 2 were presented in the lower, upper triangle, respectively.
a In analyses, grades 7, 8, 10, and 11 were valued 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
b TWk, the time spent on homework in the weekend; TWw, the time spent on homework from Monday to Friday; HCp, homework completion; HMSt, total score of homework management scale; AE, arrange environment; MT, manage time; MM, monitor motivation; CE, control emotion; FA, focus attention; WCAPt, WCAP total score; AD, adventure; CU, curiosity; IM, imagination; CH, challenging; HCb, homework creativity behavior; AA, academic achievement.
c Since sample 1 did not answer the WCAP, so the corresponding cells in the lower triangle are blank. *p < 0.05, two side-tailed, the same for below.
d Since there is only one item from variable 1 to 4, the α and ω coefficients cannot be computed.
Correlations between the homework creativity behavior scale and distinct concepts
The correlation analysis results demonstrated that both the correlation coefficients between the score of HCBS and the time spent on homework in week days, and time spent on in weekend days were insignificant ( r -values = 0.02, p -values were above 0.05), which indicated a non-overlap between two distinct constructs of homework creativity and time spent on homework.
The results revealed that both the Cronbach’s α coefficients of sample 1 and sample 2 were 0.86, which were greater than a 0.70 criteria the previous studies suggest ( Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994 ; Green and Yang, 2015 ).
Effect of homework creativity on academic achievement
The results (see Table 4 ) of hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that (1) gender and grade explained 0.8% variation of the score of academic achievement. This number means closing to zero because the regression equation failed to pass the significance test; (2) homework time and completion explained 5.4% variation of academic achievement; considering the β coefficients of the time spent on homework is insignificant, this contribution should be attributed to homework completion totally, and (3) the score of the HCBS explained 3.7% variation of the academic achievement independently.
Effect of homework creativity on general creativity
The results showed the following (see Table 4 for details):
(1) Gender and grade explained 1.3% variation of the total score of general creativity (i.e., the total score of WACP); homework time and completion explained 1.3% variation of the total score of general creativity disposition; and the score of the HCBS independently explained 7.0% variation of the total score of general creativity.
(2) Gender and grade explained 1.7% variation of the adventure score, and homework time and completion explained 1.6% variation of the adventure score, and the score of the HCBS independently explained 6.4% variation of the adventure score.
(3) Gender and grade explained 2.4% variation of the curiosity score, and homework time and completion explained 1.1% variation of the curiosity score, and the score of the HCBS independently explained 5.1% variation of the curiosity score.
(4) Gender and grade explained 0.3% variation of the imagination score, homework time completion explained 0.3% variation of the imagination score. The real values of the two “0.3%” are zeros because both the regression equations and coefficients failed to pass the significance tests. Then the score of the HCBS independently explained 4.4% variation of the imagination score.
(5) Gender and grade explained 0.3% variation of the score of the challenge dimension, homework time and completion explained 2.3% variation of the challenge score, and the score of the HCBS independently explained 4.9% variation of the challenge score.
Grade differences of the homework creativity behavior scale
Test of measurement invariance.
The results of measurement invariance test across four grades indicated the following:
(1) The fitting states of the four models (Configural invariance, Factor loading invariance, Intercept invariance, and Residual variance invariance) were marginally acceptable, because values of CFIs (ranged from 0.89 to 0.93), TLIs (varied from 0.91 to 0.93), RMSEAs (fluctuated from 0.084 to 0.095), and SRMRs (changed from 0.043 to 0.074) located the cutoff intervals suggested by methodologists ( Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ; Chen, 2007 ; Putnick and Bornstein, 2016 ; see Table 5 for fitting indices, and refer to Supplementary Table S2 for the estimation of parameters).
Fitting results of invariance tests across grades.
(2) When setting factor loadings equal across four grades (i.e., grades 7, 8, 10, and 11), the ΔCFA was –0.006, ΔRMSEA was –0.007, and ΔSRMR was 0.016 which indicated that it passed the test of factor loading invariance. After adding the limit of intercepts equal across four groups, the ΔCFA was –0.008, ΔRMSEA was –0.004, and the ΔSRMR was 0.005 which supported that it passed the test of intercept invariance. At the last step, the error variances were also added as equal, the ΔCFA was –0.027, ΔRMSEA was 0.005, and the ΔSRMR was 0.019 which failed to pass the test of residual variance invariance (see Table 5 for changes of fitting indices). Taking into these fitting indices into account, the subsequent comparisons between the means of factors can be conducted because the residuals are not part of the latent factor ( Cheung and Rensvold, 2002 ; Chen, 2007 ; Putnick and Bornstein, 2016 ).
Grade differences in homework creativity and general creativity
The results of ANOVA showed that there were significant differences in the HCBS among the four grades [ F (3,1345) = 27.49, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.058, see Table 6 for details]. Further post-test tests returned that the scores of middle school students were significantly higher than those of high school students (Cohen’s d values ranged from 0.46 to 0.54; the averaged Cohen’s d = 0.494), and no significant difference occurs between grades 7 and 8, or between grades 10 and 11. See Figure 3 for details.
Grade differences in HCBS.
***p < 0.001.
The mean differences of the HCBS between the groups of grades.
To address the gap in the previous research on homework creativity, this study examined the psychometric proprieties of the HCBS and its relationship with academic achievement and general creativity. The main findings were (1) Hypotheses H1a and H1b were supported that the reliability and validity of the HCBS were acceptable; (2) Hypothesis H2 was supported that the correlation between the score of the HCBS and academic achievement was significant ( r -values = 0.23–0.26 for two samples); (3) Hypothesis H3 received support that the correlation between the scores of HCBS and WCAP was significant ( r -values = 0.20–0.29 for two samples); and (4) the H4 was supported from the current data that the score of high school students’ was lower than that of the middle school students’ (Cohen’s d = 0.49).
The positive correlations among homework creativity, homework completion, and general creativity
The first key finding should be noted is that the positive correlations with between pairs of homework creativity, homework completion, and general creativity. This result is inconsistent with prediction of an argument that homework diminishes creativity ( Cooper et al., 2012 ; Zheng, 2013 ). Specifically, the correlation between homework completion and curiosity was insignificant ( r = 0.08, p > 0.05) which did not support the argument that homework hurts curiosity of creativity ( Zheng, 2013 ). The possible reason may be homework can provide opportunities to foster some components of creativity by independently finding and developing new ways of understanding what students have learned in class, as Kaiipob (1951) argued. It may be the homework creativity that served as the way to practice the components of general creativity. In fact, the content of items of the HCBS are highly related with creative thinking (refer to Table 2 for details).
Possible reasons of the grade effect of the score of the homework creativity behavior scale
The second key finding should be noted is that the score of the HCBS decreased as the level of grades increased from 7 to 11. This is consistent with the basic trend recorded in the previous meta-analyses ( Kim, 2011 ; Said-Metwaly et al., 2021 ). There are three possible explanations leading to this grade effect. The first one is the repetitive exercises in homework. As Zheng (2013) observed, to get higher scores in the highly competitive entrance examination of high school and college, those Chinese students chose to practice a lot of repetitive exercises. The results of some behavior experiments suggested that repetitive activity could reduce the diverse thinking of subjects’ (e.g., Main et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, the repetitive exercises would lead to fast habituation (can be observed by skin conductance records) which hurts the creative thinking of participants ( Martindale et al., 1996 ). The second explanation is that the stress level in Chinese high schools is higher than in middle school because of the college entrance examination. The previous studies (e.g., Beversdorf, 2018 ) indicated that the high level of stress will trigger the increase activity of the noradrenergic system and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis which could debase the individual’s performance of creativity. Another likely explanation is the degree of the certainty of the college entrance examination. The level of certainty highly increases (success or failure) when time comes closer to the deadline of the entrance examination. The increase of degree of certainty will lead to the decrease of activity of the brain areas related to curiosity (e.g., Jepma et al., 2012 ).
The theoretical implications
From the theoretical perspective, there are two points deserving to be emphasized. First, the findings of this study extended the previous work ( Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007 ; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009 ). This study revealed that homework creativity had two typical characteristics, including the personal meaning of students (as represented by the content of items of the HCBS) and the small size of “creativity” and limited in the scope of exercises (small correlations with general creativity). These characteristics are in line with what Mini-C described by the previous studies ( Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007 ; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009 ). Second, this study deepened our understanding of the relationship between learning (homework is a part of learning) and creativity which has been discussed more than half a century. One of the main viewpoints is learning and creativity share some fundamental similarities, but no one explained what is the content of these “fundamental similarities” (e.g., Gajda et al., 2017 ). This study identified one similarity between learning and creativity in the context of homework, that is homework creativity. Homework creativity has the characteristics of homework and creativity at the same time which served as an inner factor in which homework promote creativity.
The practical implications
The findings in this study also have several potential practical implications. First, homework creativity should be a valuable goal of learning, because homework creativity may make contributions to academic achievement and general creativity simultaneously. They accounted for a total of 10.7% variance of academic achievement and general creativity which are the main goals of learning. Therefore, it is valuable to imbed homework creativity as a goal of learning, especially in the Chinese society ( Zheng, 2013 ).
Second, the items of the HCBS can be used as a vehicle to help students how to develop about homework creativity. Some studies indicated that the creative performance of students will improve just only under the simple requirement of “to be creative please” ( Niu and Sternberg, 2003 ). Similarly, some simple requirements, like “to do your homework in an innovative way,” “don’t stick to what you learned in class,” “to use a simpler method to do your homework,” “to use your imagination when you do homework,” “to design new problems on the basis what learnt,” “to find your own unique insights into your homework,” and “to find multiple solutions to the problem,” which rewritten from the items of the HCBS, can be used in the process of directing homework of students. In fact, these directions are typical behaviors of creative teaching (e.g., Soh, 2000 ); therefore, they are highly possible to be effective.
Third, the HCBS can be used to measure the degree of homework creativity in ordinary teaching or experimental situations. As demonstrated in the previous sections, the reliability and validity of the HCBS were good enough to play such a role. Based on this tool, the educators can collect the data of homework creativity, and make scientific decisions to improve the performance of people’s teaching or learning.
Strengths, limitations, and issues for further investigation
The main contribution is that this study accumulated some empirical knowledge about the relationship among homework creativity, homework completion, academic achievement, and general creativity, as well as the psychometric quality of the HCBS. However, the findings of this study should be treated with cautions because of the following limitations. First, our study did not collect the test–retest reliability of the HCBS. This makes it difficult for us to judge the HCBS’s stability over time. Second, the academic achievement data in our study were recorded by self-reported methods, and the objectivity may be more accurate. Third, the lower reliability coefficients existed in two dimensions employed, i.e., the arrange environment of the HMS (the α coefficient was 0.63), and the adventure of the WCAP (the α coefficient was 0.61). Fourth, the samples included here was not representative enough if we plan to generalize the finding to the population of middle and high school students in main land of China.
In addition to those questions listed as laminations, there are a number of issues deserve further examinations. (1) Can these findings from this study be generalized into other samples, especially into those from other cultures? For instances, can the reliability and validity of the HCBS be supported by the data from other samples? Or can the grade effect of the score of the HCBS be observed in other societies? Or can the correlation pattern among homework creativity, homework completion, and academic achievement be reproduced in other samples? (2) What is the role of homework creativity in the development of general creativity? Through longitudinal study, we can systematically observe the effect of homework creativity on individual’s general creativity, including creative skills, knowledge, and motivation. The micro-generating method ( Kupers et al., 2018 ) may be used to reveal how the homework creativity occurs in the learning process. (3) What factors affect homework creativity? Specifically, what effects do the individual factors (e.g., gender) and environmental factors (such as teaching styles of teachers) play in the development of homework creativity? (4) What training programs can be designed to improve homework creativity? What should these programs content? How about their effect on the development of homework creativity? What should the teachers do, if they want to promote creativity in their work situation? All those questions call for further explorations.
Homework is a complex thing which might have many aspects. Among them, homework creativity was the latest one being named ( Guo and Fan, 2018 ). Based on the testing of its reliability and validity, this study explored the relationships between homework creativity and academic achievement and general creativity, and its variation among different grade levels. The main findings of this study were (1) the eight-item version of the HCBS has good validity and reliability which can be employed in the further studies; (2) homework creativity had positive correlations with academic achievement and general creativity; (3) compared with homework completion, homework creativity made greater contribution to general creativity, but less to academic achievement; and (4) the score of homework creativity of high school students was lower than that of middle school students. Given that this is the first investigation, to our knowledge, that has systematically tapped into homework creativity, there is a critical need to pursue this line of investigation further.
Data availability statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the research ethic committee, School of Educational Science, Bohai University. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
HF designed the research, collected the data, and interpreted the results. YM and SG analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. HF, JX, and YM revised the manuscript. YC and HF prepared the HCBS. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
We thank Dr. Liwei Zhang for his supports in collecting data, and Lu Qiao, Dounan Lu, Xiao Zhang for their helps in the process of inputting data.
This work was supported by the LiaoNing Revitalization Talents Program (grant no. XLYC2007134) and the Funding for Teaching Leader of Bohai University.
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.
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.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923882/full#supplementary-material
- Anesko K. M., Schoiock G., Ramirez R., Levine F. M. (1987). The homework problem checklist: Assessing children’s homework difficulties. Behav. Assess. 9 179–185. 10.1155/2020/1250801 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Austin C. A. (1988). Homework as a parental involvement strategy to improve the achievement of first grade children: Dissertation abstracts international, 50/03, 622. Doctoral dissertation. Memphis, TN: Memphis State University. [ Google Scholar ]
- Beghetto R. A., Kaufman J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for mini-c creativity. Psycho. Aesthetics Creat. Arts 1 73–79. [ Google Scholar ]
- Beversdorf D. Q. (2018). “ Stress, pharmacology, and creativity ,” in The cambridge handbook of the neuroscience of creativity , eds Jung R. E., Vartanian O. V. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), 73–91. 10.1017/9781316556238.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Chang Y. (2019). An investigation on relationship between homework and creativity of elementary and middle school students. Master thesis. Liaoning Jinzhou: Bohai University. [ Google Scholar ]
- Chen F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Modeling 14 464–504. 10.1080/10705510701301834 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Cheung G. W., Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Modeling 9 233–255. [ Google Scholar ]
- Clark L. A., Watson D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment 7 309–319. 10.1037/1040-3522.214.171.1249 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Cooper H., Lindsay J. J., Nye B., Greathouse S. (1998). Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 90 70–83. 10.1037//0022-06126.96.36.199 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Cooper H., Robinson J. C., Patall E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Rev. Educ. Res. 76 1–62. [ Google Scholar ]
- Cooper H., Steenbergen-Hu S., Dent A. L. (2012). “ Homework ,” in APA educational psychology handbook, Vol.3. Application to learning and teaching , eds Harris K. R., Graham S., Urdan T. (Washington DC: American Psychological Association; ), 475–495. [ Google Scholar ]
- De Jong R., Westerhof K. J., Creemers B. P. M. (2000). Homework and student math achievement in junior high schools. Educ. Res. Eval. 6 130–157. [ 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. Effect. Sch. Improv. 20 375–405. 10.1080/09243450902904601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Dolean D. D., Lervag A. (2022). Variations of homework amount assigned in elementary school can impact academic achievement. J. Exp. Educ. 90 280–296. 10.1080/00220973.2020.1861422 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Epskamp S., Stuber S., Nak J., Veenman M., Jorgensen T. D. (2022). semPlot: Path diagrams and visual analysis of various sem packages’ output. R package Version 1.1.5. Availabl eonline at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semPlot/index.html (accessed July 18, 2022). [ 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 ]
- Ferketich S. (1991). Focus on psychometrics. Aspects of item analysis. Res. Nurs. Health 14 165–168. 10.1002/nur.4770140211 [ PubMed ] [ 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., Javier M. (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 ]
- Fernández-Alonso R., Woitschach P., Álvarez-Díaz M., González-López A. M., Cuesta M., Muñiz J. (2019). Homework and academic achievement in latin america: A multilevel approach. Front. Psychol. 10 : 95 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00095 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Fornell C., Larcker D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 39–50. 10.1177/002224378101800104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Gajda A., Karwowski M., Beghetto R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 109 269–299. 10.1037/edu0000133 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Green S. B., Yang Y. (2015). Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal consistency reliability: Coefficient alpha and omega coefficients. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 34 14–20. 10.1111/emip.12100 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Guilford J. P. (1950). Creativity. Am. Psychol. 5 444–454. 10.1037/h0063487 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Guo L. (2018). The compilation of homework behavior questionnaire for junior middle school students. Master thesis. Liaoning Jinzhou: Bohai University. [ Google Scholar ]
- Guo L., Fan H. (2018). Analysis and prospect of homework instruments in primary and middle schools. Educ. Sci. Res. 3 48–53. [ Google Scholar ]
- Hattie J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
- Hu L. T., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling 6 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Jepma M., Verdonschot R. G., van Steenbergen H., Rombouts S. A. R. B., Nieuwenhuis S. (2012). Neural mechanisms underlying the induction and relief of perceptual curiosity. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 6 : 2012 . 10.3389/fnbeh.2012.00005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Kaiipob I. A. (1951). Pedagogy (Shen yingnan, Nan zhishan et al, translated into chinese). Beijing: People’s Education Press, 150–155. [ Google Scholar ]
- Kalenkoski C. M., Pabilonia S. W. (2017). Does high school homework increase academic achievement? Educ. Econ. 25 45–59. 10.1080/09645292.2016.1178213 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Kaufman J. C., Beghetto R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four-C model of creativity. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 13 1–12. 10.1037/a0013688 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Kaufman J. C., Glăveanu V. P. (2019). “ A review of creativity theories: What questions are we trying to answer? ,” in Cambridge handbook of creativity , 2nd Edn, eds Kaufman J. C., Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 27–43. [ Google Scholar ]
- Kaufman J. C., Plucker J. A., Baer J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
- Karwowski M., Jankowska D. M., Brzeski A., Czerwonka M., Gajda A., Lebuda I., et al. (2020). Delving into creativity and learning. Creat. Res. J. 32 4–16. 10.1080/10400419.2020.1712165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Kim K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creat. Res. J. 23 285–295. 10.1080/10400419.2011.627805 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Kozbelt A., Beghetto R. A., Runco M. A. (2011). “ Theories of creativity ,” in The cambridge handbook of creativity , eds Kaufman J. C., Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 20–47. [ Google Scholar ]
- Kupers E., van Dijk M., Lehmann-Wermser A. (2018). Creativity in the here and now: A generic, micro-developmental measure of creativity. Front. Psychol. 9 : e2095 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02095 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Liu X.-L., Liu L., Qiu Y.-X., Jin Y., Zhou J. (2016). Reliability and validity of williams creativity assessment packet. J. Sch. Stud. 13 51–58. 10.3969/j.issn.1005-2232.2016.03.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Liu Y., Gong S., Cai X. (2013). Junior-high school students’ homework effort and its influencing factors. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 21 1422–1429. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.01422 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Long H., Kerr B. A., Emler T. E., Birdnow M. (2022). A critical review of assessments of creativity in education. Rev. Res. Educ. 46 288–323. 10.3102/0091732X221084326 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Luo L., Arizmendi C., Gates K. M. (2019). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) programs in R. Struct. Equ. Modeling 26 819–826. 10.1080/10705511 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Main K. J., Aghakhani H., Labroo A. A., Greidanus N. S. (2020). Change it up: Inactivity and repetitive activity reduce creative thinking. J. Creat. Behav. 54 395–406. 10.1002/jocb.373 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Martindale C., Anderson K., Moor K., West A. (1996). Creativity, oversensitivity and rate of habituation. Pers. Individ. Diff. 20 423–427. 10.1016/0191-8869(95)00193-X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Nie Y., Zheng X. (2005). A study on the developmental characteristics of children’s and adolescent’s creative personality. Psychol. Sci. 28 356–361. 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2005.02.024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Niu W., Sternberg R. J. (2003). Societal and school influences on student creativity: The case of China. Psychol. Sch. 40 103–114. 10.1002/pits.10072 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Cerezo R., González-Pienda J., Valle A. (2013). Homework and academic achievement across Spanish Compulsory Education. Educ. Psychol. 35 1–21. 10.1080/01443410 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Nunnally J. C., Bernstein I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory , 3rd Edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
- OECD (2014). Does homework perpetuate inequities in education? Pisa in Focus, No. 46. Paris: OECD Publishing, 10.1787/5jxrhqhtx2xt-en [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Pang W., Plucker J. A. (2012). Recent transformations in China’s economic, social, and education policies for promoting innovation and creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 46 247–273. 10.1002/jocb.17 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Pendergast L. L., Watkins M. W., Canivez G. L. (2014). Structural and convergent validity of the homework performance questionnaire. Educ. Psychol. 34 291–304. 10.1080/01443410.2013.785058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Pelletier R. (2005). The predictive power of homework assignments on student achievement in grade three (Order No. 3169466). Available from proquest dissertations & theses global. (305350863). Available online at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/305350863?accountid¼12206 [ Google Scholar ]
- Peterson R., Kim Y. (2013). On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 194–198. 10.1037/a0030767 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Plucker J. A., Makel M. C., Qian M. (2019). “ Chapter3: assessment of creativity ,” in The cambridge handbook of creativity , 2nd Edn, eds Kaufman J. C., Sternberg R. J. (Cambridge University Press: New York, NY; ), 44–68. [ Google Scholar ]
- Podsakoff P. M., Mac Kenzie S. B., Podsakoff N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63 539–569. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- 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. J. Sch. Psychol. 45 333–348. 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.02.002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Putnick D. L., Bornstein M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Dev. Rev. 41 71–90. 10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Qian A. (2006). Research on the creative thought ability training in the language teaching material work system. Ph.D. thesis. Jiangsu Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University. [ Google Scholar ]
- R Core Team (2019). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [ Google Scholar ]
- Revelle W. (2022). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. [ Google Scholar ]
- Rosário P., Núñez J., 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 ]
- Rosseel Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48 : 97589 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Said-Metwaly S., Fernández-Castilla B., Kyndt E., Van den Noortgate W., Barbot B. (2021). Does the fourth-grade slump in creativity actually exist? A meta-analysis of the development of divergent thinking in school-age children and adolescents. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33 275–298. 10.1007/s10648-020-09547-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Smith J. K., Smith L. F. (2010). “ Educational creativity ,” in The cambridge handbook of creativity , eds Kaufman J. C., Sternberg R. J. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; ), 250–264. [ Google Scholar ]
- Soh K.-C. (2000). Indexing creativity fostering teacher behavior: A preliminary validation study. J. Creat. Behav. 34 118–134. 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01205.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Sternberg R. J. (2019). Measuring creativity: A 40+ year retrospective. J. Creat. Behav. 53 600–604. 10.1002/jocb.218 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Sternberg R. J., Karami S. (2022). An 8P theoretical framework for understanding creativity and theories of creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 56 55–78. 10.1002/jocb.516 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Sun M., Du J., Xu J. (2021). Are homework purposes and student achievement reciprocally related? A longitudinal study. Curr. Psychol. 40 4945–4956. 10.1007/s12144-019-00447-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Sun L., Shafiq M. N., McClure M., Guo S. (2020). Are there educational and psychological benefits from private supplementary tutoring in Mainland China? Evidence from the China Education Panel Survey, 2013–15. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 72 : 102144 . [ Google Scholar ]
- Swank A. L. G. (1999). The effect of weekly math homework on fourth grade student math performance. Master of arts action research project. Knoxville, TN: Johnson Bible College. [ Google Scholar ]
- Tas Y., Sungur S., Oztekin C. (2016). Development and validation of science homework scale for middle-school students. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 14 417–444. 10.1007/s10763-014-9582-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. (2007). Students’ self-reported effort and time on homework in six school subjects: Between-student differences and within-student variation. J. Educ. Psychol. 99 432–444. 10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.522 [ 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 ]
- Valle A., Piñeiro I., Rodríguez S., Regueiro B., Freire C., Rosário P. (2019). Time spent and time management in homework in elementary school students: A person-centered approach. Psicothema 31 422–428. 10.7334/psicothema2019.191 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Wang M., Lin X. (1986). Research on the revised williams creative aptitude test. Bull. Spec. Educ. 2 231–250. [ Google Scholar ]
- Welch W. W., Walberg H. J., Fraser B. J. (1986). Predicting elementary science learning using national assessment data. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 23 699–706. 10.1002/tea.3660230805 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Williams F. E. (1979). Assessing creativity across Williams “CUBE” model. Gifted Child Q. 23 748–756. 10.1177/001698627902300406 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Wilson J. L. (2010). The impact of teacher assigned but not graded compared to teacher assigned and graded chemistry homework on the formative and summative chemistry assessment scores of 11th-grade students with varying chemistry potential (Order No. 3423989). Available from proquest dissertations & theses global. (759967221). Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/759967221 (accessed July 18, 2022). [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J. (2006). Gender and homework management reported by high school students. Educ. Psychol. 26 73–91. 10.1080/01443410500341023 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J. (2008). Validation of scores on the homework management scale for high school students. Educ. psychol. Meas. 68 304–324. 10.1177/0013164407301531 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J. (2010). Homework purpose scale for high school students: A validation study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 70 459–476. 10.1177/0013164409344517 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J. (2017). Homework expectancy value scale for high school students: Measurement invariance and latent mean differences across gender and grade level. Learn. Individ. Diff. 60 10–17. 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.10.003 [ 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. (2020). Longitudinal effects of homework expectancy, value, effort, and achievement: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Educ. Res. 99 : 101507 . 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101507 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J. (2021). Math homework purpose scale: Confirming the factor structure with high school students. Psychology in the Schools 58 1518–1530. 10.1002/pits.22507 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J., Corno L. (2003). Family help and homework management reported by middle school students. Elem. Sch. J. 103 503–518. 10.1086/499737 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J., Du J., Cunha J., Rosrio P. (2021). Student perceptions of homework quality, autonomy support, effort, and math achievement: Testing models of reciprocal effects. Teach. Teach. Educ. 108 : 103508 . 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103508 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J., Du J., Liu F., Huang B. (2019). Emotion regulation, homework completion, and math achievement: Testing models of reciprocal effects. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 59 : 101810 . 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101810 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J., Núñez J., Cunha J., Rosário P. (2020). Validation of the online homework distraction scale. Psicothema 32 469–475. 10.7334/psicothema2020.60 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Xu J., Yuan R., Xu B., Xu M. (2014). Modeling students’ managing time in math homework. Learn. Individ. Differences 34 33–42. 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Yang F., Tu M. (2020). Self-regulation of homework behavior: Relating grade, gender, and achievement to homework management. Educ. Psychol. 40 392–408. 10.1080/01443410.2019.1674784 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Yang F., Xu J. (2017). Homework expectancy value scale: Measurement invariance and latent mean differences across gender. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 36 863–868. 10.1177/0734282917714905 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
- Zhai J., Fan H. (2021). “ The changes in primary and middle school students’ homework time in china: A cross-temporal meta-analysis ,” in Paper presented at the meeting of the 23rd national academic conference of psychology , Huhhot. [ Google Scholar ]
- Zheng Y. (2013). Problems and causes of China’s education. Beijing: China CITIC Press, 125. [ Google Scholar ]
- Sites at Penn State
SiOWfa15: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy
The course website and blog for the fall 2015 instance of penn state's sc200 course.
Does Homework Promote Academic Achievement?
We all hate homework. It’s tedious, frustrating, time-consuming, and downright horrible. Sometimes we get points for doing homework and doing well which is always a good reason for getting it done, but could success on homework be the reason for fantastic final grades?
Let’s establish the basics of what we are trying to find here. The x-variable is doing your homework while the y-variable is earning excellent grades. Confounding, z-variables , could include personality traits, lack of procrastination habits, natural ability to succeed in school, etc. Our null hypothesis is that doing your homework does not improve your final grade . Our alternative hypothesis is that doing your homework does improve your final grade and promotes academic achievement.
Harris Cooper , a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, and his colleagues compiled an analysis of dozens of studies done on homework in order to come to a conclusion on whether homework is effective. If it is effective, how much homework is too much, and what is the appropriate amount to give out to students?
Many of the studies done on this question examine students who are assigned homework with students who are not assigned homework but are still similar in other ways. Interestingly, many of the results found that homework can improve test scores at the end of a topic. “Students assigned homework in 2nd grade did better on math, 3rd and 4th graders did better on English skills and vocabulary, 5th graders on social studies, 9th through 12th graders on American history, and 12th graders on Shakespeare.” ( Cooper )
Some studies do not attempt to control for student differences. 35 studies suggest that 77% find the correlation between homework and and academic achievement to be positive; however, they fail to make this correlation among elementary students. One possible solution to control for student differences would be to randomly distribute the students based on similarities so that on average, both the homework group and the non-homework group are about the same in terms of similarities, i.e. learning disabilities, gender, and prior achievement in school. Additionally, Cooper says an explanation for why there is not a correlation among elementary students could be because they do not have well developed study habits and because they get distracted easily.
In short, Cooper suggests that through his analysis, homework is in fact beneficial to students . Not only can it have positive effects on overall grades, but it can also have other benefits such as developing responsible character traits, maturing cognitive capacities, fostering independent learning habits, and growing of good study habits. Cooper, along with most educators, says homework should not exceed 10-20 minutes for children K-2, 30-60 minutes a day for grades 3-6, and varying times depending on the subjects for middle school and high school students.
Some feel that homework can have many negative effects such as developing a disinterest in school among students, homework denies children of leisure time and takes them away from extra-curricular activities which also teach important life skills. It is important to allow teachers and administrators to have flexibility to account for the differences in some students and their families; however, sticking to the prescribed regiment is most effective for most students.
Rival ACC school, the University of Virginia, has a much different take on homework than Cooper. Co-authors Adam Maltese, assistant professor of science education at Indiana University, Robert H. Tai, associate professor of science education at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, and Xitao Fan, dean of education at the University of Macau, conducted their own studies and published “ When Is Homework Worth the Time ?”
Because the paper is twenty-two pages long, I will summarize the findings. If you would like to, the full report can be read here . 18,000, tenth grade students’s survey and transcript data were observed in the study collected from 1990 to 2002 by the National Center for Education Statistics . Unlike many studies done on homework and final grades, Maltese, Tai, and Fan found that time spent on homework did not effect the final course grade among those who did and did not do their homework. Conversely, they did find a correlation between time spent on homework and success on standardized test scores. Maltese says, “Our results hint that maybe homework is not being used as well as it could be.” In order to be more effective with homework, teachers should assign homework which is useful, sort of a quality over quantity type of thing. Rather than give a designated amount of homework, give assignments which will keep the students engaged for a short period of time and allow for a greater chance of retaining that information. In effect, this will also allow for appropriate amounts of time to be allocated towards extracurricular activities which teach young people other valuable lessons while also learning from engaging homework.
All of this raises the question: what is the most effective type of homework assignment? I certainly feel as though this question can best be answered based on each individual person. Because some people are inherently auditory, visual, or hands-on learners, one standard type of homework cannot be called the best . I believe in order to really get the best result from everyone, each person would require their own homework regiment. Seeing as though some schools have entire graduating classes of well-over 2,000 students , creating an individualized homework regiment for each student is simply impossible. So what basic principles should teachers and administrators use to create effect homework?
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ( ASCD ) attempted to tackle this tricky question with their “ Five Hallmarks of Good Homework .” The first principle is purpose . Students must be given a clear end goal to their assignment such as giving simple division problems in order to understand the concept of division or writing sentences using certain vocabulary words so that students can understand the context of those specific vocabulary words. In addition, ASCD says practice is most effective when given in small doses over long periods of time, concurrent with Maltese, Tai, and Fan. The second principle is efficiency . ASCD says projects which involve cutting, gluing, and constructing are often extremely inefficient even though the teacher has great intentions when they assign them because they are fun and creative. Instead, rather than making a poster, students should be tasked to put themselves in the perspective of their project. For example, ASCD suggests if students are tasked with a history assignment, they should be asked to create a diary entry as if they were the person who experienced what they are trying to learn (writing about what it was like to immigrate from another country, writing about what World War 2 was like, etc.). The third principle is ownership . One of the easiest ways to promote ownership is by giving flexibility. Instead of prescribing a common book for the class to read, teachers could allow students to find their own sources such as magazines and academic journals which are still relevant to the topic. This keeps the students engaged and interested in what they are learning. “Instead of worrying about whether students did the reading, we should be focusing on whether the reading did them any good” ( ASCD ). The fourth principle is competence . Because, each student is different, they should be allowed to work together if they choose to and receive help on assignments. Students often get discouraged when forced to work alone and are more likely not to complete a task. The fifth, and final, principle is aesthetic appeal . First impressions are extremely important to students. As soon as they see the requirements and details of an assignment, they make a snap decision about whether they are going to do it or not and, if they are going to do it, how well they are going to do it. Students are more inclined to complete an assignment which are visually uncluttered with few information on the page. Lots of room to write answers and the use of graphics and clip art on the page are also quite appealing to students. Visuals are just as important to the student as knowing they have little work to do.
Take home message: homework is beneficial to the student in more ways than just improving final grades but only when allocated effectively . In my opinion, and I think most would agree, there need to be more studies done on the effectiveness of homework. Preferably, some kind of experimental study would be conducted to almost definitively prove that effective homework benefits the student in multiple ways. Of course, a double-blind placebo would be out of the question because the student would know if they are doing their homework or not. Maybe a single-blind study could be effective where the students are randomly placed into two groups, homework and no homework. The teacher would not know who is and who is not doing their homework, but would still assign regular assignments to the class. The students either do or do not complete their homework, and at the end of the semester or grading period, examine the results of how many students received good or bad marks on their final reports. Of course, this study would flawed in that if a student gets placed into the group who does not do their homework but normally would have done their homework and their grade suffers from not doing it, that is infringing on the student’s ability and right to learn, and compromises their own responsibility for their grades; however, at this point, this is the closest I could get to an appropriate experimental study. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated in the comments.
1 thought on “ Does Homework Promote Academic Achievement? ”
Very interesting post. In high school, I was adamantly anti-homework, generally equating homework with meaningless busywork, but your post got me thinking, and I came up with an idea for a study that sort of expands on your idea. Here’s what I’ve got: a class made specially for the study is split into two groups via random assignment, and one group is assigned homework while the other is told not to do the homework. The study will include a random sample of students of the same grade level or year, and everyone will come to class as required and will be encouraged to be active in the classroom and really pay attention to what is being taught (the teacher will find a way to get around to this somehow). Besides the homework, the only real assignments given are in-class quizzes and a final at the end of the semester, which is when the grades of those who did and didn’t do the homework will be compared. The homework, of course, will be GOOD homework, as determined by the five hallmarks you went over in your post. Also, this class will institute a NO-STUDY policy. That’s important. It will be physically impossible to study for the tests anyway, because there is nothing that students can read or study from at home — no handouts, nothing. (The entire curriculum may as well be completely fabricated.) This study is far from a perfect setup and I’m sure it contains some major flaws in reasoning, the most obvious of which is the question of the students’ drive and motivation to actually try on the homework in the first place (since this won’t be a class that they’re technically graded on, so it may not be a true measure of their aptitude and ability… but that’s still better than the alternative). Anyhow, I could see it turning up some interesting results. Given that the homework demonstrates the strongest possible examples of the five hallmarks of good homework, and the students assigned homework put forth their best effort on the homework assignments, I think that the homework-assigned group could receive better overall grades than the no-homework group.
Comments are closed.
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.
- IZA Discussion Papers
- Does High School Homework Increase Academic Achievement?
IZA DP No. 8142: Does High School Homework Increase Academic Achievement?
published in: Education Economics, 2017, 25 (1), 45-59
Although previous research has shown that homework improves students' academic achievement, the majority of these studies use data on students' homework time from retrospective questionnaires, which are less accurate than time-diary data. However, most time-diary data sets do not contain outcome measures, and thus are limited in the questions they can answer. One data set that does have both time-diary and outcome information is the combined Child Development Supplement (CDS) and the Transition to Adulthood Survey (TA) of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Students complete time diaries as part of the CDS and then a few years later provide information on outcomes in the TA. The CDS provides us with time diaries for both weekdays and weekend days, providing a good picture of homework over the course of a week rather than on just a single day. For high school graduates, we explore the effects of time spent on homework on two measures of academic achievement: high school GPA and college attendance by age 20. We find that homework time increases the probability of college attendance for boys. In addition, when we look at homework performed as a sole activity, we find that homework increases high school GPA for boys.
- academic achievement
- human capital
These necessary cookies are required to activate the core functionality of the website. An opt-out from these technologies is not available.
In order to further improve our offer and our website, we collect anonymous data for statistics and analyses. With the help of these cookies we can, for example, determine the number of visitors and the effect of certain pages on our website and optimize our content.
Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003
In this article, research conducted in the United States since 1987 on the effects of homework is summarized. Studies are grouped into four research designs. The authors found that all studies, regardless of type, had design flaws. However, both within and across design types, there was generally consistent evidence for a positive influence of homework on achievement. Studies that reported simple homework-achievement correlations revealed evidence that a stronger correlation existed (a) in Grades 7-12 than in K-6 and (b) when students rather than parents reported time on homework. No strong evidence was found for an association between the homework-achievement link and the outcome measure (grades as opposed to standardized tests) or the subject matter (reading as opposed to math). On the basis of these results and others, the authors suggest future research.
Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions citation stats, published in, publication date, start / end page, related subject headings.
- 39 Education
- 13 Education
More From Forbes
Why homework doesn't seem to boost learning--and how it could.
- Share to Facebook
- Share to Twitter
- Share to Linkedin
Some schools are eliminating homework, citing research showing it doesn’t do much to boost achievement. But maybe teachers just need to assign a different kind of homework.
In 2016, a second-grade teacher in Texas delighted her students—and at least some of their parents—by announcing she would no longer assign homework. “Research has been unable to prove that homework improves student performance,” she explained.
The following year, the superintendent of a Florida school district serving 42,000 students eliminated homework for all elementary students and replaced it with twenty minutes of nightly reading, saying she was basing her decision on “solid research about what works best in improving academic achievement in students.”
Many other elementary schools seem to have quietly adopted similar policies. Critics have objected that even if homework doesn’t increase grades or test scores, it has other benefits, like fostering good study habits and providing parents with a window into what kids are doing in school.
Those arguments have merit, but why doesn’t homework boost academic achievement? The research cited by educators just doesn’t seem to make sense. If a child wants to learn to play the violin, it’s obvious she needs to practice at home between lessons (at least, it’s obvious to an adult). And psychologists have identified a range of strategies that help students learn, many of which seem ideally suited for homework assignments.
For example, there’s something called “ retrieval practice ,” which means trying to recall information you’ve already learned. The optimal time to engage in retrieval practice is not immediately after you’ve acquired information but after you’ve forgotten it a bit—like, perhaps, after school. A homework assignment could require students to answer questions about what was covered in class that day without consulting their notes. Research has found that retrieval practice and similar learning strategies are far more powerful than simply rereading or reviewing material.
One possible explanation for the general lack of a boost from homework is that few teachers know about this research. And most have gotten little training in how and why to assign homework. These are things that schools of education and teacher-prep programs typically don’t teach . So it’s quite possible that much of the homework teachers assign just isn’t particularly effective for many students.
Even if teachers do manage to assign effective homework, it may not show up on the measures of achievement used by researchers—for example, standardized reading test scores. Those tests are designed to measure general reading comprehension skills, not to assess how much students have learned in specific classes. Good homework assignments might have helped a student learn a lot about, say, Ancient Egypt. But if the reading passages on a test cover topics like life in the Arctic or the habits of the dormouse, that student’s test score may well not reflect what she’s learned.
The research relied on by those who oppose homework has actually found it has a modest positive effect at the middle and high school levels—just not in elementary school. But for the most part, the studies haven’t looked at whether it matters what kind of homework is assigned or whether there are different effects for different demographic student groups. Focusing on those distinctions could be illuminating.
A study that looked specifically at math homework , for example, found it boosted achievement more in elementary school than in middle school—just the opposite of the findings on homework in general. And while one study found that parental help with homework generally doesn’t boost students’ achievement—and can even have a negative effect— another concluded that economically disadvantaged students whose parents help with homework improve their performance significantly.
That seems to run counter to another frequent objection to homework, which is that it privileges kids who are already advantaged. Well-educated parents are better able to provide help, the argument goes, and it’s easier for affluent parents to provide a quiet space for kids to work in—along with a computer and internet access . While those things may be true, not assigning homework—or assigning ineffective homework—can end up privileging advantaged students even more.
Students from less educated families are most in need of the boost that effective homework can provide, because they’re less likely to acquire academic knowledge and vocabulary at home. And homework can provide a way for lower-income parents—who often don’t have time to volunteer in class or participate in parents’ organizations—to forge connections to their children’s schools. Rather than giving up on homework because of social inequities, schools could help parents support homework in ways that don’t depend on their own knowledge—for example, by recruiting others to help, as some low-income demographic groups have been able to do . Schools could also provide quiet study areas at the end of the day, and teachers could assign homework that doesn’t rely on technology.
Another argument against homework is that it causes students to feel overburdened and stressed. While that may be true at schools serving affluent populations, students at low-performing ones often don’t get much homework at all—even in high school. One study found that lower-income ninth-graders “consistently described receiving minimal homework—perhaps one or two worksheets or textbook pages, the occasional project, and 30 minutes of reading per night.” And if they didn’t complete assignments, there were few consequences. I discovered this myself when trying to tutor students in writing at a high-poverty high school. After I expressed surprise that none of the kids I was working with had completed a brief writing assignment, a teacher told me, “Oh yeah—I should have told you. Our students don’t really do homework.”
If and when disadvantaged students get to college, their relative lack of study skills and good homework habits can present a serious handicap. After noticing that black and Hispanic students were failing her course in disproportionate numbers, a professor at the University of North Carolina decided to make some changes , including giving homework assignments that required students to quiz themselves without consulting their notes. Performance improved across the board, but especially for students of color and the disadvantaged. The gap between black and white students was cut in half, and the gaps between Hispanic and white students—along with that between first-generation college students and others—closed completely.
There’s no reason this kind of support should wait until students get to college. To be most effective—both in terms of instilling good study habits and building students’ knowledge—homework assignments that boost learning should start in elementary school.
Some argue that young children just need time to chill after a long day at school. But the “ten-minute rule”—recommended by homework researchers—would have first graders doing ten minutes of homework, second graders twenty minutes, and so on. That leaves plenty of time for chilling, and even brief assignments could have a significant impact if they were well-designed.
But a fundamental problem with homework at the elementary level has to do with the curriculum, which—partly because of standardized testing— has narrowed to reading and math. Social studies and science have been marginalized or eliminated, especially in schools where test scores are low. Students spend hours every week practicing supposed reading comprehension skills like “making inferences” or identifying “author’s purpose”—the kinds of skills that the tests try to measure—with little or no attention paid to content.
But as research has established, the most important component in reading comprehension is knowledge of the topic you’re reading about. Classroom time—or homework time—spent on illusory comprehension “skills” would be far better spent building knowledge of the very subjects schools have eliminated. Even if teachers try to take advantage of retrieval practice—say, by asking students to recall what they’ve learned that day about “making comparisons” or “sequence of events”—it won’t have much impact.
If we want to harness the potential power of homework—particularly for disadvantaged students—we’ll need to educate teachers about what kind of assignments actually work. But first, we’ll need to start teaching kids something substantive about the world, beginning as early as possible.
- Editorial Standards
- Reprints & Permissions
- How It Works
- Write my homework
- Sociology assignments
- Excel homework
- Online exam help
- Take my online class
- Online test help
- Java homework
- Hire a nerd
- Python homework
- Science homework
- C++ homework
- Case study assignment
- Matlab homework
- Math assignments
- Algebra homework
- Geometry homework
- Chemistry assignments
- Physics assignments
- Statistics homework
- Programming Assignment
- Linguistics assignments
- History assignments
- Economics assignments
- Accounting homework
- Computer science assignments
- English assignments
- Finance assignments
- Homework answers
- Biology assignments
- Homework tips
- Buy assignment
- Do my homework for money
- Solve my homework
- Assignment writer
- College homework help
- Academic subjects
- Nursing assignment
- Psychology homework
- Literature assignment
- Trigonometry homework
- Marketing assignment
- Engineering assignment
- Business homework
- Calculus homework
- Law assignment
- Assignment writing service
- Discussion board post
- Best homework help websites
Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?
Do I really need to do my homework? Does it even help me at all? Well, homework has been a cornerstone of education for generations. However, its existence and impact on students have sparked a never-ending debate. While some argue that homework is an unnecessary burden, others believe it plays a pivotal role in shaping academic achievement. In this exploration, we delve into the fascinating world of homework, seeking to understand the driving force behind its existence and its profound effects on students’ academic success.
Why does homework exist? What motivates educators to assign it? Is it merely tradition, or does it serve a more profound purpose in the learning process? These questions often echo in the minds of students, parents and teachers alike, prompting us to embark on a quest for answers.
Equally important is understanding how homework affects students. Does it truly contribute to improved academic performance? Does it cultivate essential skills beyond the classroom? By dissecting the latest research and drawing from real-life experiences, we aim to shed light on the intricate relationship between homework and academic achievement. Join us on this enlightening journey as we unveil the hidden nuances of homework’s role in shaping students’ futures.
Table of Contents
So, what is homework, why does homework exist, pros and cons of homework, but how does homework affect students, practical examples of how homework helps students.
What does homework stand for?
Homework is a commonly used term in education, referring to tasks or assignments given to students by their teachers to be completed outside of regular classroom hours.
It serves as an extension of the learning process, reinforcing and applying the knowledge acquired during school hours. The term “homework” itself is a compound word, where “home” signifies the location where most of these assignments are completed and “work” emphasizes the effort and task-oriented nature of the assignments.
Did you know that the history of homework is an intriguing journey through the evolution of education practices? Here’s a brief chronological overview:
- Ancient Rome: Even in ancient times, scholars like Pliny the Younger believed in the value of self-study and reflection outside the classroom.
- The Renaissance: With the revival of learning during the Renaissance, homework became more common as scholars encouraged independent study.
- 18th Century: Homework was primarily reserved for elite students, reflecting social class distinctions.
- 19th Century: The Industrial Revolution prompted a shift towards standardized education, leading to more widespread homework assignments.
- 20th Century: Homework gained popularity, particularly in the United States, with the belief that it reinforced learning and discipline.
- 21st Century: Advances in technology have transformed the way homework is assigned and completed, with online resources and digital platforms playing a significant role.
How does homework affect students? Regarding how homework affects students, opinions vary. Some argue that it fosters responsibility, time management skills, and reinforces learning, while others suggest it can lead to stress, burnout and a lack of free time for extracurricular activities. Research on its effectiveness and impact remains a topic of ongoing debate among educators and scholars.
Why does homework exist? Homework exists as an integral part of the educational system for several reasons, primarily aimed at reinforcing classroom learning, fostering independent thinking, and providing opportunities for practice and application. Here’s a glimpse of why homework is an enduring educational practice across various fields:
- Chemistry: In chemistry, homework tasks often involve solving complex equations, conducting experiments at home or researching chemical reactions. These assignments allow students to apply theoretical knowledge to real-world scenarios, reinforcing their understanding of chemical concepts.
- Physics: Homework in physics typically includes problem-solving exercises, experimentation, and concept exploration. Through these tasks, students can delve deeper into the principles of physics and gain practical insights into how the physical world works.
- Biology: In biology, homework assignments might include research projects, dissections or data analysis. These tasks enable students to explore the intricacies of living organisms and ecosystems, reinforcing their understanding of biological concepts.
- Computer Science: Homework in computer science often involves coding, debugging and software development. These assignments help students practice programming skills, apply algorithms and gain hands-on experience in a rapidly evolving field.
Ok, but why should I write my homework? How does it benefit me? Across these diverse fields, homework serves the purpose of allowing students to apply what they’ve learned in class to solve real-world problems, deepen their knowledge and develop critical thinking skills. It encourages self-directed learning and provides an opportunity for students to take ownership of their education. While the impact of homework on students varies, it remains a fundamental component of the education system, prompting ongoing discussions on how does homework affect students and its role in promoting learning and development.
Should I write my homework? Why even bother? Now that we’ve talked about what does homework stand for, it’s time to talk about its pros and cons. After all, homework is a fundamental component of the education system in high schools and colleges. While it serves various purposes, its pros and cons differ for students in these two educational stages, as you can see below:
Pros of Homework in High School
- Reinforcement of Learning: Homework in high school helps students consolidate their understanding of classroom material. It reinforces what they’ve learned during lectures and ensures they grasp the concepts thoroughly.
- Time Management: High school students learn valuable time management skills as they balance homework, extracurricular activities and social life. This skill is beneficial for their future academic and professional endeavors.
- Preparation for College: Homework in high school prepares students for the rigors of college-level academics. It introduces them to the discipline and responsibility required to excel in higher education.
Cons of Homework in High School
- Stress and Burnout: High school students sometimes face an overwhelming workload, which can lead to stress and burnout. Balancing homework with other commitments can be challenging as well.
- Limited Free Time: Excessive homework can leave students with limited free time for relaxation and extracurricular activities, potentially hampering their overall development.
- Inequality: Homework may not be equally accessible to all students. Those with fewer resources or less support at home may struggle to complete assignments, exacerbating educational inequalities.
Pros of Homework in College
- Deepening Understanding: College-level homework encourages students to delve deeper into their chosen field of study. It challenges them to think critically and develop a comprehensive understanding of complex topics.
- Preparation for Careers: Homework in college prepares students for the demands of their future careers. It fosters skills such as research, critical analysis and problem-solving, which are valuable in the professional world.
- Self-Directed Learning: College homework requires self-directed learning, promoting independence and self-motivation. It encourages students to take ownership of their education.
Cons of Homework in College
- Overwhelming Workload: College students may sometimes face a heavy workload, especially when juggling multiple courses. The sheer volume of assignments can lead to stress and academic burnout.
- Limited Social Engagement: Extensive homework can limit college students’ opportunities for social engagement and extracurricular involvement, potentially hindering their personal growth.
- Time Constraints: College students often have part-time jobs or internships, making it challenging to manage both work and academics. Homework can sometimes add to their time constraints.
In conclusion, homework plays a pivotal role in both high school and college education, offering benefits such as reinforcing learning, promoting time management, and preparing students for future academic and professional challenges. However, its disadvantages, including stress, limited free time, and potential inequalities, should not be ignored. Balancing the pros and cons of homework is crucial to ensure that it effectively serves its purpose without adversely affecting students’ overall well-being and development. Discussions around how does homework affect students and its role in education continue to evolve as educators seek to optimize its benefits while minimizing its drawbacks.
OK, but how does homework affect students? Well, homework encompasses a complex interplay of positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, homework can significantly benefit students by reinforcing classroom learning, fostering discipline and promoting essential skills.
Homework serves as a valuable tool for reinforcing knowledge and aiding in skill development. It provides students with opportunities to practice and apply what they’ve learned, leading to a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Moreover, homework cultivates self-discipline and time management skills as students must allocate their time effectively to complete assignments.
However, it’s important to acknowledge the potential downsides. Excessive homework can lead to stress and burnout, negatively impacting students’ well-being. Additionally, if homework is not well-designed or becomes too burdensome, it may discourage students from engaging in extracurricular activities or limit their free time. So, should I write my homework or simply give up?
Yes, you should! But remember that, while homework can offer substantial benefits in terms of academic reinforcement and skill development, educators must strike a balance to avoid overwhelming students and negatively affecting their overall quality of life. Careful consideration of the quantity and quality of homework is essential to harness its positive effects while mitigating the potential negatives.
But what do I gain if I do my homework? Homework can provide several practical benefits to students and homework writers by reinforcing classroom learning and fostering essential skills. Here are some practical examples of how homework can help a student:
Concept Reinforcement: After a math lesson on fractions, homework assignments that require students to solve fraction-related problems help reinforce their understanding. Practicing these skills at home ensures that students retain and apply what they’ve learned in class. Language Skills Development: In language arts classes, reading assignments followed by comprehension questions or essay writing tasks enhance vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing skills. This not only boosts academic performance but also improves communication abilities. Research and Information Retrieval: In subjects like history or science, research-based homework tasks encourage students to seek information beyond textbooks. This builds research skills and teaches them how to find reliable sources, which are valuable skills in the digital age. Time Management: Homework, with its deadlines and multiple assignments, teaches students time management and organizational skills. Meeting these deadlines is a valuable life skill that will serve them well in college and their future careers. Critical Thinking: Homework that poses challenging questions or requires students to analyze and synthesize information promotes critical thinking. This skill is crucial for problem-solving and decision-making in various aspects of life.
Why does homework exist, you ask? These practical examples demonstrate how homework can complement classroom learning, promote skill development and prepare students for academic and real-world challenges. However, it’s essential to strike a balance, ensuring that homework assignments are reasonable in quantity.
Homework Help Is Here
Now you have the answer to your questions: what does homework stand for and why does homework exist. Despite the ongoing debate surrounding its implementation, homework emerges as a valuable tool that, when used judiciously, can significantly enhance academic achievements. It reinforces classroom learning, deepens understanding, and cultivates essential skills such as time management and critical thinking. While it’s important to be mindful of the potential negative effects, a well-balanced approach to homework can ensure its positive impact shines through.
When assignments are thoughtfully designed, aligned with educational objectives, and tailored to students’ needs, they empower individuals to take ownership of their learning journey. Ultimately, homework serves as a potent ally in the pursuit of academic excellence, providing students with opportunities to excel both inside and outside the classroom.
If you’re thinking “I really need someone to help me do my homework ,” then fret not because our website is here to help. As we have determined, homework is an indispensable aspect of schooling on any level, so you would want to excel in it. However, nobody is perfect, and sometimes you might require outside help. So don’t hesitate, and get homework assistance today.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003
by Harris Cooper
2006, Review of Educational Research
In this article, research conducted in the United States since 1987 on the effects of homework is summarized. Studies are grouped into four research designs. The authors found that all studies, regardless of type, had design flaws. However, both within and across design types, there was generally consistent evidence for a positive influence of homework on achievement. Studies that reported simple homework–achievement correlations revealed evidence that a stronger correlation existed (a) in Grades 7–12 than in K–6 and (b) when students rather than parents reported time on homework. No strong evidence was found for an association between the homework–achievement link and the outcome measure (grades as opposed to standardized tests) or the subject matter (reading as opposed to math). On the basis of these results and others, the authors suggest future research.
Free Related PDFs
2014, Educational Psychology
Fatih Mehmet Cigerci
The main purpose of this study was to determine the effect of homework assignments on students' academic achievement. This meta-analysis sought an answer to the research question: "What kind of effect does homework assignment have on students' academic achievement levels?" In this research, meta-analysis was adopted to determine the effect of homework assignments on students' academic achievement. The effect sizes of the studies included in the meta-analysis were compared with regard to their methodological characteristics (research design, sample size, and publication bias) and substantive characteristics (course type, grade level, duration of implementation, instructional level, socioeconomic status, and setting). At the end of the research, it was revealed that homework assignments had a small effect size (d = 0.229) on students' academic achievement levels. Lastly, it was seen that there was not a significant difference with regard to the effect sizes of the studies with respect to all variables, except the course type variable in the research.
In the literature on the impact of homework there is little empirical support for assigning homework to elementary school students. Nevertheless, the practice has become more common, despite popular resistance among many parents and popular media. We examine the effects of both assigning homework and time spent on homework on mathematics and reading achievement using nationally representative longitudinal data on elementary school students. In order to control for important unobserved characteristics and inputs we use empirical specifications that include student fixed effects. We find that this approach consistently indicates that homework has a positive impact on academic achievement, and that less sophisticated empirical approaches will produce misleading results. Additionally, we find that the impact of homework is not uniform across the population, but that some minority groups and low income students get more benefit from homework, indicating that increasing homework assigned could be a valuable policy for decreasing the black-white as well as the high and low-income achievement gap.
2002, Contemporary Educational Psychology
2004, School Psychology Quarterly
Three types of homework assignments are common in U.S. schools: practice, preparation, and extension. Reasons cited for assigning homework are: (1) Doing homework is useful as an act of intellectual discipline; (2) Homework eases time constraints on the amount of curricular material that can be covered; (3) Homework fosters student initiative, independence, and responsibility; (4) Homework supplements and reinforces work done in school; and (5) Homework brings home and school closer together. Research into the effectiveness of homework is inconclusive. Nevertheless, homework serves as a vital link between home and school. It is essential that classroom teachers make every effort to ensure that assignments are necessary and useful, appropriate to the ability and maturity of students, well explained, and clearly understood by both student and parent. It appears that home study will play an increasingly important role in learning in the next few decades. Teachers will need to base out-...
FREE RELATED PAPERS
Homework has been a perennial topic of debate in education, and attitudes toward it have been cyclical (Gill & Schlossman, 2000). Throughout the first few decades of the 20th century, educators commonly believed that homework helped create disciplined minds. By 1940, growing concern that homework interfered with other home activities sparked a reaction against it. This trend was reversed in the late 1950s when the Soviets' launch of Sputnik led to concern that U.S. education lacked rigor; schools viewed more rigorous homework as a partial solution to the problem. By 1980, the trend had reversed again, with some learning theorists claiming that homework could be detrimental to students' mental health. Since then, impassioned arguments for and against homework have continued to proliferate.
Dr. Anila Fatima Shakil
Volume V Issue I
Homework is the means by which the relationship between home and school is demonstrated and developed, leading to more consistent progress in all aspects of school life. The current research was carried out in Gilgit Baltistan to find out the impact of homework on the academic performance of students at secondary level. The research was observed by teachers of Gilgit Baltistan public schools while 100 teachers were chosen by a random sampling technique as a sample. Questionnaires were as a research instrument. The study found that homework impacts learning for learners, its impact differs with the age of students, and it plays an important role in student achievement. The study proposed that homework should be purposeful, i.e. it should include the introduction of new content, the practise of skills, the creation of any data and the ability for students to explore topics of their own interest.
2008, Online Submission
2018, Contemporary Educational Psychology
The effectiveness of homework is influenced by a variety of factors, but it is also correlated with the importance the teachers attribute to them (Appel & Rutz, 1998). Most teachers prepare and assign homework to students, because they consider them to be necessary to improve students' performance, to enhance the development of positive aspects of the students' character and to encourage the development of future skills that are essential for a successful academic trajectory, such as effective time management, responsibility and consistency (Brock, Lapp, Flood, Fisher & Tao Han, 2007. Cooper & Valentine , 2001). Additional reasons that drive teachers to assign homework at home, are their traditional perceptions about homework, the tendency that teachers have to respond to parents' wishes and demands, the saving of time that occurs when teachers transfer a part of the school work and learning to the children's homes and the easier preparation of the next teaching unit
This review specifically focuses on the correlations between various parent strategies and student achievements in compulsory education. Therefore, Hoover-Dempsey's framework on parental involvement in homework will be updated with more recent findings from the international scientific literature. When parents facilitate, structure or emotionally support the homework process and, as such, are not actively involved in assisting in homework tasks, then the literature indicates indecisive or negative results. However, when parents are directly involved in assisting their children during homework tasks, then positive correlations were found throughout the literature, in particular when parents engage in meta-strategies or support the child's understanding of homework. While policy is primarily focused on providing instruments for parents to facilitate or structure the homework process, the current review suggests that parents need to be better informed on specific strategies that accommodate the student's need when assisting in homework tasks in order to improve achievements.
Previous research on homework has produced mixed results regarding its effectiveness in boosting student performance. One factor that may be mediating these results is that homework may have different effects on students based on their aptitude. High aptitude students may grasp concepts when they are initially taught and may derive little benefit from reinforcing what they already know through homework. Average or lower aptitude students may not initially fully grasp what they have been taught and may benefit from the additional practice that homework provides. This predicts an interaction effect between aptitude and homework on student achievement. This hypothesis was tested with 38 middle school students who were taught trigonometric concepts. Students were divided into high and average aptitude groups based on an initial assessment. They were then taught the concepts and tested to measure their performance. Students were then assigned homework, which was reviewed with them. Students then took a post-test to measure final performance. Analysis of the data showed main effects for group and homework as well as an interaction effect showing that homework benefitted average aptitude students more than it did high aptitude students. Results suggest that schools may need consider departing from the standard practice of giving the same assignments to each student in a given class and find more creative ways to insure that each student receives the type of homework that will greatly boost the student's educational achievement.
1999, British Educational Research Journal
2019, International Journal of Instruction
2017, Frontiers in Psychology
Child & Youth Care Forum
Background Increasing academic demands, including larger amounts of assigned homework, is correlated with various challenges for children. While homework stress in middle and high school has been studied, research evidence is scant concerning the effects of homework on elementary-aged children. Objective The objective of this study was to understand rater perception of the purpose of homework, the existence of homework policy, and the relationship, if any, between homework and the emotional health, sleep habits, and parent–child relationships for children in grades 3–6. Method Survey research was conducted in the schools examining student (n = 397), parent (n = 442), and teacher (n = 28) perception of homework, including purpose, existing policy, and the childrens’ social and emotional well-being. Results Preliminary findings from teacher, parent, and student surveys suggest the presence of modest impact of homework in the area of emotional health (namely, student report of boredom ...
2000, SSRN Electronic Journal
2017, Frontiers in psychology
This study investigated how students' prior achievement is related to their homework behaviors (i.e., time spent on homework, homework time management, and amount of homework), and to their perceptions of parental involvement in homework (i.e., parental control and parental support). A total of 1250 secondary students from 7 to 10th grade participated in the study. Structural equation models were fitted to the data, compared, and a partial mediation model was chosen. The results indicated that students' prior academic performance was significantly associated with both of the students' homework variables, with direct and indirect results linking achievement and homework behaviors with perceived parental control and support behaviors about homework. Low-achieving students, in particular, perceived more parental control of homework in the secondary grades. These results, together with those of previous research, suggest a recursive relationship between secondary school stud...
Don Chistopher Balaan
FONG PENG CHEW
School homework has been synonymous with students’ life in Chinese national type primary schools in Malaysia. Although many press reports have claimed that students were burdened with too much homework, it continues to be a common practice in national type schools that is believed to contribute to academic achievement. This study was conducted to identify the relationship between the burden of school homework and academic achievement among the students in Chinese national-type Primary School in the state of Perak, Malaysia. The study applied the homework conceptual framework of Cooper (1985) and Taback (2005). A total of 384 students were chosen as the sample in this study. Variable of gender and location (urban/rural areas) showed significant difference in students’ academic achievement. Female students from rural areas showed a higher mean score than males from urban areas. However, the parents’ level of education and family income showed no significant differences. The coefficien...
2018, LUMEN Proceedings
2013, International Journal of Behavioral Development
Timothy Keith , Paul Fehrmann
1986, Journal of Educational Psychology
2001, Educational Psychologist
2014, School Psychology Quarterly
2001, Educational …
Asian Journal of Education and Training
We examined the potential different effectiveness of an online homework system (IXL) and the traditional paper-and-pencil homework. A study involving 98 participants was conducted in a middle school (grade 8). We compared the post-test results from the online homework group with the traditional homework group. Both homework assignment effect (class-level) and homework completion effect (student-level) proposed by Trautwein (2007) were investigated. No significant difference was found among the students who were assigned different types of homework (class-level). We conclude that IXL is as effective as the traditional homework on students' learning. Meanwhile, not surprisingly, we revealed that students who complete the homework outperformed the students who did not (student-level). We suggest that teachers give students an option to do online or traditional homework based on their preference, as long as they complete the homework.
Iliana Barrera Romero
1989, Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Recent studies have questioned whether the nation's educational system is adequately preparing children to function productively in today's society. To examine this issue, the present study utilized the Experience Sampling Method to investigate the amount of time young adolescents spent doing classwork and homework, their inner subjective experience while doing so, and their companions while doing homework. The relationship between these variables and students' academic performance was also examined. Results revealed that students spent only 15.5 hours per week engaged in school work and only 6 hours per week doing homework, with increased homework time associated with better academic achievement. In addition, students were found to complete homework primarily alone or in classes, although doing homework with their parents was associated with better academic performance. Lastly, students' affect was found to be relatively neutral when doing classwork, but comparatively more negative while doing homework, particularly when doing homework alone. The implications of these findings for understanding the socializing influence of school are discussed.
Homework has been a perennial topic of debate in education, and attitudes toward it have been cyclical (Gill & Schlossman, 2000). Throughout the first few decades of the 20th century, educators commonly believed that homework helped create disciplined minds. By 1940, growing concern that homework interfered with other home activities sparked a reaction against it. This trend was reversed in
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of Instructional Homework Technique (IHT) - as a systematic preparation homework assignment- on the chemistry achievement of the UAE tenth graders. The sample of this study consisted of 8 classrooms with an average of 24 students in each class. The 8 classes were divided equally in terms of gender. The schools were selected conveniently, and the classrooms were randomly assigned into experimental and control groups. The students in the experimental groups received an instructional homework twice a week while students in the control groups received regular homework assignments. The experiment lasted ten weeks and included 19 assignments and each assignment consists of a minimum of 20 items. This study used a pretest posttest control group design. The results revealed that students in the experimental group (with IHT) scored significantly higher on the chemistry posttest achievement measure. The Eta squared for a posttest as a d...
Recent reports based on PISA data have shown a generally positive relationship between the amount of time spent on homework and achievement, and a negative relationship between a measure of socioeconomic status and homework time for secondary students. These findings suggest that homework practices are either reflecting or contributing to achievement differences based on a students’ socioeconomic and cultural background. However, a research gap has been identified in relation to how other demographic and educational variables associated with differences in achievement relate to differences in homework practice. We examined relationships between student socioeconomic status, gender, language background, school type and school location with various measures of homework time and frequency of completion for mathematics homework; two measures of homework time and effort available in the 2012 PISA data. Analysis of Australian 2012 PISA data largely confirmed that factors associated with v...
2016, Frontiers in Psychology
2019, Frontiers in Psychology
2015, Journal of Educational Psychology
2007, Journal of School Psychology
Efforts to develop interventions to improve homework performance have been impeded by limitations in the measurement of homework performance. This study was conducted to develop rating scales for assessing homework performance among students in elementary and middle school. Items on the scales were intended to assess student strengths as well as deficits in homework performance. The sample included 163 students attending two school districts in the Northeast. Parents completed the 36-item Homework Performance Questionnaire — Parent Scale (HPQ-PS). Teachers completed the 22-item teacher scale (HPQ-TS) for each student for whom the HPQ-PS had been completed. A common factor analysis with principal axis extraction and promax rotation was used to analyze the findings. The results of the factor analysis of the HPQ-PS revealed three salient and meaningful factors: student task orientation/efficiency, student competence, and teacher support. The factor analysis of the HPQ-TS uncovered two salient and substantive factors: student responsibility and student competence. The findings of this study suggest that the HPQ is a promising set of measures for assessing student homework functioning and contextual factors that may influence performance. Directions for future research are presented.
Homework stress is a common complaint among middle school and high school students and their parents worldwide. Although complex, the challenges surrounding homework stress affect everyone at one time or another. This literature review examines the history behind the decades long “great homework debate,” reasons for homework stress, and parental involvement in the homework process. The literature supports ideas that parental styles and socioeconomic status are two main influencers determining whether or not parental involvement is helpful for a student’s stress levels and academic success. Students need to learn how to solve problems and manage their time to be successful and are looking to parents as successful models of these behaviors. More research is needed to determine if interventions such as meditation and yoga, or the involvement of grandparents or other older adults in the community may have positive impact on student stress levels.
Rupini Fong Pei-Chin
2000, Contemporary Educational Psychology
- We're Hiring!
- Help Center
- Find new research papers in:
- Health Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Cognitive Science
- Computer Science
- Academia ©2023