(Education in Competitive and Globalizing World) Susana Rodrguez Martinez, Antonio Valle Arias, Isabel Pieiro Aguin, Bibiana Regueiro Fernandez - Handbook of Homework_ Theoretical Principles and Pract

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD
HANDBOOK OF HOMEWORK
THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES
AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE
AND GLOBALIZING WORLD
Additional books and e-books in this series can be found

on Nova’s website under the Series tab.
EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD
HANDBOOK OF HOMEWORK
THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES
AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
SUSANA RODRÍGUEZ MARTÍNEZ

ANTONIO VALLE ARIAS
ISABEL PIÑEIRO AGUÍN
AND
BIBIANA REGUEIRO FERNÁNDEZ
EDITORS
Copyright © 2022 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52305/YLYW6263
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions to
reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s website
and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked directly to
the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit copyright.com and search
by title, ISBN, or ISSN.
For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact:
Copyright Clearance Center
Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: info@copyright.com.
NOTICE TO THE READER

The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability
is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary
damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any
parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those
parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this
book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to
persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in
this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the
subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged
in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is
required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF
PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN: HERRN
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Contents
Preface ………………………………………………………...vii
Acknowledgments…………………………………...…………………xi
Chapter 1 Homework: Conceptual Aspects
and the Variables Involved…………………………...1
Carolina Rodríguez-Llorente, Tania Vietes, Rocío
González-Suárez, Fátima M. Díaz-Freire and Bibiana
Regueiro Fernández
Chapter 2 Homework and Self-Regulated Learning…………..39
Susana Rodríguez Martínez,
Rocío González-Suárez,
Carolina Rodríguez- Llorente,
Iris Estévez and Jianzhong Xu
Chapter 3 The Role of the Perceived Usefulness
of Teacher Feedback on Elementary Students’
Homework Engagement…………….……………….63
Jennifer Cunha, Juliana Martins,
Sofia Almeida, José Carlos Núñez
and Pedro Rosário
Chapter 4 Homework and Dealing with Diversity:
An Empirical Review…………….………………….89
Amanda Abín, Tania Pasarín-Lavín,
Trinidad García, José Carlos Núñez
and Celestino Rodríguez
vi Contents
Chapter 5 Homework in International

Large-Scale Assessments:
The Role of Student Attitudes and Motivations….125
Rubén Fernández-Alonso
and José Muñiz
Chapter 6 Setting Quality Homework:
The Design and Development
of an Intervention Proposal…………….………….157
Susana Rodríguez Martínez, Tania Vieites,
Isabel Piñeiro Aguín, Antonio Valle Arias
and Eleftheria Gonida
Conclusion Tasks for Teachers and Parents…………………...181
Bibiana Regueiro Fernández,
Susana Rodríguez Martínez,
Isabel Piñeiro Aguín and Antonio Valle Arias
Editors’ Contact Information…………….…………….…………...187
List of Contributors…………….…………….……………………...189
Index …………….…………….…………….……………..191
PREFACE
The aim of this handbook is to offer a series of contributions about

homework in regard to various theoretical and applied issues. It aims to
offer education researchers and professionals the necessary fundamentals
in the field of homework and thus help answer many of the questions
about the conditions for setting quality homework. The ultimate aim is
for homework to no longer be a source of conflict and controversy at the
educational level and for it to become a useful tool for improving student
learning.
The handbook is organized into six chapters and an epilogue which
presents ten guidelines for homework.
The first chapter, “Homework: Conceptual Aspects and Variables
Involved,” written by Carolina Rodríguez-Llorente, Tania Vietes, Rocío
González-Suárez, Fátima Díaz-Freire, and Bibiana Regueiro, focuses on
analyzing the concept of homework and on the main variables involved
in the homework process.
The second chapter, “Homework and Self-Regulated Learning,” by
Susana Rodríguez, Rocío González-Suárez, Carolina Rodríguez-Llorente,
Iris Estévez, and Jianzhong Xu, looks at the relationship between
learning self-regulation and homework, beginning with setting homework
in the classroom, then doing homework in the home, and finally
correcting and evaluating homework.
viii Susana Rodríguez Martínez, Antonio Valle Arias et al.
The third chapter, “The Role of the Perceived Usefulness of Teacher

Feedback on Elementary Students’ Homework Engagement,” by Jennifer
Cunha, Juliana Martins, Sofia Almeida, José Carlos Núñez, and Pedro
Rosário, emphasizes the importance of students perceiving the usefulness
of feedback from teachers when doing homework. It shows that when
students feel their teachers give them useful feedback, they also make
more effort, more use of self-regulation strategies, and exhibit more
positive emotions.
The fourth chapter, Homework and Dealing with Diversity: an
Empirical Review, by Amanda Abín, Tania Pasarín, Trinidad García,
José Carlos Núñez, and Celestino Rodríguez, discusses the importance of
homework despite negative opinions many have of it, with many parents
and students thinking it to be excessive. It specifically focuses on family
and teacher involvement in homework, and also addresses students with
different learning styles, abilities, and personal characteristics.
The fifth chapter, “Homework in International Large-Scale
Assessments: The Role of Student Attitudes and Motivations,” by Rubén
Fernández-Alonso and José Muñiz, examines the evidence provided by
International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSA) about students’
commitment, motivation, and attitudes towards homework. These three
variables seem to be linked to students’ academic results, although there
are differences between the various countries examined.
The sixth chapter, “Setting Quality Homework: The Design and
Development of an Intervention Proposal,” by Susana Rodríguez, Tania
Vieites, Isabel Piñeiro, Antonio Valle, and Eleftheria Gonida, presents a
method for setting quality homework. The MITCA method aims to make
homework into an educational resource that can improve learning self-
regulation and students’ school engagement. The method proposes that
homework should (a) be understood by students as instrumental,
interesting, and useful for their academic progress, (b) have a clear
purpose and be sensitive to student diversity, (c) help students evaluate
themselves and understand their own strengths and improvement
opportunities, and (d) contribute to improving students’ planning and
time management skills.
Preface ix
The final chapter, “Epilogue. Tasks for Teachers and Parents,” by

Bibiana Regueiro, Susana Rodríguez, Isabel Piñeiro, and Antonio Valle,
offers a summary of ten key guidelines that teachers and parents should
bear in mind during the homework process. These are essential aspects in
achieving homework that students find useful, varied, and motivating.
Susana Rodríguez Martínez

Antonio Valle Arias
Isabel Piñeiro Aguín
Bibiana Regueiro Fernández
Editors
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This handbook was performed thanks to financing from research

projects EDU2013-44062-P (MINECO) and EDU2017-82984-P (MEIC).
In: Handbook of Homework ISBN: 978-1-68507-380-0
Editors: S. R. Martínez et al. © 2022 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
HOMEWORK: CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS

AND THE VARIABLES INVOLVED
Carolina Rodríguez-Llorente1,*, Tania Vietes1,

Rocío González-Suárez1, Fátima M. Díaz-Freire1
and Bibiana Regueiro Fernández 2
1
Department of Psychology, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
2
Department of Pedagogy and Didactics,
University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
ABSTRACT
This chapter presents a review of the concept of homework and the
variables involved in it. First, we address the construct of homework,
highlighting what is and what is not considered homework, as well as
emphasizing some of its peculiarities compared to other learning
resources. We also note the usual reasons for setting homework.
Following that, we cover the variables that the literature has indicated
influence the homework process. We differentiate between context
variables—family (e.g., expectations, assistance), school (e.g., teachers’
roles, task characteristics), and student (e.g., personal characteristics)—,
*
Corresponding Author’s E-mail: carolina.rodriguez.llorente@udc.es.
2 C. Rodríguez-Llorente, T. Vietes, R. González-Suárez et al.,
student variables—behavioral, motivational, and cognitive engagement

with homework—and the effects or results of homework—academic
achievement, homework grades. This means examining the roles of
parents, teachers, and students in successfully doing homework. We
conclude the chapter with a summary of the main ideas, indicating some
of the current lines of research about the relationships between the
variables in the homework process.
Keywords: homework, context, family, teacher, student.
INTRODUCTION
Homework is probably one of the most complex aspects of the

educational arena in that it happens in two very different contexts—the
school and the home—and involves three agents with distinct roles—the
student, the parents, and the teacher or teachers (Cooper, 1989). The
reason why there is still debate about the need to set homework or not has
its roots in the innate complexity of these tasks which are to be done
outside of the classroom.
Nonetheless, there are some incorrect ideas about what homework is.
For example, it is sometimes assumed that revising or cramming for an
exam and finishing exercises that could not be completed in class are
homework, when in reality they are not. This chapter addresses various
definitions of the concept of homework which will serve as an approach
to a concept which is occasionally confused with other learning activities,
emphasizing the different reasons for which homework is set. The aim is
to provide as concrete an idea as possible of what is and what is not
homework.
In addition, in this chapter, we summarize the main variables
involved in doing homework. The description of the term homework
already gives us clues to some of them, as the variables cover the two
contexts in which it happens, the school and the home, and the three
agents involved, students, the family, and the teachers. Hence, we will
first present a set of context variables, which include the characteristics
Homework 3
of the student (e.g., school year, gender, cognitive abilities), the role of
the parents (e.g., how much and how well they help with homework,
academic expectations), and the role of teachers (e.g., objectives for
homework, followup) as well as the characeristics of howmework and its
effects that the student level (e.g., homework quality, adaptability) and
the class-group level (e.g., frequency, importance given by the teacher).
Secondly, given that the student is the protagonist in actually doing
homework, we will introduce the concept of student engagement with
homework to explain what happens while it is being done. More
specifically, we will describe the variables making up the three
dimensions of this engagement: the motivational component which is
responsible for directing and maintaining homework behavior; the
cognitive component, the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used
when doing homework; and the behavioral component, defined in terms
of the amount of homework students finish or the time they spend on it
(Suárez, 2015). Finally, we will address the set of dependent variables
typically noted in research, which consist of the effects produced by
doing homework, both positive and negative, which include academic
performance, grades, and the satiety effect, among others.
ADDRESSING THE CONCEPT
The concept of homework has been widely studied. In fact, the first
references to it can be found at the beginning of the 20th century.
Although opinions have swung in favour of and against homework
cyclicly over many years (Gill & Schlossman, 2003), the opinions about
what homework consists of seem to have been more stable, at least in the
scientific arena.
To date, most research on the subject has used the definition given by
Cooper (1989, 2007) when he described the construct, and restated his
unchanged conceptualization of homework in successive publications on
the topic. Cooper (1989) maintained that homework is the tasks that
teachers assign to their students which are to be done outside of
classroom hours. He also went into detail about those activities which
should never be confused with homework. He indicated that (a) guided
study tasks in the school, (b) courses of home study, and (c)
extracurricular activites are not homework. Thus, students who, for
instance, complete a set of exercises under a teacher’s supervision after
class, who watch a video tutorial about how to solve an equation, or who
attend private classes to reinforce content in subjects they have
difficulties with, are not doing homework.
This is a rather general definition of what homework is. It does
reflect the two contexts in which the homework process happens, and
explicitly names two of the protagonists, the teacher and the student. In
short, teachers indicate in the classroom what the students have to do at
home. Although this idea of homework is highly representative, it does
not mention the other agents in the process, nor does it give clues to the
nature of homework. For that reason, other researchers have come up
with different interpretations to look more deeply at the concept of
homework.
In this regard, some definitions are worth highlighting in which
particular emphasis is placed on the purpose of homework tasks. For
example, Corno (1996) noted that homework is fundamentally set with
the aim that students review or practice what they have studied in class.
Similarly, Olympia et al., (1994) stated that homework is academic work
set by the school and designed to broaden the practice of academic skills
in different settings, and more specifically, outside of school time. More
recently, Suárez et al., (2017) noted more reasons for setting homework,
touching on the idea that, apart from contributing to the creation of study
habits and improved student attitudes towards their work, homework is
set so that students take on the idea that learning happens in contexts
other than school.
Another definition of homework was provided by Warton (2001),
who emphasized that homework was a multifaceted, complex process
that started and finished in school but which was performed at home,
adding that other agents than those already mentioned also take part in
the process, such as the family or those working in the school system.
Homework 5
This idea of homework as a circular process is reflected in various

models that summarize the variables involved in homework, their
relationships, and their effects (Cooper, 1989; Trautwein, Lüdtke,
Schnyder, et al., 2006).
Wagner et al., (2008) also proposed an interesting definition of
homework, adding the type of tasks that can be understood as homework.
More specifically, this included both oral and written activities, but
always tasks that had to be completed within a specified, limited
timeframe. Nonetheless, homework is not set to a prescribed frequency.
On this point, the regularity with which this educational tool is used may
depend on the person who sets it, for example, based on their beliefs
about the efficacy of homework or the needs of the students.
In contrast, there are examples of definitions of homework that, with
the aim of eliminating the impositional nature the term implies in certain
languages, maintain the essential principles of this learning instrument
while changing the name, for example tasks for home (TPC, tareas para
casa, rather than deberes escolares [the usual Spanish phrase for
homework, literally school duties]). Such is the proposal from Mourão
(2009), who offered a very full definition of the construct, indicating that
TPC are a set of activities outside school selected by the teacher with the
aim of providing students with additional learning opportunities. Other
authors have followed this example, choosing to use this term as a
synonym for homework (Suárez et al., 2017). There have been other
attempts to rename homework, for instance using the term school tasks at
home (TEH, tareas escolares en el hogar), the name of which, unlike
TPC, implies that it is concerned with tasks in the educational arena
(Fernández-Alonso et al., 2014).
Although there is apparently no doubt about what homework is, some
researchers are focusing attention on the question of what homework
should be (Rosário, Cunha, Nunes, Nunes, et al., 2019). This is an
interesting approach in that homework, depending on its characteristics,
and ultimately on its quality, has different effects on students (Dettmers
et al., 2010). Consequently, certain studies have talked about not just
homework, but quality homework (Rosário, Cunha, Nunes, Nunes, et al.,
2019; Valle & Rodríguez, 2021). Therefore, when it comes to defining

homework, certain aspects should be considered, such as how often it is
set, the purpose, the diversity of task types, and the followup by teachers,
among other factors (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006). In short,
what the agents involved do to make it more likely that homework will
have benificial effects on student learning.
In summary, homework, TPC, or TEH, is a mix of different types of
tasks, adapted to the characteristics of the student, set for the student by
the teacher with a certain purpose, and with a certain frequency, to be
done autonomously at home before a set date. Homework is a process
that starts in the classroom, continues at home with the support of the
family, and finishes back in the school, where the teacher reviews how it
has been done and gives the student information about their performance.
HOMEWORK PURPOSES
As noted above, homework is usually set with a certain purpose. This

can change depending on what the teacher wants the homework to
achieve and may include both teaching and non-teaching objectives
(Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006). As noted above, there are
many, varied purposes for which teachers might set homework tasks,
from practice and review of academic content addressed in the classroom
(Corno, 1996) to the creation of study habits and encouraging a positive
attitued towards school and school work (Cooper, 2007; Suárez et al.,
2017).
Broadly speaking, up to ten different purposes for homework have
been identified: to practice classwork; to prepare new content; to ensure
all students praticipate in their learning processes; for students’ personal
development; to improve school-home communication and
communication between students and their parents; to encourage
interaction between students; to comply with educational policies; to
meet societal expectations; and even to act as a punishment (Epstein &
Van Voorhis, 2001). To put it succinctly, these purposes can be put into
Homework 7
four groups, as suggested by Rosário et al., (2018), to practice, to

prepare, to participate in learning, and to encourage personal
development.
The purposes behind homework may not be shared by teachers,
families, or students. As Coutts (2004) explained, students may not see
the long term benefits of doing homework in the same way as their
parents or teachers, and may focus more on avoiding punishment or
objectives such as reviewing and practicing what they have worked on in
the classroom. However, homework should never be set to punish
students, as that would suggest tasks which are uninteresting or hostile,
which could negatively affect students’ engagement with it (Cooper &
Nye, 1994).
In summary, homework should be set for a variety of purposes, and
they should be different from other learning activities such as studying
for an exam or summarising a topic. In addition, when students
understand the objectives behind their homework, the quality of their
participation in the process improves (Rosário et al., 2018; Warton,
2001). In this case, to make the purpose as concrete as possible, it is
particularly important for teachers to communicate to students the content
to be addressed in each of the set activities and the type of cognitive
operation needed to do them (Valle & Rodríguez, 2021).
VARIABLES INVOLVED
According to some of the definitions above, homework is a complex

educational process involving multiple variables (Trautwein & Köller,
2003; Warton, 2001). These have been summarized in various models
over the years, such as the procedural model from Cooper et al., (2001)
and the multilevel model from Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al.,
(2006). Based on the contributions from these authors, and others who
have continued to expand and verify variables with empirical evidence,
below we present a compilation of the main variables in the homework
process. Firstly, we describe a set of contextual variables, including those
related to family, teacher, the task characteristics, and student

characteristics. Secondly, we introduce the variables that make up student
participation or engagement with homework, i.e., the type of motivation
that drives their behaviour and the metacognitive strategies they use
when they do homework. Finally, we cover the variables that have been
studied as the result of students doing homework.
Contextual Variables
In the homework process, we first find a group of variables that

characterize the two contexts in which it is done, the school and the
family, which make up the environment in which this activity is carried
out (Suárez, 2015). Some studies have also classified these variables as
exogenous as they are external to the process (Cooper et al., 2001).
Others have addressed them with a more integrative approach,
understanding that both the family and the learning environment, along
with the students’ personal characteristics, affect how students approach
homework (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006). For that reason,
in this section we present those variables related to the two environments
in which homework is done and the agents involved in doing it, which
can be grouped into four categories: the role of the family, the role of the
teacher, the characteristics of the task, and the characteristics of the
student.
Family
Family plays a fundamental role in children’s education, because, a
priori, greater parental involvement in students’ schooling is related to
getting better academic results and with favourable attitudes towards
school, as well as in the specific case of homework (Hoover-Dempsey et
al., 2001). As homework is set for students to do outside of the
classroom, it is a unique opportunity for parents to be involved in their
children’s learning processes.
Homework 9
Although, curiously, only one of the definitions of homework

mentions the family (see Warton, 2001), numerous studies have looked at
the role of parental involvement in doing homework, examining on the
one hand, the reasons parents have for helping their children with these
tasks, and on the other, the behaviors they adopt when they decide to
participate in the homework process (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001;
Locke et al., 2016). According to Hoover-Dempsey et al., (2001), parents
decide to get involved with their children’s homework or not depending
on whether they think that it is their obligation as parents, whether they
think they have sufficient knowledge to help, or whether they think that
their children are asking for help. In addition, when families participate in
the homework process, they adopt a variety of different behaviors: firstly,
they may give the student space and resources for doing homework; they
may also communicate with the teachers and the school about homework;
they may supervise the homework to some extent (e.g., giving help,
exercising control); they may also encourage students to complete tasks
via techniques varying from giving them encouragement to offering
rewards; lastly, parents may get involved by reformulating the homework
tasks according to their children’s characteristics and needs, giving them
more autonomy, or answering their questions (Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2001).
Despite the advantages of parental involvement in homework, some
of these forms of involvement have some drawbacks for the students,
such as offering help when the child has not asked for it, giving
explanations which disagree with what the teacher has said, or even
doing the homework themselves (Cooper et al., 2000). Nonetheless, some
studies have found that the benefits of involvement outweigh the
disadvantages (Van Voorhis, 2011). More specifically, for family
involvement in the process to be most effective, parents should encourage
their children’s autonomy rather than controling them or directly
intervening in homework (Cooper et al., 2000; Locke et al., 2016). This is
particularly important because it is the parents of students who have more
difficulties doing homework who most closely supervise it (Dumont et
al., 2014).
To make it easier to interpret the positive and negative effects of

family involvement in homework, Pomerantz et al., (2007) established
four different, dynamically related dimensions of parental participation in
the process. Autonomy or control, in other words, helping the children to
make decisions about homework compared to making decisions for them.
Process focus or person focus, focusing students’ attention on mastering
school work or focusing on academic achievment. Positive or negative
affect, parents who establish a sense of connection with the children
maintaining an intrinsic motivation or parents who are hostile and critical
when they review how homework is done. Finally, positive beliefs about
student capabilities or negative beliefs, in other words, parents who trust
in their children’s abilities to complete their homework as opposed to
those who seek to avoid their children not finishing their homework.
Beyond those studies which have specified parents’ motives and
behaviors related to homework, some studies have examined the
influence of sociocultural and socioeconomic family characteristics on
homework and its results. Examples of the variables they examined
include the family’s cultural capital (Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2009), the
educational attainment of the parents (Xu, 2007), their working situation
(Heimgartner-Moroni et al., 2012), migrant origins (Thelamour & Jacobs,
2014), and ethnicity (Pressman et al., 2015). According to these diverse
studies, these variables can influence the amount of help the family offers
students with homework, and more importantly, the quality of that help
(Heimgartner-Moroni et al., 2012).
Lastly, it is interesting to note, that when assessing family
involvement in homework processes, those previous studies resorted to a
variety of routes. Some measured the parents’ own perceptions of their
participation in homework (Heimgartner-Moroni et al., 2012), others
examined the students’ impressions about their families’ involvement
(Martínez-Vicente et al., 2020), while yet others, albeit to a lesser extent,
examined the interrelationship between parents’ and children’s
perceptions about the parents’ participation in homework (Van Voorhis,
2011). This last group of studies are particularly important, as the
Homework 11
sensation of involvement in the homework process may differ between

parent and child (Núñez et al., 2019).
Teacher
The teacher is, like the family, another central protagonist in the
homework process (Cooper, 2007). Beyond simply setting a certain
amount of homework for the students, teachers also have the role of
ensuring the quality of the effects of the homework, paying particular
attention, firstly to the objectives and design of the homework, and
secondly to the followup in the classroom (Epstein & Van Voorhis,
2001).
In terms of the former of those two aspects, as noted above, teachers
can set homework with a variety of purposes in mind (Epstein & Van
Voorhis, 2001; Valle & Rodríguez, 2021). For example, homework can
be set so that students review or practice what they have learned in class,
so that they prepare for an upcoming class, so that they participate in the
learning, or so that they develop self-regulation strategies, responsibility,
and motivation (Rosário et al., 2018). Homework may also be set in order
to encourage communication between the school and the home, or to
inform parents of their children’s progress (Tas et al., 2014). Besides that,
when students believe that the homework their teachers set them is
appropriately challenging, the effects of doing it are more positive
(Dettmers et al., 2010; Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006). The
solution to the issue of students deciding to engage with their homework
may therefore be found in varying the types of tasks that students are set
for homework and in clarifying why it has been set (Valle & Rodríguez,
2021).
In terms of the second aspect, previous research has also examined
teachers follow-up procedures when homework is done and when it is
handed in (Rosário, Cunha, Nunes, Moreira, et al., 2019). A study by
Rosário et al., (2015) looked at the effects of five distinct types of
feedback teachers gave students once they had completed homework
tasks, from lower to higher levels of personalization: (a) checking
whether the student had done the homework, (b) answering questions that
arose about the homework, (c) orally correcting the homework, (d)
correcting it on the blackboard, and (e) collecting in the homework and
marking it individually. According to that study, the more specific the
feedback—when answers are checked on the blackboard or students are
given individual comments about their performance—the better the
results of the feedback (Valle, Núñez, et al., 2017). In addition, for
feedback to be effective, students should be informed about their progress
and how they can improve in the future (Núñez et al., 2019; Valle &
Rodríguez, 2021).
In summary, teachers’ practices in setting homework can be key for
improving students’ homework experiences, as well as for achieving
good learning results. To that end, teachers should pay particular
attention to the types of tasks they set, considering the characteristics of
the students (Danielson et al., 2011), as well as how they follow up the
homework (Cunha et al., 2018).
Assignment Characteristics: Class and Student Level

Another essential set of variables involved in homework are the
characteristics of the tasks assigned by the teachers. Cooper (1989) was
one of the first to add such aspects to the homework process, including
the length of the task, the amount of exercises, the purpose, the level of
personalization, the knowledge area, the possibility of students choosing
the tasks to do, and the date for handing in the homework (Cooper et al.,
2001). Various researchers have subsequently examined some of these
variables in more depth, for example the purpose of the homework
(Rosário et al., 2018; Warton, 2001) and the types of activities
(Danielson et al., 2011; Rosário, Cunha, Nunes, Nunes, et al., 2019).
There are also many studies which have designed and offered guidelines
for setting quality homework (Valle & Rodríguez, 2021).
In addition, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., (2006), in their
multilevel model of homework, stated that the characteristics of the
homework would have different effects at the class-group level and at the
student level. In the former case, it is worth considering whether the
behavior of students in one class group would differ from other classes
Homework 13
due to effects of the homework tasks their teachers set, depending on, for
example, the length of the activities, the quality, the teachers’ monitoring,
and the level of adaptation to student characteristics (Trautwein, Lüdtke,
Schnyder, et al., 2006). In the latter case, the effects of completing
homework may produce differences in each student’s perceptions about
the quality of it (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006).
All of this would also be affected by the specificity of the area of
study in which the homework is set (Hong et al., 2015). In other words,
the motivation and behavior the students exhibit towards homework are
subjective and will largely depend on the specific subject the homework
is for (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006; Trautwein & Lüdtke,
2009). Various studies have, in fact, found differences in student
motivation and engagement as well as in family participation depending
on the subject the homework was part of (Goetz et al., 2012; Van
Voorhis, 2011).
Personal Characteristics
Returning to one of the assumptions of functionality of the multilevel
homework model from Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., (2006), the
effects of homework may appear at the student or at the class-group level.
Because they are the protagonists of the homework process, and in line
with previous research, there are a series of personal student
characteristics that influence their engagement with homework tasks and
the potential effects of homework, whether positively or negatively
(Flunger et al., 2017).
One of the first variables studied in this regard was the school year or
educational level in which the homework was set. In general, the research
to date seems to agree that the effects of doing homework varies
according to the age of the student, noting that the effect on academic
performance, for example, is greater in later school years (Cooper, 2007;
Fan et al., 2017). The influence of homework has been mainly studied in
the final years of primary education and throughout secondary education,
with differences found between the earlier and the later school years in
various variables (Valle et al., 2015).
Another of the main variables which has piqued researchers’ interest

was student gender. Both the students’ perceptions and their participation
in homework tasks varies acording to gender. According to these studies,
girls are more engaged in doing homework (Martínez-Vicente et al.,
2020), whereas boys tend to feel less anxious during the process (Kackar
et al., 2011).
The possible differences between native students and students of
immigrant origin have also been examined, finding that the latter can
benefit from or be harmed by doing homework. In other words, for
students of migrant origin, homework may be an opportunity to review
and practice or a problem when they do not have the skills needed to do it
(Bang et al., 2009). Apparently, homework may contribute to increased
differences between students based on this personal characteristic (Suárez
et al., 2016).
Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., (2006) also included a set of
stable student personality traits in their model which enhanced the
continuity of student behavior with homework, such as basic cognitive
skills and conscientiousness. For example, students with good cognitive
skills would have higher expectations of their ability to complete
homework, while those who exhibit greater conscientiousness regarding
the importance of homework—who are systematic and hard-working
rather than procrastinators—would get better results (Trautwein, Lüdtke,
Schnyder, et al., 2006).
Another variable that is being more and more frequently studied is
students’ prior performance (Núñez et al., 2017; Rodríguez et al., 2019).
According to studies such as Regueiro et al., (2015), students engage
with homework to different extents depending on whether their previous
grades are high or low. In addition, the perception of family participation
in the homework process also varies depending on the students prior
academic performance (Núñez et al., 2017).
Other student personal variables related to homework have been
studied less extensively, such as the levels of prior knowledge (Mousavi
et al., 2012) and repeating a school year (Jerrim et al., 2019). Prior
knowledge seems to be an important predictor of both student
Homework 15
engagement in the homework process and their subsequent performance

(Rosário et al., 2015). Repeating school years has not been the subject of
such thorough study, and it would be interesting to continue research
along these lines (Jerrim et al., 2019).
In conclusion, there are studies which have addressed the presence of
learning difficulties as personal student characteristics which may affect
homework performance (Cooper & Nye, 1994). In fact, when the
homework is set in the traditional way—the same for all students—those
who have some kind of difficulties in the academic context face more
obstacles to completing the homework successfully (Cooper & Nye,
1994). Consequently, it is a variable that should be borne in mind when
studying the different effects of homework at the student level.
Student Variables
In addition to the variables that describe the influence of the

environment, there is a second group which brings together the students’
engagement with homework. According to Suárez (2015), this set of
variables covers both a motivational component, responsible for driving
student behavior during homework and a cognitive-motivational
component, related to the use of metacognitive strategies and specific
behaviors exhibited by students when doing homework (e.g., time spent
on tasks). These elements fall under the concept of student engagement
or commitment towards homework, which consists of their active
involvement and participation in academic activities such as these
(Boekaerts, 2016).
Recent homework research, which has put the student at the center of
the homework process, has put the focus on studying what happens while
the student is completing their homework activities (Suárez et al., 2019;
Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006). In general, following the
three dimensional conceptualization of engagement proposed by
Fredricks et al., (2004), research along these lines has also differentiated
three homework engagement dimensions: motivational, cognitive, and
behavioral (Regueiro, 2018). In this section we define each of these

components and describe the variables making them up which have stood
out in the literature.
Motivational Engagement with Homework

Motivational engagement with homework consists of the students’
emotions and affective states in their interactions with these tasks as well
as in their attitudes towards them (Regueiro, 2018). This is closely related
to expectancy-value theory, which describes academic motivation as
made up of three fundamental dimensions: first, an expectancy
component, students’ beliefs about their abilities to do a task; and second,
a value component, the interest with which the students view the tasks
(Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Other theories have indicated a third,
affective component, referring to the emotional reactions produced by
doing the task (Pintrich & de Groot, 1990). Applied to homework,
motivational engagement refers to the students expectations, the value
they perceive in it, and their emotions, and would determine how they
participate in the process (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006).
Within the expectancy component of motivation, previous studies
have used students’ perceptions of self-efficacy and their expectations of
success as variables (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006). The
perception of self-efficacy refers to students’ beliefs about whether they
have the necessary skills to deal with academic tasks such as homework
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Studies have reported the effect of this
variable on student hoemwork behavior (Luo et al., 2016) and on
academic performance (Hong et al., 2015). Expectations of success
consist of students’ beliefs about whether they will achieve good results
in the future, in this case, whether they will do the homework their
teachers set for them correctly (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). This has been
less extensively studied than perceptions of self-efficacy, however, taken
together, they are a powerful predictor of specific student homework
behaviors (Nagengast et al., 2013).
In addition, students’ expectations around homework may be
influenced by their goal orientations (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Goal
Homework 17
orientations refer to the types of reasons students give for engaging in

academic tasks such as homework (Elliot, 2005). Although the
conceptualization of the different types of goal orientation varies from
study to study, when it comes to homework, motives have been
distinguished related to acquiring skills and control, achieving
recognition, protecting the ego, and avoiding work in order to protect the
ego (Regueiro et al., 2016). To put it more simply, we can distinguish
between learning and performance motivation (Sun et al., 2019).
Moving on to the value of the task, there are three main components
that can be seen: utility value, related to how beneficial the tasks are for
learning; intrinsic value, or the level of interest the students perceive in
the task; and the achievement value, or the importance the students place
on the task (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Starting with this reference
framework, previous research has used many motivational variables
associated with the value of homework. These include the perceived
usefulness of the homework (Suárez et al., 2019; Trautwein, Lüdtke,
Schnyder, et al., 2006), the intrinsic motivation of the students
(Rodríguez et al., 2020), their interest, and their attitudes (Cooper et al.,
1998; Suárez et al., 2019). All of these variables play an important role in
predicting students’ homework behavior (Suárez et al., 2019; Trautwein
& Lüdtke, 2009) and their academic achievement (Hong et al., 2015).
Finally, this engagement dimension also considers an affective
component, which is why the literature occasionally refers to this kind of
engagement as emotional and motivational (Regueiro, 2018). Previous
studies have examined the distinct emotions students experience when
doing homework and the effects of those emotions (Dettmers et al., 2011;
Goetz et al., 2012). These include anxiety, which may have negative
effects on doing homework and the results of doing it (Hong et al., 2015;
Regueiro et al., 2016). Other emotions described in the literature include
enjoyment, boredome, anger (Dettmers et al., 2011), and pride (Goetz et
al., 2012). It is worth adding that when these emotions are negative, they
may be understood as a cost associated with the homework process
(Barron & Hulleman, 2015).
Cognitive Engagement with Homework

Cognitive engagement refers to how the student approaches doing
their homework and the personal and contextual resources they use to be
able to do it (Regueiro, 2018). Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al.,
(2006) considered cognitive engagement together with behavioral
engagement within the construct of homework effort, although
subsequent studies have opted to treat them as separate dimensions (Valle
et al., 2016). Because of that, the distinction has been made between how
students do homework and how they manage the resources available to
them, and their engagement (Regueiro, 2018).
Not many studies have focused on cognitive engagement with
homework (see, e.g., Valle et al., 2016). In general, they have focused on
analyzing variables such as learning approaches (Valle et al., 2016) or the
use of metacognitive strategies. Learning approaches are the different
ways in which students can tackle homework (Valle et al., 2015). They
may use a deep approach to homework when they intend to practice
content learned in class, when they relate the material to what they
already know, or when they try to answer their own questions. They may
adopt a superficial approach when they do homework because they
perceive it as an obligation, or to finish it as quickly as possible and
spend time on other activities they value more (Valle et al., 2015). Thus,
while students who take a deep approach will do homework because they
think it will contribute to their learning, those who are superficially
engaged will do it to avoid possible punishment or because they think of
it as an obligation (Valle, Regueiro, et al., 2017).
From a socio-cognitive perspective, the cognitive engagement
dimension also covers homework management strategies, without
forgetting that affect and behavior are also needed in order to use them
(Zimmerman, 2000). For students to successfully complete homework
tasks, they will need to resort to a mix of strategies that will allow them
to manage their study environment, manage distractions, and control their
emotions (Xu & Wu, 2013). These strategies are similar to self-regulation
strategies, another variable that has been linked to homework execution
(Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2011). In so far as homework is a process, the
Homework 19
use of self-regulation strategies is particularly relevant, as they contribute

to students’ planning, supervision, review, and assessment of their
performance (Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2011).
Behavioral Engagement with Homework

Behavioral engagement refers to how students actually execute their
homework tasks (Regueiro, 2018). In the beginning, the only student
behavior researchers looked at was the time spent on doing homework,
but later, other variables were added which better predict the positive
effects of homework (Trautwein, 2007). Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et
al., (2006) added a new variable to measure the effecacy of homework
when it came to predicting academic performance, the effort made by
students in doing homework. This effort was measured using three
overlapping constructs: concentration, homework compliance, and
percentage of homework attempted (Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al.,
2006). Nonetheless, many later studies have focused on three specific
variables for measuring students’ behavioral engagement with
homework: the amount of homework completed, the time spent, and the
use made of the time (Regueiro, 2018; Regueiro et al., 2014; Rodríguez
et al., 2019; Rosário et al., 2018; Valle, Regueiro, et al., 2017).
The amount of homework completed, specifically the amount
completed of the homework set by the teacher, refers to the number of
tasks the students successfully do before handing in the homework in
class (Cooper et al., 1998). It is worth noting here the importance of
differentiating between the amount of homework assigned by the teacher
and the amount that the students actually do, as various studies have
indicated that the latter is more significant in predicting the results of
homework (Núñez et al., 2015).
Although there are conflicting results about the time students spend
doing homework and its influence on academic achievement, for
example, it is still considered an important variable (Flunger et al., 2017;
Regueiro et al., 2014). The discrepancy around the consideration of time
spent on homework comes from empirical findings. According to
previous research, spending longer on homework may indicate both
students who have difficulties doing it and students who are more
dedicated (Valle, Núñez, et al., 2017).
Based on these findings, researchers began to differentiate, as noted
above, between time spent and a third aspect of behavioral engagement
with homework: the use made of that time. This refers to effective
management of time by the student when they do their homework
(Regueiro et al., 2014). A student who is distracted and one who
concentrates while doing homework may well spend the same amount of
time on it, but they will have made very different use of that time. This is
why time management has appeared to be a more reliable indicator
variable of the positive effects of homework than time spent on it
(Trautwein, Lüdtke, Kastens, et al., 2006).
Homework Outcomes
The variables that comprise the influence of the environment and the
students’ engagement or involvement with homework determine a series
of results produced by doing these tasks. The most widely studied of
these effects has been and still is, without doubt, students’ academic
achievement (Fan et al., 2017). However, homework influences many
positive and negative aspects such as the development of study habits and
increasing the differences between high- and low-achieving students or
students from different socioeconomic backgrounds (Baş et al., 2017).
In this final section, we address the different results produced by
homework that the literature has reported, highlighting academic
achievement. We also evaluate the nature of these effects, in other words,
assessing whether doing homework is generally beneficial or harmful for
the student.
Positive Effects
One of the main positive effects of homework that has been
discussed at length and even called into question is none other than
academic performance (Cooper, 1989; Trautwein, 2007). The main
Homework 21
reason, according to various researchers, is the inconsistence and poor

methodological approaches in much of the research throughout the 20th
century (Gill & Schlossman, 2003; Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al.,
2006). Despite extensive subsequent studies having attempted to remedy
past errors, recent meta-analyses such as Fan et al., (2017) and Baş et al.,
(2017) suggest a generally positive effect of homework on academic
grades. This relationship is particularly apparent in later school years and
less so in primary education (Fan et al., 2017).
When it comes to academic achievement, homework has an impact
on both student grades and on their results in performance tests (Suárez,
2015; Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006). Nonetheless,
homework in and of itself does not contribute to better academic results
(Cooper, 2007). It is the specific behaviors and emotions that the students
exhibit when doing it which determines whether the relationship is
positive or negative. Thus when students demonstrate good engagement
with homework, they achieve better academic performance in the
different educational stages and subjects (Rodríguez-Pereiro et al., 2015).
The effect on achievement is part of the academic benefit,
particularly over the long term. Other results in this category include the
promotion of study habits and techniques, increased student autonomy
(Cooper, 2007), the drive to learn during leisure time (González et al.,
1999), better attitudes towards school, acquisition of self-regulation skills
(Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2011), and academic engagement (Buijs &
Admiraal, 2013).
These results at the academic level may also be in the short term. For
example, homework may contribute to better student perceptions of self-
efficacy, retention of factual knowledge, and critical thinking (Cooper,
2007; González et al., 1999). However, these variables have not been
studied as much as those above, with some having only been postulated
in the literature.
Finally, doing homework can also have positive non-academic
effects. For students, completing homework may encourage the
development of responsibility, self-discipline, and curiosity (Cooper,
2007). These tasks may also contribute to student wellbeing (Dettmers et
al., 2011). At the family level, homework encourages family involvement

in academic activities and improves communication with the school (Van
Voorhis, 2003).
Negative Effects
Despite the above, homework is not without its negative effects. For
example, it may be the cause of friction in the family environment, and
may also be a source of stress for parents (Pressman et al., 2015). In fact,
some families, due to their characteristics, may not be able to offer their
children the best help when doing homework, whether due to lack of
time, lack of communication about homework requirements, or due to
being overcontrolling (Cooper et al., 2000).
In the case of students, certain homework practices may be harmful
to their psychological wellbeing, casusing stress and anxiety (Galloway
et al., 2013). Homework can accentuate the differences between low- and
high-achieving students if the former do not have the skills they need to
do it (Cooper, 2007). Another drawback of homework is the reduced
access to leisure time with friends and family, and it can even deprive
students of time to rest after school (Galloway et al., 2013).
It appears that homework can also trigger maladaptive behaviors in
students. These may include copying homework in class from classmates
or getting more help than they actually need to complete it (Cooper,
1989). Certain homework setting practices, particularly assigning large
amounts of homework for students to complete at home, can also trigger
the so-called satiety effect, above a certain amount of homework, the
positive effects diminish.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have addressed the construct of homework, the

variables involved in doing it, and its effects, which are summarized in
Table 1. The definitions presented at the beginning of the chapter indicate
that homework is a learning process started by teachers in the classroom
Homework 23
setting a mix of different types of tasks with a specific purpose for the
students to complete on their own outside the class, and then bring them
back to class by a set date to be reviewed. The results of this process are
affected by the influence of the environment in which homework is done,
which means the characteristics of the family and school contexts, and
the student’s own characteristics and engagement or involvement with
the homework.
The contextual variables, or influence of the environment, are the
starting point of the homework process (Suárez, 2015). Students have, on
the one hand, a series of individual characteristics such as gender, school
year, previous academic achievement, and learning difficulties. They also
have families with certain socioeconomic and sociocultural levels that
may offer them specific help when they are faced with homework, which
may be a benefit or a hinderance for the student (Locke et al., 2016). On
the other hand, they have different subject teachers who assign them
homework.
According to all these characteristics, students decide to engage with
homework at a motivational, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral level
to a greater or lesser extent. Hence, when students have favourable
perceptions of the context in which they do homework, they feel more
motivated towards it, they take a deeper approach to it, and they direct
their behavior towards completing it satisfactorily. In contrast, if students
do their homework in inappropriate environments, they may feel anxiety
or disinterest about the tasks, they may use maladaptive learning
strategies, and they may complete fewer tasks than were set by their
teachers.
Finally, the results of students doing homework differs depending on
the quality of the their engagement with it. Students who commit to
homework would be expected to benefit more from it (e.g., better
academic achievement, better study skills, better attitude towards
learning) than students who decide not to engage with it (e.g., losing
interest, worsening relationships with the family).
Beyond continuing to clarify whether homework is more beneficial

than harmful to students, research over recent years has been directed
towards designing approaches that reinforce the positive effects of
homework while reducing the negative effects (Cooper & Nye, 1994;
Danielson et al., 2011).
Table 1. Variables involved in the homework process
Contextual Family variables

variables Reasons for involvement
Type of participation
Socioeconomic and sociocultural characteristics: education,
ethnicity, income, occupational status.
Teacher variables
Homework design: purpose and types of tasks.
Homework follow-up
Assignment characteristics
Domain-specificity
Class-level:
Frequency and length
Homework quality, control, and adaptivity
Student-level:
Homework quality, control, and adaptivity
Student’s characteristics
School year
Gender
Ethnicity
Prior academic achievement
Cognitive abilities
Conscientiousness
Repeating a school year
Previous knowledge
Learning difficulties
Homework 25
Student’s Motivational engagement

variables Expectancy component: self-efficacy, expectancy of success
Value component: perceived utility, interest, intrinsic motivation,
and attitude
Affective component: e. g., anxiety, enjoyment, boredom, pride
Goal orientation
Cognitive engagement
Approach to homework
Metacognitive strategies
Self-regulation strategies
Behavioral engagement
Amount of homework completed
Homework time
Homework time management
Homework Positive outcomes
outcomes Immediate academic
Long-term academic:e.g., academic performance(qualifications
and achievement tests)
Nonacademic
Parental
Negative outcomes
Increased student differences
Satiation
Cheating
Parental involvement
Denial of leisure time
Note. Produced from work by Cooper et al., (2001), Regueiro (2018), and Trautwein,
Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., (2006).
These three blocks of variables show a series of specific relationships

between their components that were proposed by Trautwein, Lüdtke,
Schnyder, et al., (2006) in their model for setting homework, with context
and student engagement variables having direct and indirect relationships
with the results of doing homework. To understand the real potential of
homework, it is essential to determine what the students do when faced
with it, and what characteristics of the context define how much they
participate in the process. Although some of these interactions have
already been studied, in light of the huge range of variables involved in
homework, it would be useful to continue progress along this line of
research.
Funding
This chapter was performed thanks to financing from: Research

projects EDU2013-44062-P (MINECO) and EDU2017-82984-P (MEIC)
and financing received by two of the authors, one from the FPU program
(FPU18/02191), granted by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and
Universities and other from the FPI program (Ref: PRE2018/084938),
granted by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (Spain).
REFERENCES
Bang, H. J., Suárez-Orozco, C., Pakes, J., & O’Connor, E. (2009). The
importance of homework in determining immigrant students’ grades
in schools in the USA context. Educational Research, 51(1), 1-25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880802704624.
Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Expectancy-Value-Cost Model
of Motivation. In J. S. Eccles & K. Salmelo-Aro (Eds.), International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 503-509).
Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26099-6.
Baş, G., Şentürk, C., & Ciğerci, F. M. (2017). Homework and academic
achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Issues in
Educational Research, 27(1), 31-50.
Boekaerts, M. (2016). Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning
process. Learning and Instruction, 43, 76-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.learninstruc.2016.02.001.
Homework 27
Buijs, M., & Admiraal, W. (2013). Homework assignments to enhance

student engagement in secondary education. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 28(3), 767-779. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10212-012-0139-0.
Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. Longman. https://doi.org/10.1037/11578-
000.
Cooper, H. (2007). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for
Administrators, Teachers, and Parents. Corwin Press.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329420.
Cooper, H., Jackson, K., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. J. (2001). A Model of
Homework’s Influence on the Performance Evaluations of
Elementary School Students. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 69(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022097010
9600655.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in the Home:
How Student, Family, and Parenting-Style Differences Relate to the
Homework Process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4),
464-487. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1036.
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. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.70.
Cooper, H., & Nye, B. (1994). Homework for Students with Learning
Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(8), 470-479.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949402700802.
Corno, L. (1996). Homework Is a Complicated Thing. Educational
Researcher, 25(8), 27-30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X0
25008027.
Coutts, P. M. (2004). Meanings of homework and implications for
practice. Theory into practice, 43(3), 182-187. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4303_3.
Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Nunes, A. R., Moreira, T., & Nunes,
T. (2018). “Homework Feedback Is…”: Elementary and Middle
School Teachers’ Conceptions of Homework Feedback. Frontiers in

Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00032.
Danielson, M. L., Strom, B., & Kramer, K. (2011). Real Homework
Tasks: A Pilot Study of Types, Values, and Resource Requirements.
Educational Research Quarterly, 35(1), 18-33.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., &
Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in
mathematics: Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and
achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
36(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.001.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J.
(2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: Using
multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 467-482.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018453.
Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Nagy, G., & Nagengast, B. (2014). Quality
of parental homework involvement: Predictors and reciprocal
relations with academic functioning in the reading domain. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 144-161. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0034100.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational Beliefs, Values, and
Goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A Conceptual History of the Achievement Goal
Construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). Guildford Publications.
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More Than Minutes:
Teachers’ Roles in Designing Homework. Educational Psychologist,
36(3), 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4.
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. Educational Research Review, 20, 35-54. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003.
Homework 29
Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2014). Tareas

Escolares en el hogar y rendimiento en Matemáticas: una
aproximación Multinivel con estudiantes de Enseñanza Primaria.
Revista de Psicología y Educación, 9(2), 15-29. http://www.revista
depsicologiayeducacion.es/abstract?pii=109. [Homework at home
and performance in Mathematics: a multilevel approach with primary
school students. Journal of Psychology and Education]
Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A., &
Schnyder, I. (2017). A person-centered approach to homework
behavior: Students’ characteristics predict their homework learning
type. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.07.002.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School
Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review
of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/
10.3102/00346543074001059.
Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic Effects of
Homework in Privileged, High-Performing High Schools. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 490-510. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00220973.2012.745469.
Gill, B. P., & Schlossman, S. L. (2003). A-Nation-at-Rest. 25(3), 319-
337.
Goetz, T., Nett, U. E., Martiny, S. E., Hall, N. C., Pekrun, R., Dettmers,
S., & Trautwein, U. (2012). Students’ emotions during homework:
Structures, self-concept antecedents, and achievement outcomes.
Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 225-234. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.006.
González, P., Lacasa, P., & Albuquerque, M. (1999). Los deberes
escolares: ¿qué hay y qué buscamos? Cultura y Educación, 13, 21-
36. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/113564002320584817.
[Homework: what is there and what are we looking for? Culture and
education]
Heimgartner-Moroni, S., Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., &
Baeriswyl, F. (2012). More chameleon effects in homework research:
How the choice of instruments affects the associations between

family background, parental homework involvement, and reading
achievement. In H. Dumont (Ed.), Elterliche Hausaufgabenhilfe
unter dem Blickwinkel sozialer Disparitäten: Eine Untersuchung (pp.
75-100). University of Tübingen. https://bibliographie.uni-
tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/47942/pdf/Dissertation_
Hanna_Dumont.pdf?sequence=1#page=83.
Hong, E., Mason, E., Peng, Y., & Lee, N. (2015). Effects of homework
motivation and worry anxiety on homework achievement in
mathematics and English. Educational Research and Evaluation,
21(7-8), 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2015.1131721.
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(3), 195-209.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_5.
Jerrim, J., Lopez‐Agudo, L. A., & Marcenaro‐Gutierrez, O. D. (2019).
The relationship between homework and the academic progress of
children in Spain during compulsory elementary education: A twin
fixed‐effects approach. British Educational Research Journal, 45(5),
1021-1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3549.
Kackar, H. Z., Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A., & Grzetich, J. (2011). Age
and gender differences in adolescents’ homework experiences.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 70-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.12.005.
Locke, J. Y., Kavanagh, D. J., & Campbell, M. A. (2016). Overparenting
and Homework: The Student’s Task, But Everyone’s Responsibility.
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 26(1), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2015.29.
Luo, W., Ng, P. T., Lee, K., & Aye, K. M. (2016). Self-efficacy, value,
and achievement emotions as mediators between parenting practice
and homework behavior: A control-value theory perspective.
Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 275-282. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.017.
Homework 31
Martínez-Vicente, M., Suárez-Riveiro, J. M., & Valiente-Barroso, C.

(2020). Implicación estudiantil y parental en los deberes escolares:
diferencias según el curso, género y rendimiento académico. Revista
de Psicología y Educación, 15(2), 151-165. https://doi.org/
10.23923/rpye2020.02.193. [Student and parental involvement in
homework: differences according to grade, gender and academic
performance. Journal of Psychology and Education]
Mourão, R. (2009). Etapas processuais do trabalho de casa e efeitos
auto-regulatórios na aprendizagem do inglês: um estudo com diários
de TPC no 2.o ciclo do ensino básico [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Minho]. University of Minho. http://hdl.handle.net/
1822/9759. [Procedural steps of homework and self-regulatory
effects on English learning: a study with CPT diaries in the 2nd cycle
of basic education]
Mousavi, S., Radmehr, F., & Alamolhodaei, H. (2012). The role of
mathematical homework and prior knowledge on the relationship
between students’ mathematical performance, cognitive style and
working memory capacity. Electronic Journal of Research in
Education Psychology, 10(3), 1223-1248. https://doi.org/10.25115/
ejrep.v10i28.1532.
Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Kelava, A., & Lüdtke, O. (2013).
Synergistic Effects of Expectancy and Value on Homework
Engagement: The Case for a Within-Person Perspective. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 48(3), 428-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00273171.2013.775060.
Núñez, J. C., Epstein, J. L., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., & Valle,
A. (2017). How Do Student Prior Achievement and Homework
Behaviors Relate to Perceived Parental Involvement in Homework?
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.01217.
Núñez, J. C., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Piñeiro, I., Rodicio, M. L., &
Valle, A. (2019). Student Perception of Teacher and Parent
Involvement in Homework and Student Engagement: The Mediating
Role of Motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01384.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Cerezo, R., González-Pienda, J., Rosário, P.,
Mourão, R., & Valle, A. (2015). Homework and academic
achievement across Spanish Compulsory Education. Educational
Psychology, 35(6), 726-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.
2013.817537.
Olympia, D. E., Sheridan, S. M., & Jenson, W. R. (1994). Homework: A
natural means of home-school collaboration. School Psychology
Quarterly, 9(1), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088844.
Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.82.1.33.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The How,
Whom, and Why of Parents’ Involvement in Children’s Academic
Lives: More Is Not Always Better. Review of Educational Research,
77(3), 373-410. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305567.
Pressman, R. M., Sugarman, D. B., Nemon, M. L., Desjarlais, J., Owens,
J. A., & Schettini-Evans, A. (2015). Homework and Family Stress:
With Consideration of Parents’ Self Confidence, Educational Level,
and Cultural Background. The American Journal of Family Therapy,
43(4), 297-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1061407.
Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing Self-Regulation
Skills: The Important Role of Homework. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 22(2), 194-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1
102200202.
Regueiro, B. (2018). Metas académicas, deberes escolares y aprendizaje
en estudiantes de secundaria [Doctoral dissertation, University of A
Coruña]. University of A Coruña. http://hdl.handle.net/2183/21560.
[Academic Goals, Homework, and Learning in High School Students]
Regueiro, B., Núñez, J. C., Valle, A., Piñeiro, I., Rodríguez, S., &
Rosário, P. (2016). Motivational profiles in high school students:
Differences in behavioural and emotional homework engagement and
Homework 33
academic achievement. International Journal of Psychology, 53(6),

449-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12399.
Regueiro, B., Pan, I., Sánchez, B., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., & Rosário, P.
(2014). Diferencias en la implicación en los deberes escolares en
función del rendimiento académico en estudiantes de Primaria.
International Journal of Developmental and Educational
Psychology. Revista INFAD de Psicología., 7(1), 437-448.
https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2014.n1.v7.813. [Differences in
involvement in homework based on academic performance in
primary school students. International Journal of Developmental and
Educational Psychology. INFAD Journal of Psychology]
Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., & Rosário, P. (2015).
La motivación e implicación en los deberes escolares a lo largo de la
escolaridad obligatoria. Revista de Psicodidactica, 20(1), 47-63.
https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.12641. [Motivation and
involvement in homework throughout compulsory schooling. Journal
of Psychodidactics]
Rodríguez-Pereiro, S., Regueiro, B., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., Pan, I.,
Sánchez, B., & Valle, A. (2015). Enfoques de trabajo e implicación
en los deberes escolares en estudiantes de Educación Primaria.
Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación, Extr.
(1), 090-092. https://doi.org/10.17979/reipe.2015.0.01.468. [Work
approaches and involvement in homework in Primary Education
students. Journal of Studies and Research in Psychology and
Education, Extr]
Rodríguez, S., Núñez, J. C., Valle, A., Freire, C., Ferradás, M. M., &
Rodríguez-Llorente, C. (2019). Relationship Between Students’ Prior
Academic Achievement and Homework Behavioral Engagement:
The Mediating/Moderating Role of Learning Motivation. Frontiers in
Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., Regueiro, B., & Estévez, I. (2020). Intrinsic
motivation and perceived utility as predictors of student homework
engagement. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 25(2),
93-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2019.11.001. [Journal of

Psychodidactics]
Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Nunes, T., Cunha, J., Fuentes, S.,
& Valle, A. (2018). Homework purposes, homework behaviors, and
academic achievement. Examining the mediating role of students’
perceived homework quality. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 53, 168-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.
04.001.
Rosário, P., Cunha, J., Nunes, A. R., Moreira, T., Núñez, J. C., & Xu, J.
(2019). “Did you do your homework?” Mathematics teachers’
homework follow-up practices at middle school level. Psychology in
the Schools, 56(1), 92-108. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22198.
Rosário, P., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Nunes, A. R., Moreira, T., & Núñez, J.
C. (2019). “Homework Should Be…but We Do Not Live in an Ideal
World”: Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives on Quality Homework
and on Homework Assigned in Elementary and Middle Schools.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.
00224.
Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Suárez, N.,
Fuentes, S., & Moreira, T. (2015). The effects of teachers’ homework
follow-up practices on students’ EFL performance: a randomized-
group design. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-11. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528.
Suárez, N. (2015). Deberes escolares y rendimiento académico en
estudiantes de educación obligatoria [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Oviedo]. University of Oviedo. http://hdl.handle.net/
10651/33360. [School homework and academic performance in
compulsory education students]
Suárez, N., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., Regueiro, B., &
Rosário, P. (2017). Tareas para casa, rendimiento académico e
implicación de padres y profesores. International Journal of
Developmental and Educational Psychology. Revista INFAD de
Psicología., 7(1), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2014.n1.
v7.811. [Homework, academic performance and involvement of
Homework 35
parents and teachers. International Journal of Developmental and

Suárez, N., Regueiro, B., Epstein, J. L., Piñeiro, I., Díaz, S. M., & Valle,
A. (2016). Homework Involvement and Academic Achievement of
Native and Immigrant Students. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
Suárez, N., Regueiro, B., Estévez, I., Ferradás, M. M., Guisande, M. A.,
& Rodríguez, S. (2019). Individual Precursors of Student Homework
Behavioral Engagement: The Role of Intrinsic Motivation, Perceived
Homework Utility and Homework Attitude. Frontiers in Psychology,
10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00941.
Sun, M., Du, J., Xu, J., & Liu, F. (2019). Homework Goal Orientation
Scale: Measurement invariance and latent mean differences across
gender and grade level. Psychology in the Schools, 56(3), 465-477.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22206.
Tas, Y., Vural, S. S., & Öztekin, C. (2014). A Study of Science Teachers’
Homework Practices. Research in Education, 91(1), 45-64.
https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.91.1.5.
Thelamour, B., & Jacobs, D. L. (2014). Homework Practices of English
and Non-English–Speaking Parents. Urban Education, 49(5), 528-
542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913481360.
Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework–achievement relation reconsidered:
Differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and
homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 372-388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009.
Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2003). The Relationship Between
Homework and Achievement—Still Much of a Mystery. Educational
Psychology Review, 15, 115-145. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1023460414243.
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. Learning
and Instruction, 19(3), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kastens, C., & Köller, O. (2006). Effort on
Homework in Grades 5?9: Development, Motivational Antecedents,
and the Association With Effort on Classwork. Child Development,
77(4), 1094-1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00921.x.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting
homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel
homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 438-
456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438.
Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., & Rosário, P. (2017). Informe sobre los deberes
escolares. Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación
Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia. [Report on homework.]
Valle, A., Pan, I., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Tuero, E., & Nunes, A. R.
(2015). Predicting approach to homework in Primary school students.
Psicothema, 27(4), 334-340. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema
2015.118.
Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., &
Rosário, P. (2016). Academic Goals, Student Homework
Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Elementary School.
Frontiers in Psychology, 7(463), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2016.00463.
Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., & Pan, I.
(2017). Rendimiento académico, enfoques de trabajo e implicación
en los deberes escolares. Magis. Revista Internacional de
Investigación en Educación, 10(20), 123-142. https://www.redalyc.
org/articulo.oa?id=2810/281056021008. [Academic performance,
work approaches and involvement in homework. Magis.
International Journal of Research in Education]
Valle, A., & Rodríguez, S. (2021). MITCA: Homework Implementation
Method. Servicio de Publicaciones. University of A Coruña.
https://doi.org/10.17979/spudc.9788497496360.
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive Homework in Middle School:
Effects on Family Involvement and Science Achievement. The
Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 323-338. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00220670309596616.
Homework 37
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011). Costs and Benefits of Family Involvement in

Homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 220-249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200203.
Wagner, P., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2008). Time students spend
working at home for school. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 309-
320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.002.
Warton, P. M. (2001). The Forgotten Voices in Homework: Views of
Students. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 155-165. https://doi.org/
10.1207/S15326985EP3603_2.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Expectancy-value theory:
retrospective and prospective. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick
(Eds.), The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation
and Achievement (pp. 35-70). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A005.
Xu, J. (2007). Middle‐School Homework Management: More than just
gender and family involvement. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 173-
189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066669.
Xu, J., & Wu, H. (2013). Self-Regulation of Homework Behavior:
Homework Management at the Secondary School Level. The Journal
of Educational Research, 106(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220671.2012.658457.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive
Perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7.
Chapter 2
HOMEWORK AND
SELF-REGULATED LEARNING
Susana Rodríguez Martínez1,*, Rocío González- Suárez1,

Carolina Rodríguez-Llorente1, Iris Estévez2
and Jianzhong Xu3
1
2
University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
3
University of Macau, Macau, China
Departament of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Fundations,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, USA
ABSTRACT
This chapter aims to give a detailed explanation of the symbiosis

between self-regulated learning and setting homework. It covers the
process beginning with setting homework in the classroom, moving on
to doing the tasks at home, finishing with correction and evaluation. It
touches on the key aspects of each phase when it comes to
*
Corresponding Author’s E-mail: susana.rodriguez1@udc.es.
40 S. R. Martínez, R. González- Suárez, C. Rodríguez-Llorente et al.
characterizing the underlying self-regulatory processes, emphasizing

the potential benefits that setting homework offers in promoting
students’ self-regulated learning.
Keywords: homework, self-regulated learning, student
INTRODUCTION
The cyclical nature of the social debate about homework has been
confirmed by international research. Before the beginning of the 20th
century, homework tended to be a means of developing students’
discipline. Subsequently, in the 1940s, homework began to be understood
as an intrusion into the family environment, and there was a trend of
limiting the amount of homework that students were set (see Cooper et
al., 2006; Gill & Schlossman, 2004). At the end of the 1950s, in a period
of intense international competition in technological and scientific areas,
the American education system saw homework as a resource for
improving future generations’ academic performance and skills.
However, during the 1970s there was the recognition that the large
amounts of homework may have been contributing to excessive pressure
on students, possibly causing them harm, and even damaging their mental
health. Over time, the positive aspects of homework tasks were again
reconsidered (Cooper et al., 2006).
At the national level, we do not have many studies available that
would allow us to perform a longitudinal comparison like the studies
conducted in U.S. (Cooper et al., 2006; Gill & Schlossman, 2004).
Nonetheless, we cannot fail to note the ups and downs in
socioeducational consideration of homework and the successive rules and
regulations laid down in order to regulte tha amount of homework
students are given. These legislative fluctuations have tended to reflect
paradigm changes, or at least changes of opinion in society and in the
educational arena about setting homework. These have gone from
proposals expressly prohibiting homework to progressive readjustments
Homework and Self-Regulated Learning 41
aiming to regulate the amount of homework that can be set, attempting to

ensure students can rest, enjoy leisure, and family harmony. Nowadays,
at the national level in Spain the legislation makes no reference to any
obligation in terms of how homework must be set in classrooms. That
said, there are some recommendations at the level of autonomous
communities (education is a partly devolved responsibility in Spain),
such as the laws about the rights and guarantees of childhood [Ley de
Derechos y Garantías de la Infancia] in the community of Valencia
It is clear that at both international and national levels, there have
been, and there still are, two positions, one in favor of setting homework
and the other against. These two positions continue to raise new
challenges that drive us to understand the keys to proper balance between
enhancing student skills and performance, and harm to or interference in
the quality of their lives and that of their families.
SETTING HOMEWORK AS A TEACHING RESOURCE:

THREE AGENTS, ONE PURPOSE
Homework is the school activities teachers assign to students to do in

non-school hours, the aim of which is supposed to be to give students an
opportunity to do additional work on the content they cover in class
(Cooper, 2001). Using homework as an educational resource produces a
particular learning environment in which there are three agents with
shared responsibility in the teaching-learning process (Rosário, Núñez,
Vallejo, Cunha, Nunes, Mourão et al., 2015). In addition to teachers, who
set the tasks and are responsible for doing so properly, and the students,
who receive the tasks and are responsible for completing them, there are
also close family members, who children often refer to when they are
doing their homework.
Including this third agent in the teaching-learning process gives this
teaching resource the added value of activating and encouraging parent-
child and family-school communication and makes it an educational
option that can produce more interpersonal conflict than others. The
potential of this resource will depend on the purpose of each of the agents
involved in the homework. The necessary convergence of interests may
be difficult if homework is only understood as a mode of practice at
home aimed at contributing to passing academic tests (Cooper et al.,
2006; Xu et al., 2010; Xu & Yuan, 2003).
At various times and from various pedagogical approaches, it has
been said that doing homework has a positive incidence on student
performance, and in fact we have recent empirical evidence that confirms
these positive effects (Cadime et al., 2017; Cooper et al., 2006; Fan et al.,
2017). However, at the student level, spending time on homework does
not seem to guarantee better learning or better results. Multilevel studies
over the last decade have shown that students who attend schools that set
homework more frequently perform better than students whose schools
set less frequent homework (Dettmers et al., 2009; Fernández-Alonso et
al., 2015). Beyond the time spent on homework, homework can be
interpreted as having a positive effect on performance to the extent that
the tasks which are set in the classroom allow students to employ
practices which promote learning (Núñez, Suárez, Cerezo et al, 2015;
Rosário et al, 2009; Rodríguez et al., 2020; Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein
et al., 2009; Valle et al., 2016).
Although setting homework has traditionally had this ultimate
purpose of broadening the possibilities of learning, thus contributing to
academic performance, we must not lose sight of its role in enhancing
study skills and the attitude to the work. Doing homework means we
resort to skills of contextual management—distributing and organizing
time, seeking and asking for help, etc.—motivational management—task
value, perceived competence, associated emotions, etc.— and it opens the
door to taking up homework as a unique resource for teaching self-
regulation. It is about this possibility that we believe the challenge of
achieving a true shared family-school space revolves, where each on the
agents plays their role sharing the same goal (Cooper et al., 2006; Núñez,
Suárez, Rosário, Vallejo, Valle et al., 2015; Ramdass & Zimmerman,
2011): encouraging and promoting student self-regulation.
The deliberate dedication of effort to complete homework tasks

allows us to characterize doing homework as a self-regulated activity and
the student as the prime agent and director of the process. Setting
homework presupposes an active, constructive student, who sets
objectives from the teachers’ instructions, and who tries to plan,
supervise, and regulate their thinking, motivation, and behaviour towards
those objectives without losing sight of the requirements of the task or
the conditions of the homework environment. In order to synthesize this
idea, and taking the phasic models proposed to explain self-regulated
learning (Winne & Hadwin, 1998) as a reference, we differentiate
between setting homework in class, doing homework, and correcting and
evaluating homework.
Setting Homework in the Classroom
Homework begins once the teacher defines the task and sets the
conditions for it. These starting conditions activate a range of beliefs and
emotions and interact with the students’ motivational orientations. Hence
it seems to be particularly important to explore the agreement between
the tasks that are set and the students’ goal orientations, as this agreement
may not only increase their behavioural engagement with the homework,
but also their emotional wellbeing (Boekaerts, 2007). Tasks that are set in
the classroom may be seen by learners oriented towards seeking
understanding and mastery as learning opportunities. For those with
performance orientation, on the other hand, they may become
opportunities to demonstrate or validate their own competencies in
comparison to others. As we will try to show, in the framework of
homework research, these orientations seem to have different effects on
engagement with homework tasks (Du et al. 2016; Sun et al. 2019; Valle
et al., 2016; Xu, 2005; 2021).
In addition, the need to encourage true significant learning means we
need to address not only how, when, and why teachers set homework, but
also the connections that are established with the learning that is done in
the classroom (Dettmers et al., 2010), going beyond setting homework

that is practice and review. Both the characteristics of homework tasks
and the purposes for which they are set seem to have some weight in the
steps in the process. Extension activities, aimed at encouraging the
transfer of learning to new tasks (Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001),
problem-solving tasks, and tasks which challenge the learners seem to be
linked to achievement (Dettmers et al., 2010; Rosário, Núñez, Vallejo,
Cunha, Nunes, Suárez et al., 2015; Zhu & Leung, 2012). However, it
seems to be much more common for teachers to set tasks in order for the
students to practice or revise (Bang, 2012; Danielson et al., 2011; Kaur,
2011; Muhlenbruck et al., 1999), which may even be negatively related
to achievement (Trautwein et al., 2009)
Setting review tasks, which activate strategies of selecting
information in order to recognize and identify concepts, processes, or
definitions; organization tasks, which encourage ordering ideas,
sequencing procedures, classification, and writing outlines; and
production tasks, which involve paraphrasing, giving examples, problem-
solving, supposition, and argumentation, will contribute to more
significant learning while at the same time allowing better equity in terms
of the students strengths and concerns (Valle & Rodríguez, 2020). We
believe that organizing how homework is set in this sense will contribute
to better responses to the various motivational orientations with which
the students approach their homework.
In addition to affecting the time and effort spent on homework, the
nature and conditions of the tasks that are set in the classroom activate a
set of beliefs and emotions which also determine the learner’s
motivational engagement (Gross & Thompson, 2007; Xu, 2016). Interest
in the task, how highly it is valued, and perceived utility interact with
students cognitive and behavioural engagement (Valle, Regueiro,
Rodríguez, Piñeiro, Freire et al. 2015), and they are positively associated
with a mastery-approach to homework (Xu, 2021), the time spent on
homework (Dettmers et al., 2009; Regueiro et al., 2015), how well this
time is managed (Dettmers et al., 2009; Regueiro et al., 2015), how much
effort is put into homework (Xu, 2018b), how much of the homework is
done (Regueiro et al., 2017), and ultimately, academic performance

(Valle et al., 2016).
In a similar way, and apart from other sociodemographic aspects or
the perception of parental control (Raver, 2004; Raffaelli et al., 2005; Xu,
2016), too much homework, homework that is perceived as very difficult,
and dissatisfaction with results have been associated with students’
anxiety, anger, and boredom (Liu et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Xu, 2016).
Among the beliefs that may be affected by this first step of setting
homework, it is worth highlighting the students’ perceptions of efficacy
or expectancy, which have a particular impact on the effort students
expend on their homework and how disposed they are to persist in the
face of difficulties (Schunk & Ertmer, 1999). Various authors have
shown that homework self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
parental support and the emotions associated with doing homework tasks
(Li & Song, 2013; Liu et al., 2019) and can be recognized as a protective
factor against academically negative emotions (Sorić et al., 2013).
Doing Homework at Home
Implementing strategies and techniques that facilitate information

processing and content manipulation—looking for and/or selecting
information, reviewing processes, copying or paraphrasing content,
organizing ideas, informative production, etc.—come to the fore when
homework is actually done. Similarly, each learning episode that doing
homework results in requires the student to detect what they are not
doing properly while they complete the set tasks and to be able to
appropriately resort to the knowledge and strategies each specific task
requires. Cognitive engagement with homework has been addressed in
this regard, differentiating between a deep approach and a superficial
approach (Zimmerman, 1990; Rosário, Núñez, Ferrando et al., 2013).
Compared to a superficial approach to homework, focused on
completing it as quickly as possible, adopting a deep approach is
characterized by exerting effort, persisting in the face of problems, and
adopting learning strategies (Valle, Pan, Regueiro et al., 2015). As

already suggested, a deep approach to homework may depend on
learners’ goal orientations and how much they value the tasks set for
them in the classroom (Valle et al., 2015b; Rosário et al., 2010; Rosário,
Núñez, Valle et al., 2013). It may be seen in better self-regulation
(Rosário et al., 2016; Valle, Pan, Regueiro et al., 2015), and generally in
more effective management of the process of doing homework (Xu,
2005).
It has been shown that, beyond the time students spend doing
homework (Trautwein, 2007), and even beyond the amount of homework
that is set for them, the importance of homework lies in the relevance of
the tasks and in how well learners manage and make use of the time at
home (Núñez, Suárez, Cerezo, et al., 2015; Núñez, Suárez, Rosário,
Vallejo, Valle et al., 2019; Valle, Pan, Núñez et al., 2015). In fact,
managing homework time has been linked to the amount of homework
that is completed as well as performance both in secondary and primary
education (Núñez, Suárez, Cerezo et al., 2015; Valle et al., 2019; Xu,
2005, 2010b).
Apart from a positive attitude, mastery orientation, and individual
interest in homework affecting how students manage homework time,
both teacher feedback and parental involvement also enter into play. For
instance, studies have suggested that teacher feedback affects both the
amount of homework that is completed and the quality of time
management at home (e.g., Xu, 2007; Xu & Wu, 2013; Núñez, Suárez,
Rosário, Vallejo, Cerezo et al., 2015), and that parental support would
positively impact the quality of time management, directly or
indirectly—mediated by students’ attitudes and motivations (Xu, 2008a,
2010b; Núñez, Suárez, Rosário, Vallejo, Valle et al., 2015) .
Despite research having mostly focused on more cognitive aspects
and those related to time management, we cannot ignore the fact that
students must also manage their own beliefs and regulate their emotions
throughout the process of doing homework as doing homework often
becomes an emotionally charged process for many students across
diferent countries (Knollmann & Wild, 2007; Xu & Corno, 1998). In fact,
in this context, volitional control becomes a particularly important factor

as the student is the primary agent and director of the process.
Assuming the responsibility of dealing with homework needs
sustained engagement for a period of time, the minimization of
distractors, and coping with emotions at home (Corno, 2004; Xu, 2008a,
2008b). Research within the framework of homework has begun to
consider the volitional strategies that students must employ to stay
focused and direct their efforts to doing homework tasks despite potential
distractors (Corno, 2004; Xu, 2016; Yang & Tu, 2020). The required
regulation of emotions is also under this conceptual umbrella, as are the
potential contributions of parents and teachers (Liu et al., 2019; Xu,
2018a).
As already noted, homework is an ideal setting in which to study the
role of families in their children’s academic learning. In this regard,
families’ socio-cultural background and its impact on potential
inequalities related to setting homework needs more attention from
educational research. Beyond the fact that setting homework seems to
especially improve the performance of students from more privileged
family backgrounds (Rønning, 2011) and the fact that the parents with
higher educational attainment and higher socio-economic levels dedicate
more time to their children (e.g., Guryan, Hurst & Kearney, 2008), when
it comes to parental involvement, the saying “less is more” may well end
up being true.
In this regard, although the impact of parental involvement with
homework on children’s academic performance continues to be a point of
controversy (e.g., Cooper et al., 2001; Dumont et al., 2012; Schultz,
1999), research seems to suggest that students’ motivation, wellbeing,
and academic engagement depend on the emotional support and
encouragement of autonomy from the home (Dettmers et al, 2019;
Gonida & Cortina, 2014; Regueiro et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2018).
Although direct help with homework may even have a negative effect on
academic performance (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Xu et al., 2010b; Xu et al.,
2018), students will feel more capable when their parents have
confidence in them, and they will also value school more highly when
parents show interest in what they are doing, their difficulties, and their
progress (Rodríguez et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018).
Homework Correction and Evaluation
Having as much feedback as possible about the quality of completed

homework is central to making it possible to review and evaluate the
learning processes themselves. In addition to giving teachers’ information
about their students’ needs, correcting homework can be a valuable
teaching tool as it can contribute to students themselves recognizing
difficulties (Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; An & Wu, 2012; Bang, 2012).
The fact is that specific, individual, written feedback is positively
linked to the level of effort leaners exert, learner engagement with
homework, and ultimately, their achievement (Cunha et al., 2018,
Rosário, Núñez, Vallejo, Cunha, Nunes, Suárez et al., 2015; Núñez,
Suárez, Rosário, Vallejo, Cerezo et al., 2015). However, despite the fact
that teachers’ homework correction and marking practices can vary
according to the characteristics of the students, the content, or the school,
the most commonly-used feedback techniques are more aimed at control
than at information, and normally translate to solving the set tasks as a
group in the classroom (Cooper, 2001; Rosário, Núñez, Vallejo, Cunha,
Nunes, Mourão et al., 2015). It is clear that feedback which provides
individualized information about improvement opportunities, as well as
guidance about how to actually realize these improvements—informative
feedback—will strengthen students self-regulation capabilities (Cooper,
2001; Fong et al., 2016).
This information makes it possible for the student to modify the
strategies they may use, and increases their metacognitive understanding
about the tasks themselves. On similar lines, there is evidence that
feedback from teachers is positively associated with students’ interest in
the tasks, improving not only their behavioural engagement with
homework, but also the motivational management while homework is
being done (Xu, 2008a; 2010; 2014; Xu & Wu, 2013; Xu et al., 2017).
Hence, teacher feedback can, at the same time, contribute to students’

motivational engagement with academic activity in general and
engagement with their homework in particular (Elawar & Corno, 1985;
Cardelle & Corno, 1981; Rosário, Núñez, Vallejo, Cunha, Suárez et al.,
2015). Feedback that also includes praise for improvements achieved in
terms of effort and dedication—motivating feedback—, in addition to
information about aspects to improve, will contribute to intrinsic
motivation towards the task, encourage confidence and expectations, and
will also affect the affective valence associated with homework (Cunha et
al., 2018; Deci & Ryan, 2016; Fong, et al., 2019; Núñez, Suárez, Rosário,
Vallejo, Cerezo et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2014).
This informative, motivating feedback, which encourages student
autonomy and control, ultimately affects decision-making, constructing
the attitudes and developing the disposition for future episodes
homework.
Homework has been long viewed as “a classic form of self-regulated
learning” (Trautwein & Köller, 2003, p. 137). It is not until recently that
research begins to examine how homework affords students the
opportunity to the development of self-regulated learning (Ramdass &
Zimmerman, 2011; Yang & Tu, 2020). Available evidence from this
emerging line of research points to the potential benefits that homework
offers in fostering students’ self-regulated learning, as it moves from the
classroom to the home and moves back to the classroom. Consequently, it
would be highly beneficial to pay close attention to self-regulation and
academic achievement in the homework process at the same time,
especially as certain aspects of homework self-regulation and academic
achievement are likely to be reciprocally related (Xu, 2021; Xu et al.,
2019).
REFERENCES
An, S. & Wu, Z. (2012). Enhancing mathematics teachers’ knowledge of

students’ thinking from assessing and analyzing misconceptions
inhomework. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 717–753.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9324-x
Bang, H. J. (2012). Promising Homework Practices: Teachers’
Perspectives on Making Homework Work for Newcomer Immigrant
Students. The High School Journal, 95(2), 3-31. http://doi.org/
10.1353/hsj.2012.0001.
Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students’ affective processes in the
classroom. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in Education
(pp. 37–56). Academic Press https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
012372545-5/50004-6.
Cadime, I., Cruz, J., Silva, C. & Ribeiro, I. (2017). Homework self-
regulation strategies: a gender and educational-level invariance
analysis. Psicologia: Reflexão E Crítica, 30(1).
http://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-017-0062-z. [Psychology: Reflection
and Criticism]
Cardelle, M. & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning
ofvariations in written feedback on homework assignments. TESOL
Quarterly., 15(3), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586751.
Cooper, H. (2001). Homework for All--in Moderation. Educational
leadership, 58(7), 34-38.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C. & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does Homework
Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–
2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62.
http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001.
Corno, L. (2004). Introduction. In Work habits and work styles: Volition
in education [Special issue]. Teachers College Record, 106, 1669–
1694.
Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Nunes, A. R., Moreira, T. & Nunes,
T. (2018). “Homework Feedback Is…”: Elementary and Middle
School Teachers’ Conceptions of Homework Feedback. Frontiers in
Danielson, M. L., Strom, B. & Kramer, K. (2011). Real homework tasks:
A pilot study of types, values, and resource requirements.
Educational Research Quarterly, 35(1), 17.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Optimizing students’ motivation in the

era of testing and pressure: a self-determination theory perspective.
In W. C. Liu, J.C. K. Weng, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Building
Autonomous Learners, (pp. 9–29). Springer
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kunter, M. & Baumert, J.
(2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: using
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 467.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018453.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U. & Lüdtke, O. (2009). The relationship
between homework time and achievement is not universal: evidence
from multilevel analyses in 40 countries. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 20(4), 375–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09243450902904601.
Dettmers, S., Yotyodying, S. & Jonkmann, K. (2019). Antecedents and
outcomes of parental homework involvement: How do family-school
partnerships affect parental homework involvement and student
outcomes? Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1048. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01048.
Du, J., Xu, J. & Fan, X. (2016). Investigating factors that influence
students’ help seeking in math homework: A multilevel analysis.
Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.lindif.2016.03.002.
Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Neumann, M., Niggli, A. &
Schnyder, I. (2012). Does parental homework involvement mediate
the relationship between family background and educational
outcomes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(1), 55–69.
Elawar, M. C. & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’
written feedback on student homework: changing teacher behavior a
little rather than a lot. J. Educ. Psychol., 77, 162–173.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.2.162.
Epstein, J. L. & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than ten minutes:

teachers’ roles in designing homework. Educ. Psychol., 36, 181–193.
http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4.
Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J. & Fan, X. (2017). Homework and
1986–2015. Educational Research Review, 20, 35–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003.
Feito Alonso, R. (2020). Los deberes escolares. Un análisis sistematizado
con especial referencia al caso español. Contextos Educativos.
Revista De Educación, 25, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.
18172/con.3957. [School homework. A systematized analysis with
special reference to the Spanish case. Educational Contexts.
Education Magazine]
Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J. & Muñiz, J. (2015).
Adolescents’ homework performance in mathematics and science:
Personal factors and teaching practices. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 107, 1075-1085. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000032.
Fong, C. J., Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C. & Stautberg, S. (2019). A meta-
analysis of negative feedback on intrinsic motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 31, 121-162 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-
9446-6.
Fong, C. J., Warner, J. R., Williams, K. M., Schallert, D. L., Chen, L.,
Williamson, Z. H. & Lin, S. (2016). Deconstructing constructive
criticism: the nature of academic emotions associated with
constructive, positive, and negative feedback. Learning and
Individual Differences, 49, 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lindif.2016.05.019.
Gill, B. P. & Schlossman, S. L. (2004). Villain or savior? The American
discourse on homework, 1850-2003. Theory into practice, 43(3),
174-181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4303_2.
Gonida, E. N. & Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in
homework: Relations with parent and student achievement-related
motivational beliefs and achievement. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12039.
Gross, J. J. & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual

foundations. En Gross, J. J (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation.
Guilford Press.
Guryan, J., Hurst, E. & Kearney, M. (2008). Parental Education and
Parental Time with Children. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
22(3), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.3.23.
Hill, N. E. & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school:
A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote
achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362.
Kaur, B. (2011). Mathematics homework: A study of three grade eight
classrooms in Singapore. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 9(1), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10763-010-9237-0.
Knollmann, M. & Wild, E. (2007). Quality of parental support and
students’ emotions during homework: Moderating effects of
students’ motivational orientations. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 22, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173689
Li, J. & Song, S. (2013). The relationship among academic self-efficacy,
academic emotions and learning adaptability of undergraduates.
China Journal of Health Psychology, 21(9), 1429–1431.
Liu, Y., Chai, X., Gong, S. & Sang, B. (2017). The influence of parents’
autonomous motivation on primary school students’ emotions in
mathematics homework: The role of students’ autonomous
motivation and teacher support. Psychological Development and
Education, 33(5), 577–586. Retrieved from http://www.devpsy.
com.cn/EN/Y2017/V33/I5/577.
Liu, Y., Sang, B., Liu, J., Gong, S. & Ding, X. (2019). Parental support
and homework emotions in Chinese children: mediating roles of
homework self-efficacy and emotion regulation strategies.
Educational Psychology, 39(5), 617–635. http://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410.2018.1540769.
Muhlenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B. & Lindsay, J. J. (1999).
Homework and achievement: Explaining the different strengths of
relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Social

Psychology of Education, 3(4), 295-317.
Mourão, R. & Valle, A. (2015). Homework and academic
Psychology, 35(6), 726–746. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 01443410.
2013.817537.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R. & Valle, A.
(2015a). Teachers’ Feedback on Homework, Homework-Related
Behaviors, and Academic Achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 108(3), 204–216. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671
.2013.878298.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A. & Epstein, J.
L. (2015b). Relationships between parental involvement in
homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement:
Differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students.
Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 375–406. http://doi.org/10.
1007/s11409-015-9135-5.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H. & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent Involvement in
Homework: A Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
78(4), 1039–1101. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654308325185.
Raffaelli, M., Crockett, L. J. & Shen, Y. (2005). Developmental stability
and change in self-regulation from childhood to adolescence. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, 166, 54–75. https://doi.org/10.
3200/GNTP.166.1.54-76.
Ramdass, D. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation
skills: The important role of homework. Journal of advanced
academics, 22(2), 194-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202
X1102200202.
Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural
and socioeconomic contexts. Child Development, 75, 346–353.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00676.x.
Regueiro, B., Pan, I., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N. & Rosário, P.
(2014). Motivación e implicación en los deberes escolares:
diferencias en función del rendimiento académico y del curso.

International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology.
Revista INFAD De Psicología, 7(1), 425. https://doi.org/10.
17060/ijodaep.2014.n1.v7.812. [Motivation and involvement in
homework: differences based on academic performance and the
course. International Journal of Developmental and Educational
Psychology. INFAD Journal of Psychology]
Regueiro, B., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., Estévez, I., del Mar Ferradás, M.
& Fernández, N. S. (2015). Diferencias en la percepción de la
implicación parental en los deberes escolares en función del nivel de
motivación de los estudiantes. EJIHPE: European Journal of
Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 5(3), 313-323.
https://doi.org/10.30552/ejihpe.v5i3.134. [Differences in the
perception of parental involvement in homework depending on the
level of motivation of the students. EJIHPE: European Journal of
Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education]
Regueiro, B., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., Rodríguez, S. &
Suárez, N. (2017). Changes in involvement in homework throughout
compulsory secondary education. Cult. Educ., 29, 254–278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2017.1306988.
Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., Regueiro, B. & Estévez, I. (2020). Intrinsic
motivation and perceived utility as predictors of student homework
engagement. Revista De Psicodidáctica, 25(2), 93–99. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2019.11.001. [Journal of Psychodidactics]
Rønning, M. (2011). Who benefits from homework assignments?
Economics of Education Review, 30(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.001.
Rosário, P., Fuentes, S., Beuchat, M. & Ramaciotti, A. (2016).
Autorregulación del aprendizaje en una clase de la universidad: un
enfoque de infusión curricular. Revista de Investigación Educativa,
34(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.34.1.229421. [Self-
regulation of learning in a college class: a curriculum infusion
approach. Journal of Educational Research]
Rosário, P., González-Pienda, J. A., Cerezo, R., Pinto, R., Ferreira, P.,
Abilio, L. & Paiva, O. (2010). Eficacia del programa (Des)venturas
de Testas para la promoción de un enfoque profundo de estudio.
Psicothema, 22(4), 828-834. Retrieved from https://reunido.
uniovi.es/index.php/PST/article/view/8959. [Efficacy of the Testas
(Dis) ventures program for promoting a deep study approach.
Psychothema]
Rosário, P., Mourao, R., Baldaque, M., Nunes, T., Nunez, J. C.,
Gonzalez-Pienda, J. A. & Valle, A. (2009). Homework, self-
regulated learning and math achievement. Revista de Psicodidactica,
14(2), 179-192. [Journal of Psychodidactics]
Rosário, P., Núñez, J. A., Ferrando, J. P., Paiva, O., Lourenço, A.,
Cerezo, R. & Valle, A. (2013). The relationship between approaches
to teaching and approaches to studying: A two-level structural
equation model for biology achievement in high school.
Metacognition and Learning, 8, 47-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11409-013-9095-6.
Rosário, P., Núñez, J.C., Valle, A., Paiva, O. & Polydoro, S. (2013).
Approaches to teaching in High School when considering contextual
variables and teacher variables. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 28,
25 https://doi.org/10.1387/revpsicodidact.6215. [Journal of
Psychodidactics]
Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Mourão, R. &
Pinto, R. (2015). Does homework design matter? The role of
homework’s purpose in student mathematics achievement.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 10–24. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001.
Fuentes, S. & Moreira, T. (2015). The effects of teachers’ homework
follow-up practices on students’ EFL performance: a randomized-
group design. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2015.01528.
Schultz, M. D. (1999). Parental involvement in low -income and minority
children’s education (Order No. 9958886). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (304571862). Retrieved from

https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/parental-involvement-
low-income-minority/docview/304571862/se-2?accountid=17197.
Schunk, D. H. & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during
computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluative influences.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 251–260. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.251.
Sorić, I., Penezić, Z. & Burić, I. (2013). Big five personality traits,
cognitive appraisals and emotion regulation strategies as predictors of
achievement emotions. Psihologijske Teme, 22(2), 325–349.
Sun, M., Du, J., Xu, J. & Liu, F. (2019). Homework goal orientation
scale: measurement invariance and latent mean differences across
gender and grade level. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 465–477.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22206.
homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 372–388.
Trautwein, U. & Köller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework
and achievement—still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology
Review, 15(2), 115-145. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023460414243.
Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I. & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Between-
teacher differences in homework assignments and the development of
students’ homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement.
10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176.
Valle, A., Pan, I., Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., Rodríguez, S. & Regueiro, B.
(2015). Deberes escolares & rendimiento académico en Educación
Primaria. Anales de Psicología, 31(2), 562-569 https://doi.org/
10.6018/analesps.31.2.171131. [Homework & academic performance
in Primary Education. Annals of Psychology]
Valle, A., Pan, I., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Tuero, E. & Nunes, R.
(2015). Predicting approach to homework in Primary school students.
Psicothema, 27, 334-340 Retrieved from https://reunido.uniovi.es/

index.php/PST/article/view/10978.
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(4), 422-428.
Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I. &
Rosário, P. (2016). Academic goals, student homework engagement,
and academic achievement in elementary school. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00463
Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., Freire, C., Ferradás, M.
& Suárez, N. (2015b). Perfiles motivacionales como combinación de
expectativas de autoeficacia y metas académicas en estudiantes
universitarios. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 8(1),
1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejeps.2015.10.001. [Motivational
profiles as a combination of self-efficacy expectations and academic
goals in university students.]
Valle, A. & Rodríguez, S. (2020). MITCA: método de implementación de
tareas para casa. Universidade da Coruña, Servizo de Publicacións.
https://doi.org/10.17979/spudc.9788497497930. [MITCA: method of
implementing homework. University of A Coruña, Publications
Service]
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. E. (1998). Studying as self-regulated
learning, (pp. 291-318). Routledge.
Xu, J. (2005). Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high
school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(1), 46-55.
https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.99.1.46-55.
Xu, J. (2007). Middle‐School Homework Management: More than just
189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066669.
Xu, J. (2008a). Models of secondary school students’ interest in
homework: a multilevel analysis. Am. Educ. Res. J., 45, 1180–1205.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323276.
Xu, J. (2008b). Validation of Scores on the Homework Management

Scale for High School Students. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 68(2), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013164407
301531.
Xu, J. (2010a). Homework Purposes Reported by Secondary School
Students: A Multilevel Analysis. The Journal of Educational
Research, 103(3), 171–182. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 002206709033
82939.
Xu, J. (2010b). Predicting homework time management at the secondary
school level: A multilevel analysis. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.001.
Xu, J. (2014). Regulation of motivation: predicting students’ homework
motivation management at the secondary school level. Research
Papers in Education, 29(4), 457-478. http://doi.org/10.1080/
02671522.2013.775324.
Xu, J. (2016). Emotion regulation in mathematics homework: An
empirical study. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 1–11
http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1175409.
Xu, J. (2018a). Emotion regulation in math homework: An empirical
study. Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 1-11. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1175409.
Xu, J. (2018b). Reciprocal effects of homework self-concept, interest,
effort, and math achievement. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 55, 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cedpsych.2018.
09.002.
Xu, J. (2021). Homework goal orientation, interest, and achievement:
Testing models of reciprocal effects. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 36(2), 359-378. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10212-020-00472-7.
Xu, J. & Corno, L. (1998). Case studies of families doing third grade
homework. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 402-436.
Xu, J., Du, J., Liu, F. & Huang, B. (2019). Emotion regulation,
homework completion, and math achievement: Testing models of
reciprocal effects. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59,

Article 101810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101810.
Xu, J., Du, J., Wu, S., Ripple, H. & Cosgriff, A. (2018). Reciprocal
effects among parental homework support, effort, and achievement?
An empirical investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2334.
Xu, J., Fan, X. & Du, J. (2017). Homework Emotion Regulation Scale:
Confirming the factor structure with high school students. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 35, 437- 441. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0734282916640438.
Xu, J. & Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior:
homework management at the secondary school level. J. Educ. Res.,
106, 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.658457.
Xu, J. & Yuan, R. (2003). Doing homework: Listening to students’,
parents’, and teachers’ voices in one urban middle school
community. School Community Journal, 13(2), 25–44.
Xu, M., Kushner Benson, S. N., Mudrey-Camino, R. & Steiner, R. P.
(2010). The relationship between parental involvement, self-
regulated learning, and reading achievement of fifth graders: a path
analysis using the ECLS-K database. Social Psychology of
Education, 13(2), 237–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-
9104-4.
Yang, F. & Tu, M. (2020). Self-regulation of homework behaviour:
relating grade, gender, and achievement to homework management.
Educational Psychology, 40(4), 392–408. http://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410.2019.1674784.
Yeager, D. S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., Brzustoski, P.,
Master, A., Hessert, W. T., Williams, M. E. & Cohen, G. L. (2014).
Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical
feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 143(2), 804–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0033906.
Zhu, Y. & Leung, F. K. S. (2012). Homework and mathematics

achievement in Hong Kong: Evidence from the TIMSS 2003.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4),
907-925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9302-3.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2.
Chapter 3
THE ROLE OF THE PERCEIVED

USEFULNESS OF TEACHER FEEDBACK
ON ELEMENTARY STUDENTS’
HOMEWORK ENGAGEMENT
Jennifer Cunha1,*, Juliana Martins1, Sofia Almeida1,

José Carlos Núñez2 and Pedro Rosário1
1
Department of Applied Psychology,
University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
2
Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo,
Oviedo, Spain
ABSTRACT
The impact of homework on students’ school engagement and

achievement differs according to several factors, such as the feedback
provided by the teacher. However, to favor homework engagement, it
seems important that students perceive the feedback as useful – a
* Corresponding Author’s E-mail: jennifer.psiminho@gmail.com.

64 Jennifer Cunha, Juliana Martins, Sofia Almeida et al.
variable that has received little attention in the literature, namely at

elementary school level. Thus, this study aims to analyze the
relationships between elementary students’ perception of the usefulness
of homework feedback and three dimensions of homework engagement
variables: effort, emotions, and the use of self-regulation strategies
during homework completion. The participants were 5th and 6th
graders (N = 299) who responded to self-report instruments focused on
mathematics. A multivariate regression model showed that, controlling
for gender and prior achievement, the perceived usefulness of
homework feedback is positively related to the three outcome variables.
That is, when students perceive homework feedback as useful, they are
likely to increase their homework effort, their positive homework
emotions, and the use of self-regulation strategies. Therefore, to
enhance students’ homework engagement, teachers must be sensitive to
the way students perceive homework feedback.
Keywords: homework feedback usefulness, homework effort, homework

emotions, homework self-regulation, mathematics
INTRODUCTION
Homework is a common task assigned by teachers to their students

throughout schooling (Bembenutty, 2011; Cooper, 2001; Rosário et al.,
2019b). Although several arguments persist, both in favor and against
this educational practice, in most classrooms, the assignment of these
tasks is carried out regularly, in many cases, daily (Danielson et al.,
2011). Homework seems to play an important role in children’s daily
routines (Cooper et al., 2006; Fan et al., 2017) since it promotes
autonomy and responsibility, creates work habits, and helps with
monitoring and reinforcing learning (Cooper, 2001; Cunha et al., 2018a;
Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001). However, the benefits of this educational
tool on students’ school engagement and achievement depend on
homework characteristics (e.g., amount, frequency, purposes, quality
(Dettmers et al., 2010; Rosário et al., 2018) and teacher feedback, namely
written comments and graded homework (Fan et al., 2017; Walberg et al.,
1985). However, only a small number of teachers use these two types of
The Role of the Perceived Usefulness of Teacher Feedback … 65
homework feedback (e.g., Cunha et al., 2018a). Prior research focused on

students’ perspectives on these and other types of homework feedback
commonly provided by teachers (e.g., checking homework completion or
homework control, checking homework on the board) showed low effect
sizes on students’ school and homework engagement (Cunha et al., 2019;
Trautwein et al., 2006). What is more, Xu (2016) suggested that students’
perception on feedback quality (i.e., how students perceive feedback as
helpful and useful) could be even “more powerful” to their homework
engagement than their perception on feedback quantity (p. 103).
However, students’ perception of feedback quality has received little
attention from researchers, especially at the elementary school level.
Therefore, the current study aims to fill this research gap by analyzing the
relationships between elementary school students’ perception of the
usefulness of homework feedback and homework engagement variables.
The Multilevel Homework Model (Dettmers et al., 2011; Trautwein et
al., 2006) provides a relevant theoretical framework for the current study.
Theoretical Framework
The Multilevel Homework Model (MHM) by Trautwein et al. (2006)

was based on empirical evidence about homework and theoretical models
of motivation, as well as of learning and instruction. The MHM includes
three major groups of predictors: i) learning environment/teacher/
homework characteristics (e.g., perception of homework quality,
homework adaptivity, teacher control of homework completion); ii)
student characteristics (e.g., gender, prior achievement); and iii) parental
roles (e.g., homework help, parental homework attitudes). Each one of
these variables predicts students’ homework motivation variables
(expectancy and value beliefs), which, in turn, predicts their homework
behaviors (homework effort, homework time, and cognitive and
metacognitive learning strategies), and the latter predict academic
achievement. Subsequently, Dettmers et al. (2011) added students’
homework emotions as a variable to the aforementioned model. In sum,
the MHM comprises three dimensions of students’ homework

engagement: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional (see Flunger et al.,
2015).
Homework Research Findings
Throughout the years, Trautwein and colleagues have been testing

the relationships between the variables of the MHM with primarily
middle school students (e.g., Nagengast et al., 2013; Trautwein, 2007;
Trautwein et al., 2009). Other authors have also been investigating
predictors of students’ homework engagement, including homework
purposes (e.g., Rosário et al., 2018), personality traits (e.g., Lubbers et
al., 2010), and teacher feedback (e.g., Núñez et al., 2015, 2019). Given
the purpose of the current study, the research findings related to teacher
feedback will be described.
In short, teacher feedback on homework can be defined as the
information provided to students regarding their level of involvement in
homework completion (e.g., effort, number of tasks completed), the
accuracy of their answers, their comprehension of the assignment’s
contents, and the procedures to improve or correct their assignment
(Cooper, 2001; Cunha et al., 2018a). Teachers can deliver homework
feedback in several ways, but general and less time-consuming feedback
types provided to the whole class (i.e., checking homework completion,
checking homework on the board) are the most used (Cunha et al., 2018a;
Rosário et al., 2015; 2019a).
Teacher feedback has been investigated using global measures of
homework feedback practices (e.g., Xu & Wu, 2013) or specific types of
feedback as homework control (e.g., Trautwein & Ludtke, 2009) or
checking homework completion, checking homework on the board,
grading homework, praise, constructive criticism (e.g., Cunha et al.,
2019). Globally, teacher homework feedback perceived by students is
beneficial to various variables of homework engagement. For example,
results showed positive associations with reported self-regulation
strategies during homework completion such as arranging the

environment, managing or optimizing time, handling distraction,
monitoring motivation, controlling emotion, and using deep learning
strategies, as well as with homework interest and the amount of
homework completed (e.g., Núñez et al., 2015; Tas et al., 2016; Xu &
Wu, 2013; Xu et al., 2017; Xu, 2008, 2018). Furthermore, regarding
homework control, mixed results can be found. For example, students
understanding this practice as constructive behavior (e.g., “Our teacher
makes sure that we all try hard on our homework”) is positively related to
homework effort (e.g., Nagengast et al., 2013; Trautwein & Ludtke,
2009). However, if students perceive this teacher practice as controlling
(e.g., “If we haven’t done our French homework, we get into trouble with
our teacher”), the result can be the opposite (Trautwein et al., 2006).
The study recently conducted by Cunha et al. (2019) further
investigated sixth-grade mathematics students’ perception of homework
feedback. In the same statistical model, these authors analyzed various
types of homework feedback: checking homework completion, checking
homework on the board, grading homework, praise, and constructive
criticism. Although the outcome variables were focused on school
engagement rather than exclusively homework engagement, this work
provides useful insights, particularly the qualitative data collected to help
explain quantitative results. Results showed that checking homework
completion, checking homework on the board, praise, and constructive
criticism are positively related to the three dimensions of student school
engagement: homework effort, amount of homework completed, and
participation in class (i.e., behavioral dimension); the use of self-
regulation strategies to complete school tasks or study at home (i.e.,
cognitive dimension); and the experience of positive academic emotions
such as enjoyment and pride (i.e., emotional dimension). Despite these
positive results, low effect sizes were found. The qualitative findings of
this research provided further information. Students reported that
checking homework completion was valuable in encouraging them to put
more effort into their homework (behavioral dimension); they felt
satisfaction and pride (emotional dimension) when they were able to
deliver homework to the teacher in class. However, there also were

students reporting feeling worried and anxious during this teacher
practice because they were not able to fully complete homework or were
not sure if it was correct, making them fear for the consequences (e.g.,
punishment). Moreover, after the homework has been checked for
completion, to verify if the answers were correct, one part of the students
compared their homework against the solutions presented on the school
board, using strategies like marking to identify errors (cognitive
dimension). This practice was useful to help them monitor their
comprehension and “learn what content they need to further study or
practice” (Cunha et al., 2019, p. 116). On the other hand, there were also
students feeling frustrated or worried due to the lack of accuracy of their
answers, others being distracted and not paying attention when
homework was being checked on the board. Some explanations were
provided: i) students stated that sometimes this teacher practice lasted the
entire class due to the high number of exercises, and they ended up losing
interest, feeling bored and tired; ii) other students had already received
feedback about their assignments by a teacher at the study center, where
these students completed homework. In this case, students probably did
not see the usefulness of the time and energy spent on providing
homework feedback in the classroom. In sum, qualitative findings
indicated that homework feedback may also lead to students’ behavioral,
cognitive and emotional disengagement and that students perceive
differently the usefulness of homework feedback, which may help
explain the low effect sizes of homework feedback found in the
quantitative phase of the study (Cunha et al., 2019). Importantly, these
findings are interesting and illustrate with empirical data the conceptual
model of the student perspective in feedback processes by van der Kleij
(2019). In brief, according to this model, the teacher provides feedback to
their students (the intended feedback), but this message may be perceived
differently by the students depending on how they value and interpret its
usefulness; for example, the usefulness in improving their work (van der
Kleij, 2019). That is, the feedback message provided by the teacher may
not have the impact intended. For this reason, in the context of homework
research, it seems pertinent to analyze the perceived usefulness of

feedback in preference to the specific types of feedback provided.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, Xu (2016) validated a scale of
teacher homework involvement that encompasses feedback quality (i.e.,
students’ perception of feedback as helpful and useful) among other
subscales. Pearson coefficients showed positive correlations with middle
school students’ homework management (cognitive dimension), effort,
and completion (behavioral dimension). More recently, Xu (2020) found
a positive relationship between feedback quality, but not feedback
quantity, and middle and high school students’ homework interest
assessed as the way students enjoy homework and look forward to doing
it (emotional dimension). However, and despite a few works on the topic,
the literature lacks studies analyzing the relationships between
elementary students' perception of the usefulness of homework feedback
and their homework engagement.
Aim of the Study
Students perceive differently the homework feedback provided by

their teacher (e.g., Cunha et al., 2019). In fact, the effectiveness of
homework feedback and its relationship to outcome variables may
depend on whether students perceive homework feedback as useful (Xu,
2016, 2020). Moreover, students’ school level and characteristics may
influence how they perceive the usefulness of feedback (van der Kleij,
2019). However, importantly, no studies with elementary students in the
context of homework research were found. In addition, it is pertinent to
analyze the three dimensions of homework engagement in the same
model, given that they are interrelated (e.g., Sinatra et al., 2015).
Thus, the main aim of this study is to bridge the gap in the literature
in relation to the study of the perceived usefulness of homework
feedback, relating this variable to three outcome variables: self-regulation
(SR) during homework (cognitive homework engagement), homework
effort (behavioral homework engagement), and positive homework
emotions such as enjoyment and pride (emotional homework

engagement). Grounded on the theoretical model MHM, the perceived
usefulness of homework feedback is hypothesized to be positively
associated with cognitive (H1), behavioral (H2), and emotional (H3)
engagement.
Acknowledging that variables such as gender and prior achievement
predict students’ homework engagement (e.g., homework effort,
emotions) (Rosário et al., 2018, 2019; Trautwein et al., 2009) and may
influence students’ perception of feedback usefulness (van der Kleij),
these variables will be included in the statistical model. Effectively,
female students tend to show more homework effort, use more strategies
to complete homework, and control negative homework emotions better
than their male counterparts (Rosário et al., 2018; Trautwein et al., 2006;
Xu, 2007, 2010). In addition, prior achievement also influences students’
involvement in homework (Piñero et al., 2019; Rosário et al., 2018).
Lastly, the current study is focused on the domain of mathematics, as
teachers typically assign more homework in this subject and report
spending more time providing homework feedback in mathematics than
their counterparts teaching other subjects (Cunha et al., 2018a, 2019).
METHOD
Sample
In the current study, we used a convenience sample. Twelve classes

were recruited from one school in the North Region of Portugal. This
school has already participated in a prior study of the research group
(Cunha et al., 2019); however, the selected classes of the current study
participated for the first time. Those 12 classes, five from the 5th grade
and seven from 6th grade, were taught by six mathematics teachers (two
females; and two with post-grad education) with a mean of 20.83 years of
teaching experience (SD = 4.96), ranging from 14 to 25. In addition,
these teachers reported 20.33 teaching hours per week (SD = 1.97),
ranging from 20 to 25.
Participants were 299 students (137 female) from the 5th and 6th
grade, none with special educational needs, with ages ranging from 10 to
13 (M = 10.78; SD = 0.65). These students showed a mathematics grades
mean of 3.51 (SD = .951; range: [1, 5]). The 5th grade (n = 125; 50
female) with ages ranging from 10 to 13 (M = 10.22; SD = 0.49), showed
a mathematics grades mean of 3.39 (SD =.957). The 6th grade students (n
= 174; 87 female) with ages ranging from 11 to 13 (M = 11.18; SD =
0.42), showed a mathematics grades mean of 3.59 (SD =.940).
Procedure
This study was approved by the Portuguese Ministry of Education

and the Ethics Committee of the University of Minho. Prior to data
collection, the students’ parents signed an informed consent, which
explained the goal of the study, as well as its voluntary and confidential
character. Furthermore, the students that obtained consent to participate
in the study were informed that their participation would be voluntary
and that they could decide to decline at any time.
The scales and questionnaires were answered without a teacher
present. This data collection was arranged with the teachers and the
directors in order to avoid interfering with normal class functioning and
regular evaluation moments.
Measures
Personal Variables
Information regarding sociodemographic data (e.g., age, student
gender, class) was collected. This included a question concerning the
prior classification students achieved in math during their previous school
year, varying from 1 to 5 (where 1 and 2 were identified as failure, 3 as a

passing grade, 4 as good, and 5 as excellent).
Perceived Usefulness of Homework Feedback

To assess the perceived usefulness of homework feedback, students
were given the following prompt “The homework corrections and
comments provided by my math teacher help me…,” along with six items
(i.e., “identify my errors”; “understand how I can improve”; “understand
which type of contents I have to practice”; “correct my errors”;
“understand the material covered in class”; “clarify any doubts or
questions I might have”) rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These items were based on prior research
(Cunha et al., 2019; Harks et al., 2014; Rakoczy et al., 2013). The
internal validity of this scale in the current study is good (α = .83).
Cognitive Homework Engagement

Cognitive homework engagement was assessed through a scale
comprised of six items from the SRL strategies inventory (Núñez et al.,
2013) relating to homework or study at home. The items focus on the
three phases of the SR process: planning (e.g., ‘‘For example, if I have
homework, I think if I have the necessary information, when I will do it,
who I will ask for help…’’), execution (e.g., ‘‘If I become distracted or
lose concentration while I am doing homework or studying, then I try
hard to focus on the task to achieve my goals.’’), and evaluation (e.g., ‘‘I
keep and analyze the corrections of the mathematics homework
assignments/tests to check what I did wrong and to know what I have to
change to improve.’’). Responses were rated using a 5-point Likert scale
from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Cronbach’s alpha in a prior study was .79
(Cunha et al., 2018b); however, with the sample of the current research,
Cronbach’s alpha was .59.
Behavioral Homework Engagement

Behavioral homework engagement was assessed through the
homework effort scale (Dettmers et al., 2010; Rosário et al., 2018)
containing four items (e.g., “I do my best in my mathematics

homework”; “I always try to do my complete mathematics homework”),
using a Likert scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always). The internal validity of
this scale in the current study is good (α = .71).
Emotional Homework Engagement

Emotional homework engagement was assessed by the positive
homework emotions scale (Cunha et al., 2018b), which assesses the
positive emotions regarding homework. It is comprised of 4 items, two
items portraying enjoyment (e.g., “The material we deal with in math is
so exciting that I really enjoy my homework”) and the other two
portraying pride (e.g., “When doing math homework, I think I can be
proud of my knowledge”). These items were rated using a 5-point Likert
scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The internal validity of this scale in
the current study is good (α = .79).
Data Analysis
The current study aims to analyze the relationships between the

perceived usefulness of homework feedback (i.e., independent variable)
and the three dimensions of homework engagement (i.e., dependent
variables), controlling the predictive effects of two covariates (i.e.,
gender and prior achievement). As dimensions of engagement are
interrelated (e.g., Cunha et al., 2019; Sinatra et al., 2015), a multivariate
regression model was run, as this analysis considers more than one
dependent variable and the correlations between them (e.g., Finch &
Finch, 2017). In this multivariate regression model, the mentioned
covariates were included. Firstly, exploratory data analysis was
performed to confirm assumptions of normal distribution. All analyses
were conducted using IMB SPSS Statistics 26.
As in Piñero et al. (2019), the partial eta-squared coefficient (η2p) was
used as a measure of the effect size, and the benchmarks by Cohen
(1988) were used to interpret its values. Partial η2 of .001, .059, and .138
correspond to small, medium, and large effect sizes respectively (Cohen,

1988).
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics and the correlation

coefficients matrix corresponding to the variables of interest to the
current study. Only statistically significant relationships will be reported
hereafter.
Table 1. Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics

(N = 299)
PHFU CHE BHE EHE SG PA

PHFU - .470*** .531*** .638*** -.118* .393***
CHE - .398*** .536*** -.052 .273***
BHE - .562*** -.051 .551***
EHE - -.021 .366***
SG - .019
PA -
M 4.283 4.025 3.493 3.920 0.540 3.510
SD 0.644 0.681 0.515 0.837 0.499 0.951
PUHF = Perceived usefulness of homework feedback; CHE = Cognitive homework engagement;
BHE = Behavioral homework engagement; EHE = Emotional homework engagement; SG =
Student gender; PA = Prior mathematics achievement. All variables are measured on the same
scale (minimum = 1, maximum = 5) except homework behavioral engagement (minimum = 1,
maximum = 4) and student gender (female = 0; male = 1). When one variable is dichotomous
(SG; 0,1) and the other variables are continuous, a Pearson correlation is equivalent to a Point
Biserial correlation.
* p < .05; *** p < .001.
Perceived usefulness of homework feedback was positively

correlated with cognitive (p < .001), behavioral (p < .001), and emotional
(p < .001) homework engagement, as well as with prior mathematics
achievement (p < .001). However, it was negatively correlated with
student gender (p = .042), which indicates that higher perceived

usefulness of homework feedback is associated with female students.
Prior mathematics achievement was also positively correlated with
cognitive (p < .001), behavioral (p < .001), and emotional homework
engagement (p < .001). Cognitive engagement was positively correlated
with behavioral (p < .001) and emotional (p < .001) engagement. Finally,
behavioral and emotional homework engagement were also positively
correlated (p < .001).
Multivariate Regression Model
Not all tests of exploratory data analysis allowed confirmation of

normal distribution. However, considering the central limit theorem,
normal distribution can be assumed in large samples; samples of 100
participants present better normal distribution than samples of 30
participants (e.g., Field, 2013). For this reason, normality can be assumed
in the current study (N = 299). All assumptions required for running
multivariate regression analysis were confirmed, and the results are
presented hereafter.
Table 2 provides the data estimates for the multivariate regression
model, including perceived usefulness of homework feedback as a fixed
factor (independent variable), cognitive, behavioral, and emotional
homework engagement (dimensions of homework engagement as
dependent variables), and gender and prior achievement as covariates.
The model is statistically significant, controlling for gender and prior
achievement, V = 0.56, F (63, 810) = 2.97, p < .001, η2p = .19. Gender is
not statistically related to any of the dimensions of homework
engagement: cognitive: F (1, 293) = 0.12, p = .725, η2p = .000;
behavioral: F (1, 293) = 0.34, p = .560, η2p = .001; and emotional:
F (1, 293) = 0.89, p = .347, η2p = .003. Prior achievement is related to
behavioral (F (1, 293) = 57.56, p < .001, η2p = .176) and emotional
(F (1, 293) = 3.96, p < .05, η2p = .014) homework engagement, but not to
cognitive homework engagement (F (1, 293) = 1.90, p = .169,
η2p = .007). Perceived usefulness of homework feedback is positively

related to cognitive (F (21, 293) = 3.37, p < .001, η2p = .208), behavioral
(F (21, 293) = 4.23, p < .001, η2p = .248), and emotional (F (21, 293) =
8.16, p < .001, η2p = .389) engagement during homework completion.
The effect sizes for all significant results are large. Moreover, the
multivariate regression model explained 21% of variance for cognitive
homework engagement (R2A = .205), 44% of variance for behavioral
homework engagement (R2A = .435), and 43% of variance for emotional
homework engagement (R2A = .425).
Table 2. Estimates Data for the Multivariate Regression Model
B SE t p IC 95% η2p
Lower Upper
CHE
Intercept 4.165 .200 20.868 .000 3.772 4.558 .618
Student gender -.026 .074 -.352 .725 -.172 .120 .000
Prior achievement .059 .043 1.378 .169 -.025 .144 .007
PHFU_1 -1.865 .633 -2.947 .003 -3.112 -.619 .031
PHFU_2 -1.604 .451 -3.557 .000 -2.492 -.716 .045
PHFU_3 -1.397 .373 -3.743 .000 -2.132 -.662 .049
PHFU_4 -.663 .445 -1.491 .137 -1.540 .213 .008
PHFU_5 -1.115 .369 -3.018 .003 -1.842 -.387 .033
PHFU_6 -2.104 .451 -4.665 .000 -2.992 -1.216 .075
PHFU_7 -.842 .373 -2.255 .025 -1.577 -.107 .019
PHFU_8 -.592 .230 -2.570 .011 -1.045 -.138 .024
PHFU_9 -.422 .323 -1.305 .193 -1.058 .215 .006
PHFU_10 -1.284 .625 -2.054 .041 -2.515 -.053 .015
PHFU_11 -.651 .239 -2.728 .007 -1.122 -.181 .027
PHFU_12 -.644 .239 -2.691 .008 -1.115 -.173 .026
PHFU_13 -.513 .184 -2.788 .006 -.875 -.151 .028
PHFU_14 -.533 .158 -3.370 .001 -.844 -.221 .041
PHFU_15 -.462 .178 -2.605 .010 -.812 -.113 .025
PHFU_16 -.271 .143 -1.889 .060 -.554 .011 .013
PHFU_17 -.769 .621 -1.238 .217 -1.991 .454 .006
PHFU_18 -.165 .149 -1.105 .270 -.459 .129 .005
PHFU_19 -.134 .448 -.299 .765 -1.015 .747 .000
PHFU_20 -.118 .144 -.815 .416 -.402 .167 .002
PHFU_21 -.164 .139 -1.179 .240 -.437 .110 .005
PHFU_22 0a . . . . . .
BHE
Lower Upper
Intercept 3.009 .127 23.616 .000 2.758 3.260 .675
Student gender -.028 .047 -.584 .560 -.121 .066 .001
Prior achievement .208 .027 7.587 .000 .154 .262 .176
PHFU_1 -.440 .404 -1.088 .278 -1.235 .356 .004
PHFU_2 -1.162 .288 -4.035 .000 -1.728 -.595 .057
PHFU_3 -.976 .238 -4.097 .000 -1.446 -.507 .059
PHFU_4 -.245 .284 -.862 .389 -.804 .314 .003
PHFU_5 -.509 .236 -2.158 .032 -.973 -.045 .017
PHFU_6 -.537 .288 -1.864 .063 -1.103 .030 .013
PHFU_7 -.976 .238 -4.097 .000 -1.446 -.507 .059
PHFU_8 -.583 .147 -3.966 .000 -.872 -.293 .055
PHFU_9 -.352 .206 -1.708 .089 -.759 .054 .011
PHFU_10 -1.092 .399 -2.737 .007 -1.878 -.307 .027
PHFU_11 -.464 .152 -3.041 .003 -.764 -.163 .033
PHFU_12 -.417 .153 -2.728 .007 -.717 -.116 .027
PHFU_13 -.474 .117 -4.036 .000 -.705 -.243 .057
PHFU_14 -.379 .101 -3.755 .000 -.578 -.180 .050
PHFU_15 -.302 .113 -2.664 .008 -.525 -.079 .026
PHFU_16 -.073 .092 -.801 .424 -.254 .107 .002
PHFU_17 -.022 .396 -.057 .955 -.803 .758 .000
PHFU_18 -.277 .095 -2.909 .004 -.465 -.090 .030
PHFU_19 -.641 .286 -2.243 .026 -1.203 -.078 .018
PHFU_20 -.095 .092 -1.028 .305 -.276 .087 .004
PHFU_21 -.012 .089 -.132 .895 -.186 .163 .000
PHFU_22 0a . . . . . .
EHE
Intercept 4.069 .208 19.576 .000 3.659 4.478 .588
Student gender .073 .077 .943 .347 -.079 .225 .003
Prior achievement .089 .045 1.987 .048 .001 .177 .014
PHFU_1 -2.730 .659 -4.142 .000 -4.028 -1.433 .060
PHFU_2 -2.658 .470 -5.659 .000 -3.583 -1.733 .106
PHFU_3 -1.519 .389 -3.908 .000 -2.285 -.754 .054
PHFU_4 -1.997 .463 -4.310 .000 -2.909 -1.085 .065
PHFU_5 -1.771 .385 -4.606 .000 -2.528 -1.014 .073
PHFU_6 -2.658 .470 -5.659 .000 -3.583 -1.733 .106
PHFU_7 -1.491 .389 -3.836 .000 -2.257 -.726 .052
PHFU_8 -1.338 .240 -5.583 .000 -1.810 -.866 .104
PHFU_9 -.787 .337 -2.339 .020 -1.450 -.125 .020
PHFU_10 -1.580 .651 -2.427 .016 -2.861 -.298 .021
PHFU_11 -.760 .249 -3.057 .002 -1.250 -.271 .034
PHFU_12 -.937 .249 -3.758 .000 -1.427 -.446 .050
PHFU_13 -1.082 .192 -5.645 .000 -1.459 -.704 .106
PHFU_14 -.838 .165 -5.093 .000 -1.162 -.514 .088
Table 2. (Continued)
Lower Upper
PHFU_15 -.592 .185 -3.202 .002 -.956 -.228 .037
PHFU_16 -.331 .149 -2.216 .028 -.625 -.037 .018
PHFU_17 -.836 .646 -1.294 .197 -2.109 .437 .006
PHFU_18 -.402 .156 -2.586 .010 -.709 -.096 .024
PHFU_19 -.827 .466 -1.776 .077 -1.745 .090 .012
PHFU_20 -.103 .150 -.686 .493 -.399 .193 .002
PHFU_21 -.012 .145 -.082 .935 -.296 .273 .000
PHFU_22 0a . . . . . .
CHE = Cognitive homework engagement; BHE = Behavioral homework engagement; EHE =
Emotional homework engagement; PUHF = Perceived usefulness of homework feedback; _1 =
mean 1.00; _2 = mean 2.17; _3 = mean 2.33; _4 = mean 2.50; _5 = mean 2.67; _6 = mean 2.83;
_7 = mean 3.00; _8 = mean 3.17; _9 = 3.33; _10 = mean 3.40; _11 = mean 3.50; _12 = mean
3.67; _13 = mean 3.83; _14 = mean 4.00; _15 = mean 4.17; _16 = mean 4.33; _17 = mean 4.40;
_18 = mean 4.50; _19 = mean 4.60; _20 = mean 4.67; _21 = mean 4.83; _22 = mean 5.00.
0a This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
DISCUSSION
The main aim of this study was to fill the gap in the literature by
analyzing the relationships between the perceived usefulness of
homework feedback and the three dimensions of elementary students’
homework engagement: cognitive (SR during homework), behavioral
(i.e., homework effort), and emotional (positive homework emotions,
such as enjoyment and pride). In the analytic plan, students’ gender and
prior achievement were included as covariates.
Regarding the predictive effects of the two covariates, contrary to
prior studies (e.g., Rosário et al., 2018; Trautwein et al., 2006; Xu, 2007,
2010), students’ gender is not significantly associated with homework
engagement. However, this current data is consistent with recent
research, which did not find significant relationships between gender and
students’ homework engagement, for example, homework interest (Xu,
2020). Alternatively, as expected, prior achievement is positively and
significantly associated with the three dimensions of homework
engagement, which is consistent with prior research (e.g., Piñero et al.,

2019; Rosário et al., 2018). Controlling the predictive effects of these two
covariates, in line with the MHM proposed by Trautwein et al. (2006)
and as hypothesized, data show that the perceived usefulness of
homework feedback is positively and significantly related to cognitive
(H1), behavioral (H2), and emotional (H3) engagement during homework
completion. In these results, it is important to highlight the effect sizes
found. Contrary to studies reporting students’ perception of teacher
homework feedback (e.g., Cunha et al., 2019; Núñez et al., 2015;
Trautwein et al., 2006) with low effect sizes or explained variances, in
the current study, the effect sizes are large for each dimension of
homework engagement: cognitive, behavioral, and emotional (.208 < η2p
< .389). These results are consistent with the literature claiming that the
usefulness of feedback has more influence on students’ outcomes than
the teacher feedback per se (Harks et al., 2014; van der Kleij, 2019; Xu,
2016). Xu (2020) found a positive relationship between feedback quality
(how feedback is helpful and useful), not feedback quantity, and middle
and high school students’ homework interest (a proxy of emotional
homework engagement). The current study extends the work by Xu
(2020) to the elementary school level while investigating the three
dimensions of homework engagement.
The positive results of the current study merit educators' attention to
maximize the benefits of homework feedback on students' homework
engagement and, ultimately, to further their learning and academic
achievement. Given the importance of students’ perception of the
usefulness of homework feedback, how can teachers help their students
perceive the usefulness of the information provided? The knowledge
gathered from the literature focused on formative feedback (e.g., Hattie &
Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008) and recent qualitative homework research
(e.g., Cunha et al., 2018a, 2019; Rosário et al., 2019a) may provide
useful contributions.
Overall, the feedback, providing concise and clear information about
what students did well, what they need to improve, and how, contributes
to improving students’ learning and performance (e.g., Hattie &
Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008). For example, according to the model

proposed by Hattie and Timperley (2007, p. 86), effective feedback
answers to three major questions: “Where am I going?” (i.e.,
communication of learning goals), “How am I going?” (i.e., current
performance), and “Where to next?” (i.e., information on how to improve
performance). Empirical evidence has shown that feedback structured
according to these three questions (i.e., process-oriented feedback, as
named by some authors) is perceived as being more useful and is related
to students’ self-competence, engagement (e.g., interest), and
performance (e.g., Harks et al., 2014; Rakoczy et al., 2013, 2019;
Wollenschläger et al., 2016; see also Högemann et al., 2021).
Regarding homework feedback, checking homework on the board
allows teachers to address the three above-mentioned questions without
being so time- and energy-consuming as individualized types of
homework feedback, such as written comments (Cunha et al., 2018a;
Rosário et al., 2015). This practice allows the whole class to receive
feedback; however, its actual reach is certainly lower. Not all students
master self-regulation skills at a level that allows them to compare their
procedures to solve exercises and answers against those written on the
board (see Cunha et al., 2019). For these students, just checking their
homework on the board may not be useful to identify, understand, and
correct their mistakes. For this reason, teachers may complement
checking homework on the board with individualized oral comments. For
example, while homework is being checked on the board, the teacher
may approach students in their seats and dialogue with them about their
specific difficulties and misconceptions (Rosário et al., 2019a). This way,
teachers may respond to students’ needs, help them understand the
intended messages, and, consequently, facilitate students’ perception of
the usefulness of feedback. Unfortunately, as simple and commonsensical
as these suggestions may seem, they are frequently difficult to put into
practice. Qualitative data (e.g., Cunha et al., 2018a, 2019) indicate that
sometimes i) homework feedback practices take too much class time,
leading to students’ disinterest, boredom, and tiredness; ii) students may
perceive teachers walking around the classroom looking into their
notebooks as intimidating, which may cause fear and anxiety; and iii)
teachers may provide critical comments with irony in front of the class,
which leads to negative student feelings and interferes with their
perception of the usefulness of feedback. Taken all together, teachers
may need to rethink homework characteristics (e.g., short and purposeful
assignments requiring less time for providing feedback) and build a
classroom climate of error acceptance (i.e., error being part of the
learning process) to facilitate students’ perception of homework feedback
practices as informative rather than controlling (see Cunha et al., 2019;
Trautwein et al., 2006, 2009). This is essential for students to perceive
feedback as useful and consequently be more engaged when completing
homework.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite the relevance of this study and the resulting practical

implications, some limitations need to be acknowledged. First, data was
collected with a limited, convenience sample, which prevented running a
multilevel analysis to account for the nested nature of data (see Trautwein
et al., 2006) and to generalize findings. Moreover, due to the cross-
sectional nature of this study, no causal inferences are allowed, so
interpretations should take this aspect into consideration.
In addition, all variables of the study were assessed using self-
reports, which do not capture real-time responses, for example, of the
students’ homework engagement (Rosário et al., 2018). Finally, there is
the issue of the third-variable (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006, 2009). In non-
experimental studies, as is the case of the current research, other predictor
variables not included in the model may influence homework
engagement. This also explains that the model is not fully saturated.
Taken together, some suggestions may be considered for future
research. First, the study may be replicated with large and randomized
samples in order to run multilevel models. Moreover, the current study
extends the research by Xu (2020) to the elementary school level, still the
new knowledge gathered is limited. Future research may include a

participant sample comprised of the three school levels, given that prior
studies showed that students ’perception of teacher homework feedback
decreases from elementary to high school (Katz et al., 2010; Núñez et al.,
2015). It would be interesting to test if future research finds similar
results to these regarding the perception of feedback's usefulness and to
analyze the relationship between the perception of feedback as useful and
students' homework engagement throughout schooling. In addition,
beyond the perceived usefulness of homework feedback, future research
may consider investigating the time spent on providing homework
feedback, students’ classroom engagement during homework feedback,
and the use of the teachers’ feedback. These further investigations are
relevant, given that prior qualitative studies indicated that students show
heterogeneous behaviors during and after teacher feedback practices
(e.g., Cunha et al., 2019; Rosário et al., 2019a). Furthermore, researchers
may use instruments to collect data other than self-reports as used in the
current study. For example, researchers could use on-task measures such
as diaries to capture approximate real-time responses (Rosário et al.,
2018). Finally, researchers may also consider collecting data focusing on
various subjects, given the specificity of homework engagement in each
domain (see Trautwein et al., 2006).
REFERENCES
Bembenutty, H. (2011). The last word: An interview with Harris Cooper-

research, policies, tips, and current perspectives on homework.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 340-350. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1932202x1102200207.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences,
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, H. (2001). The battle over homework: Common ground for
administrators, teachers, and parents (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework

improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003.
Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62. https://doi.org/10.
3102/00346543076001001.
T. (2018a). Homework feedback is…: Elementary and middle school
teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00032.
Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Martins, J., &
Högemann, J. (2019). Does teacher homework feedback matter to 6th
graders’ school engagement?: a mixed methods study. Metacognition
and Learning, 14(2), 89-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-
09200-z.
Cunha, J., Xu, J., Rosário, P., & Núñez, J. C. (2018b). Validity and
reliability of the parental homework management scale. Psicothema,
30(3), 337-343. doi:10.7334/psicothema2017.426.
Danielson, M. L., Strom, B., & Kramer, K. (2011). Real homework tasks:
A pilot study of types, values, and resource requirements.
Educational Research Quarterly, 35(1), 17-32.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., &
Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in
mathematics: Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and
achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
36(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.001.
(2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: using
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018453.
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes:
Teachers‘ roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist,
36(3), 181–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4.
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. Educational Research Review, 20, 35-54. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, (4th
ed.). London: Sage.
Finch, W. H., & Finch, M. E. H. (2017). Multivariate regression with
small samples: A comparison of estimation methods. General Linear
Model Journal, 43(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.31523/glmj.043001.
002.
Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A., &
Schnyder, I. (2015). The Janus-faced nature of time spent on
homework: Using latent profile analyses to predict academic
achievement over a school year. Learning and Instruction, 39, 97-
Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The
effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the
role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology,
34(3), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346
5430298487.
Högemann, J., Cunha, J., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Rodríguez, C., &
Rosário, P. (2021). Writing intervention with elementary students
struggling with writing: examining approach profiles to the teacher
feedback on writing quality and motivational variables. Reading and
Writing, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10159-0.
Katz, I., Kaplan, A., & Gueta, G. (2010). Students’ needs, teachers’
support, and motivation for doing homework: A cross-sectional
study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 246–267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292868.
Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P., Kuyper, H., & Hendriks, A. J.
(2010). Does homework behavior mediate the relation between
personality and academic performance?. Learning and Individual
differences, 20(3), 203-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.
005.
Núñez, J. C., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Piñeiro, I., Rodicio, M. L., &
Valle, A. (2019). Student perception of teacher and parent
involvement in homework and student engagement: The mediating
role of motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-16. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01384.
Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2013).
A longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of a school-based
mentoring program in middle school. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 38(1), 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.
10.002.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., & Valle, A.
(2015). Teachers’ feedback on homework, homework-related
behaviors, and academic achievement. The Journal of Educational
research, 108(3), 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.
878298.
Piñeiro, I., Estévez, I., Freire, C., de Caso, A., Souto, A., & González-
Sanmamed, M. (2019). The role of prior achievement as an
antecedent to student homework engagement. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00140.
Rakoczy, K., Harks, B., Klieme, E., Blum, W., & Hochweber, J. (2013).
Written feedback in mathematics: Mediated by students' perception,
moderated by goal orientation. Learning and Instruction, 27, 63-73.
Rakoczy, K., Pinger, P., Hochweber, J., Klieme, E., Schütze, B., &
Besser, M. (2019). Formative assessment in mathematics: Mediated
by feedback's perceived usefulness and students' self-efficacy.
Learning and Instruction, 60, 154-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Rosário, P., Cunha, J., Nunes, A. R., Moreira, T., Núñez, J. C., & Xu, J.
(2019a). “Did you do your homework?” Mathematics teachers’
homework follow-up practices at middle school level. Psychology in
the Schools, 56, 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22198.
C. (2019b). “Homework should be… but we do not live in an ideal
world”: Mathematics teachers’ perspectives on quality homework

and on homework assigned in elementary and middle schools.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2019.00224.
Fuentes, S., & Moreira, T. (2015b). The effects of teachers'
homework follow-up practices on students' EFL performance: a
randomized-group design. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11.
04.001.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational
research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313
795.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of
defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational
Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.
1002924.
Tas, Y., Sungur, S., & Oztekin, C. (2016). Development and validation of
science homework scale for middle-school students. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 417-444.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9582-5.
homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 372-388.
Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2007). Students' self-reported effort and
time on homework in six school subjects: Between-students
differences and within-student variation. Journal of educational
psychology, 99(2), 432-444. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.

2.432.
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. Learning
and Instruction, 19(3), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learn
instruc.2008.05.001.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting
homework effort: support for a domain-specific, multilevel
456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438.
Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Between-
students' homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 176. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-0663.101.1.176.
van der Kleij, F. M. (2019). Comparison of teacher and student
perceptions of formative assessment feedback practices and
association with individual student characteristics. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 85, 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.
2019.06.010.
Walberg, H. J., Paschal, R. A., & Weinstein, T. (1985). Homework's
powerful effects on learning. Educational Leadership, 42(1), 76-79.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017).
Supporting learners' agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic
review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational
Psychologist, 52(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.
1207538.
Xu, J. (2007). Middle‐school homework management: More than just
189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066669.
Xu, J. (2010). Predicting homework time management at the secondary
Differences, 20(1), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.

11.001.
Xu, J. (2011). Homework completion at the secondary school level: A
multilevel analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(3),
171-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003636752.
Xu, J. (2016). A study of the validity and reliability of the teacher
homework involvement scale: a psychometric evaluation.
Measurement, 93, 102-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.
2016.07.012.
Xu, J. (2018). Emotion regulation in mathematics homework: An
empirical study. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1175409.
Xu, J. (2020). Individual and class-level factors for middle school
students’ interest in math homework. Learning and Motivation, 72,
101673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101673.
Xu, J., & Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior:
Homework management at the secondary school level. The Journal
00220671.2012.658457.
Xu, J., Du, J., & Fan, X. (2017). Self-regulation of mathematics
homework behavior: An empirical investigation. The Journal of
Educational Research, 110(5), 467-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220671.2015.1125837.
Chapter 4
HOMEWORK AND DEALING WITH

DIVERSITY: AN EMPIRICAL REVIEW
Amanda Abín, Tania Pasarín-Lavín, Trinidad García,

José Carlos Núñez and Celestino Rodríguez*
Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo,
Oviedo, Spain
ABSTRACT
The aim of this chapter is to discuss the importance of homework,

despite the negative perceptions some have of it, with many parents and
students believing it to be excessive. We specifically focus on family
and teacher involvement in homework, including students with different
learning styles, capacities, and personal characteristics who would be
covered by “Dealing with Diversity.” We present a variety of
theoretical models and studies that explain the influence of personal and
contextual variables and their relationships with homework and
academic performance.
*
Corresponding Author’s E-mail: rodriguezcelestino@uniovi.es.
90 Amanda Abín, Tania Pasarín-Lavín, Trinidad García et al.
Subsequently, we look at the differences between family and

teacher involvement in homework; the former being defined as home-
based involvement, while the latter focuses on setting and marking
homework. These relationships may change when we include students
who are addressed as part of “Dealing with Diversity.” Throughout the
chapter, the benefits of homework are discussed, as well as the need to
tailor it to students’ personal characteristics, and to set quality
homework adapted to online education resulting from COVID-19.
Keywords: homework, family involvement, teacher involvement, dealing

with diversity
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, homework has been the subject of criticism in the

media and by parents’ associations and has become a high-profile issue.
But does homework really have so many drawbacks, and is the fact of
homework being set or not more important than its quality?
Two perspectives can be found in the current literature, one
advocating for the elimination of homework, focusing on quantity, the
other advocating for better quality homework. Various recent studies
have shown the usefulness and importance of homework and the different
ways of designing and assigning it so that it is of high quality.
It is therefore a question of determining what homework contributes
to student learning, what conditions and circumstances contribute to
setting homework that improves student learning and performance, and
what variables affect this, such as family or teacher involvement, the
methodology used, and students’ special educational needs.
Based on this brief introduction, we provide a theoretical overview
and a review of the latest research. First, we discuss the concept of
homework and its theoretical models. Subsequently, we examine the
influence of family and teacher involvement, considering student
diversity.
Homework and Dealing with Diversity 91
HOMEWORK
Homework is quite a controversial topic in today’s educational

world. It is defined as teachers’ assignment of tasks to students that must
be completed outside of school hours in order to transfer knowledge to
other contexts (Cosden et al. 2001; Cooper, Steenbergen-Hu, & Dent
2012). Students all over the world spend hours on homework, especially
in mathematics or language subjects, and it is common for the amount of
homework to increase as the students progress through their schooling
(Göllner et al. 2017). Although there is much research on homework,
mixed results have been found about its benefits, with different authors
finding advantages and disadvantages (Keane & Heinz 2019; Magalhães
et al. 2020; Zare et al. 2017), as shown in the following table (Table 1).
Homework also has a number of advantages and disadvantages for
teachers. Advantages include better teacher-student relationships and
communication, and professional growth in the creation of tasks and
training. Disadvantages include bureaucratic fatigue, investment of free
time in preparing homework, and the workload sometimes preventing
teachers from giving important feedback (Davidovitch, Nitza, and Roman
Yavich 2017).
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of homework
Advantages Disadvantages
Link between what has been learned and Cause of family conflicts
real life
Development of autonomy and effort Increasing social and performance
inequalities
Encourage responsibility and self- Lack of adult supervision (sometimes)
discipline
Improved study habits, perseverance and Reduce free time for leisure and
attitude to work extracurricular activities
Curriculum enrichment Negative effects of excess homework
Development of critical thinking and Stress, fatigue, pressure and punishment.
content retention
THEORETICAL MODELS OF HOMEWORK
Various studies (Fernández-Alonso et al. 2017; Magalhães et al.

2020) have stated that homework is a tool that improves commitment and
academic performance. However, assigning homework may not be
enough to boost student performance and engagement (Cooper 2015),
and different theoretical models of homework can be found.
On the one hand, authors such as Cooper (1989) argued that there are
several factors that can affect how homework tasks are done: external
factors such as the characteristics of the students and their levels of
knowledge; internal factors such as the characteristics of the homework
task or how it is explained; as well as domestic factors and the
monitoring of homework in the classroom.
On the other hand, Trautwein et al. (2006) proposed a combined
model based on expectation, self-determination and instruction. In this
model students’ engagement in homework translates into academic
performance. This engagement depends on the motivational variables
related to the homework and this motivation will depend on the
educational context and family participation.
In addition, in a qualitative study, Bempechat et al. (2011) reported
that high achievers eagerly await homework and enjoy doing it due to
their high motivation, showing that achievement goals are very important
in doing homework. In this regard, studies such as Cloud, Taub &
Azevedo (2018) found notable differences in academic performance and
goal achievement orientation between students based on their motivation.
In addition to these models, there is a bidirectional model of
socialization (Pastorelli et al. 2016) with studies showing that high
parental control in homework results in low academic performance
(Green et al. 2007; Grijalva-Quiñonez et al. 2020). In the same vein,
Flunger et al. (2015) investigated the importance of student
characteristics (motivation, gender, skills and cognition) in behavior
towards homework, showing that the time and effort spent on homework
were related to homework performance.
In summary, a range of different variables influence homework

performance: internal variables such as knowledge of the task, the
personal characteristics of the students, motivation, and goal achievement
orientation; and external variables such as time spent, the type of
homework, and parent and teacher involvement in explaining it
(Rodríguez et al. 2019; Trautwein 2007).
Over the years, countries participating in PISA (2014) have reduced
homework time, as more time is spent on homework than other
extracurricular activities. Now, some authors suggest that one might
expect better results according to time spent on homework, however
spending more time on homework does not necessarily mean that
effective strategies are being used (MacMullen 2007; Valle et al. 2016).
One of the most important parts of the equation is teachers’
preparation of homework activities. Homework tasks have to be designed
with clear objectives and be easily understood by the students, because if
the students understand what they have to do for homework and why, it
will be easier for them to engage with it (Rosario et al. 2018). In addition,
the type of homework task must be considered because homework being
repetitive or challenging will affect students’ motivation (Trautwein,
Ludtke, Schnyder and Niggli 2006). Repetitive tasks are similar or
identical to what students do in the classroom and are mechanical.
Challenging tasks require ingenuity and reasoning, and develop self-
discovery.
Currently, digital tools play an important role in the type of
homework that is assigned and therefore it is important to understand the
current situation of homework.
HOMEWORK UPDATE
In recent years, society has undergone a digital transformation. The

latest Digital 2021 report from Hootsuite and We Are Social highlights
that 60% of the world’s population use the internet, more than 4.7 billion
users.
Consequently, education authorities and teachers have had to adapt to

new educational practices based on the use of technology. Homework is
part of the educational system and so is also part of this transformation.
Nowadays there are digital tools for assigning tasks which also bring
benefits such as immediate feedback, a positive relationship between
achievement and grading, and randomization of exercises to reduce peer
copying (Magalhães et al. 2020).
Online homework, in addition to eliminating physical barriers
between teachers and students, offers search strategies and information
processing, and facilitates international social interactions, as well as
globalized information exchange (Arkorful and Abaidoo 2015).
Doing homework tasks online involves a process of construction of
continuous learning, a change of roles for the teacher and the student, and
the creation of common work spaces, at the same time as encouraging
flexible, autonomous, independent, cooperative learning (Srivastava
2019; Valtonen et al. 2011). Therefore, online homework tasks can be
great tools that promote educational quality and enhance active,
collaborative, contextualized, reflective training.
Currently, in the era of COVID, the debate has changed. The type of
homework task and its objective are more important than the time spent
or the amount of homework. Homework should not be assigned or
performed simply as a rule, as a routine, or because it is unthinkingly
assumed (Valle et al. 2016).
The main objective of education is the well-rounded development of
each student, preparing them to respond to personal and social
challenges, allowing them to be free citizens. An inclusive school
prepares students for life by developing competencies, including digital
competencies (Ríos and Herrera 2017).
For this reason, the transformation of homework is being debated. Do
traditional tasks really favor the well-rounded development of students?
The latest OECD report (2019) states that children do not know how
to solve problems in their daily lives because they are used to working
mechanically, both inside and outside of school, without having to put
their skills and abilities into play. In addition, the report emphasizes the
importance of knowing how to solve problems in technological contexts.

Therefore, if we want to construct significant learning for students,
technology must be incorporated into teaching methodology, because it is
one of the hallmarks of this generation.
FAMILY AND TEACHERS’ ROLES IN HOMEWORK
In this section we will discuss how family and teacher involvement in

homework influences students’ academic performance, as well as other
variables or personal characteristics that may also act as mediators.
Firstly, we will talk about family involvement in homework, with a
brief description of the variable and the theoretical models that have
explained it over recent years. Then, we will present the results of recent
empirical studies, which will serve to specify certain limitations and
implications at the educational level.
Secondly, we will discuss how teachers relate to homework, as they
influence both the prescription and individualisation of content to be
worked on at home.
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN HOMEWORK
Parents are fundamentally important stakeholders in the educational

community, as effective family-school communication has been shown to
produce many benefits for pupils. In addition, family involvement
programs are becoming more commonly implemeted to encourage this
kind of collaboration in schools (Echaune, Ndiku and Sang 2015).
Although research about the impact of homework on academic
achievement is relatively common (Pfeiffer 2018), there is less
information about the social aspect of homework, such as parental
perspectives (Cunha et al. 2015) and practices (Rudman 2014).
Parents’ active involvement in education has been shown to be

correlated with greater academic achievement and better relationships
with teachers (Gelber and Isen 2013). Moreover, this type of parental
involvement may influence some psychological characteristics in
children, such as academic self-efficacy and self-regulated learning
(Holloway et al. 2016; Sha et al. 2016).
Some researchers have identified two types of parental involvement:
school-based involvement and home-based involvement (Green et al.
2007). According to Boonk et al. (2018), it is home-based involvement
that really correlates with better academic outcomes.
Home-based involvement refers to parental activities which aim to
support students’ learning processes at home (Boonk et al. 2018; Castro
et al. 2015). Within this category, the most common way to help and
encourage academic development is through homework, as it serves to
reinforce students’ learning processes in an environment other than the
classroom (Wei et al. 2019).
Building on this idea of family involvement, some theoretical models
have extended the definition and the dimensions related to homework.
The first is the theoretical approach from Grolnick and Ryan (1989),
who considered three dimensions of parenting style (autonomy support,
direct parent involvement, provision of structure). These parenting styles
may function as a predictor of some psychological characteristics in
children such as self-regulation and competence.
Autonomy support refers to the motivation for parental involvement,
as well as the use of techniques which encourage children’s problem
solving and decision-making. Direct parent involvement is a style of
parental teaching that is characterized by taking an active role in
children’s lives. Finally, provision of structure refers to all those parental
behaviors parents engage in to produce adaptive, consistent behaviors in
their children.
This theoretical model speaks specifically of the benefits produced at
a personal level by family involvement. In this regard, to the extent that
parents are involved in homework with the three dimensions, we see an
improvement in children’s self-regulation and competence. Despite this,
it is necessary to specify that there are certain actions or conditions for

the benefits to occur, as explained by Patall, Cooper, and Robinson
(2008).
Another model, from Bourdieu (1977), is called Bourdieu’s theory of
social and cultural reproduction. This theoretical model tries to explain
the processes related to social class and how parental support in middle-
class families influences children’s education. This model talks about
three principal terms: habitus, capital, and field, and how they are related
to homework practices in the social aspect or context.
The term habitus refers to all the values and beliefs that are instilled
in a person and is influenced by family, social class, and school.
Homework, in this sense, is related to these variables as it occurs in the
family environment (Bourdieu 2002; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977;
Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). The concept of capital refers to
economic, cultural, and social capital, and it is in the family where this
capital is accumulated and used for educational success (Reay 1998).
Finally, the term field refers to the place where people work. The
interaction between these terms—habitus, capital, and field—produces
people’s actions and practices (Edgerton and Roberts 2014).
Homework and family involvement are very important in this
theoretical model. Homework is done by students, but it is an action in
which families play a very important role. Parents’ values and beliefs
(habitus), as well as their social class and economic status (capital) in
interaction with the work environment (field) produce different parental
support styles and influence pupils’ academic performance differently.
To analyze the effect of family involvement in the academic
environment, Ryan and Deci (1987) adopted Self-Determination Theory.
According to this theory, the family is responsible for supporting or
frustrating the basic needs of their children. Thus, children achieve
positive outcomes when the family supports their autonomy, competence,
and relatedness.
At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between parental
autonomy support and control. When parents take care of their children,
respecting their autonomy and opinions, we can talk about “parental
autonomy support.” It is related to self-expression and self-engagement

in homework (Ryan and Deci 2017). On the other side of the coin we
have “parental control support,” characterized by coercion of academic
performance because the support is excessive or unwanted by the child
(Gonida and Cortina 2014).
Over the last ten years, several studies have aimed to test the
influence of family involvement on homework, as well as looking at
possible differences according to the contextual, family and individual
characteristics of both parents and children. The different studies and
their main conclusions are shown below (Table 2).
These studies include variables which are relevant to future research
and to explaining some of the differences in the results. One refers to the
importance of family involvement in homework. In the study by
Echaune, Ndiku, and Sang (2015), they wanted to establish the type of
family involvement while students did homework. The results showed
the importance of family involvement in homework in areas such as
reading, writing and mathematics. Moreover, in cases where this kind of
involvement does not happen, the authors highlight the importance of
raising awareness among families of the benefits of this type of
involvement.
There are four reasons for encouraging family involvement in
homework and thus improving learning outcomes. Firstly, parents can
offer explanations to the child. Secondly, by knowing a child’s personal
characteristics, they can adapt the explanations appropriately. Thirdly,
homework facilitates the repetition of explanations. And finally, effective
communication between parents and children is fostered, which is
positively related to academic performance (Harackiewicz et al. 2012).
Despite the many reasons for family involvement in homework,
studies still show that there is little support in this area. This was
observed by Oseai-Akoto et al. (2012), who found that 83% of the
families surveyed did not support their children doing homework.
Table 2. Principal results about family involvement and homework
Title Author (year) Results

Parental involvement in homework and Echaune, Ndiku, and Sang They stressed the importance of involvement in education, considering
primary school academic performance (2015) its importance to homework.
in Kenya
The effects of parental involvement in Maldonado, De Witte, and Family involvement is more important for disadvantaged pupils, despite
homework: two randomized controlled Declercq (2021) what has been hypothesised in other studies. In addition, motivation and
trials in financial education intentionality are important variables in this relationship.
Home environment and parental Mora and Escardíbul The family environment is an influential variable in involvement. When
involvement in homework during (2016) the perception of the family background is perceived positively by
adolescence in Catalonia (Spain) students, family involvement is higher, especially for women
Parental involvement in homework: a Fitzmaurice, Flynn, and When parents feel responsible for their children’s performance and
qualitative bourdieusian study of class, Hanafin (2020) education, they are more involved in homework, thus having a higher
privilege, and social reproduction motivation for involvement.
Parental involvement in Mexican Grijalva-Quiñonez, An autonomy-supportive parenting style supports self-efficacy and self-
elementary students’ homework: its Valdés-Cuervo, Parra- regulated learning. Based on these variables, an improvement in
relation with academic self-efficacy, Pérez, and García-Vázquez academic performance could be achieved. Conversely, control-based
self-regulated learning, and academic (2020) support undermines the achievement of academic performance.
achievement
Mothers’ motivational beliefs and Valdés-Cuervo, Grijalva- Parental autonomy support is positively correlated with children’s
children’s learning purpose for doing Quiñonez, and Parra-përez learning-oriented purpose for doing homework. Moreover, in this
homework: the mediating effects of (2020) relationship there are mediating variables such as gender, family goals
autonomy support and control and self-efficacy.
Table 2. (Continued)
Title Author (year) Results

How do student prior achievement and Núñez, Epstein, Suárez, Students’ academic performance is associated with their perceptions of
homework behaviors relate to Rosário, Vallejo, and Valle family involvement in homework. Academic achievement affects
perceived parental involvement in (2017) perceptions of family involvement in homework and this, in turn,
homework? influences student performance.
Student perception of teacher and Núñez, Regueiro, Suárez, The results show a total motivational mediation model. Student
parent involvement in homework and Piñeiro, Rodicio, and Valle motivation will mediate teacher and family involvement in their
student engagement: The mediating (2019) relationship with homework engagement, which in turn, leads to
role of motivation increased competence and autonomy.
There is discussion as to whether family involvement has the same

benefits depending on social class. For example, Kaberere et al. (2013)
found that family involvement in homework was higher in schools with a
higher social status and with higher performance. A study last year found
that, despite the belief that family involvement in homework and
academic achievement is higher in families with high socio-economic
status, it is in fact much higher in families with lower socio-economic
status (Maldonado, De Witte, and Declercq 2021). The problem for
families from lower socio-economic backgrounds is a lack of training or
information about the importance of involvement. Middle-class families
and students were found to have the advantage of more consistent skills
and aptitudes, as well as better alignment between their willingness and
competences (Edgerton and Roberts 2014).
Other studies have already shown that despite ethnic or social
inequality, there is no difference between low- or middle-class
populations in terms of interest and involvement in the education of their
children (Boyle et al. 2020).
Another variable influencing the relationship between family and
homework is the family background and the type of involvement. As
noted above, the family environment is a very important variable because
it has an indirect influence on educational outcomes. If students perceive
their family environment as positive, this will be related to better family
involvement, more so in mothers than in fathers (Mora and Escardíbul
2016).
Many studies have indicated parental background as one of the most
influential variables, which includes the roles played by mothers,
ethnicity, and family structure. Mothers because they tend to spend more
time helping their children than fathers do (Holmlund, Lindahl, and Plug
2011). These differences between mothers and fathers have been
examined, finding that mothers tend to be more involved both in
educational work (homework and other educational support), as well as
meetings with teaching staff, organizing activities, and emotional support
to overcome learning barriers (Hutchison 2012). Family structure is also
an important variable. Francesconi, Jenkins, and Siedler (2010) reported
that divorced families were less involved in their children’s education,

either because of disagreements between parents and children or because
of sudden changes in socio-economic status.
When considering family involvement, it is important to differentiate
between two types: parental autonomy support and parental control
support. Generally, the type of involvement influences certain personal
characteristics of learners and how they perform (Grijalva-Quiñonez et
al. 2020). Parental autonomy support predicts students’ self-efficacy and
self-regulated learning, it has no direct effect on academic achievement
(Luo et al. 2016). In contrast, parental control support has a negative
influence on academic performance and on these variables (Fernández-
Alonso et al. 2017). Moreover, there is an association between parental
autonomy support and students’ intrinsic motivation. There is also an
association between parental control support and students’ extrinsic
motivation (Dinkelmann and Buff 2016). When it comes to homework,
what is useful and beneficial is supporting students autonomy in these
tasks, as that will have an indirect impact on their performance and a
direct impact on necessary characteristics such as those mentioned above.
Some results suggest that there are parent and child characteristics
that mediate the relationships between families’ active roles, autonomy
support, and homework outcomes (Ryan and Deci 2017).
Parents’ attitudes towards homework influence their involvement
(Katz et al. 2011). If they have positive attitudes, that is related to
effective involvement (Boyle et al. 2018). If parents perceive themselves
as self-effective and competent, their ability to be involved is enhanced
(Green et al. 2007). However, educational level or skills have not been
shown to be related to homework involvement, contrary to the thinking
over recent years (Boyle et al. 2018).
Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1987) demonstrated the role of
parental motivation in predicting parental involvement. Parents’
motivational beliefs in the educational domain refer to the idea of shared
responsibility with the school for their children’s greater success. Thus, if
they have an active role derived from motivation, it is associated with
support for autonomy in homework (Yotyodying and Wild 2014).
In relation to children’s characteristics, the psychological resources

available to them favor parental autonomy support. Moreover, academic
performance is a variable that has an impact on the degree of
involvement. In other words, the way parents are involved in homework
is influenced by their children’s academic performance (Grijalva-
Quiñonez et al. 2020).
In particular it is very important to take into account motivation and
how it mediates the relationship between parental involvement and
students’ homework involvement. Astudy by Núñez et al. (2019)
demonstrated that student motivation fully mediated the effects of family
involvement on students’ homework engagement. Moreover, if students
perceived getting support from their parents, they developed competence
and autonomy.
Recently, the relationship between students’ prior achievement and
their views of parental involvement was studied. The higher the students’
academic performance, the more time they spent on homework, which
made them better manage their time on homework. In this situation, they
also had better perceptions of the two types of family involvement:
control and support.
All things considered, it is necessary to highlight the importance of
the family in the educational sphere because of how it benefits children
individually and academically. All the variables influencing the process
of involvement in homework must be taken into account, and they must
be considered for future intervention processes aimed at increasing
family involvement and students’ homework performance.
TEACHER INVOLVEMENT IN HOMEWORK
Teachers are primarily responsible for assigning homework,

differentiating it, ensuring that it achieves the intended goals, and giving
feedback (Núñez et al. 2015; Zhou, Zhou, and Traynor 2020).
Nevertheless, there are other figures within the educational community
that can influence the homework engagement process. Similarly,
variables such as parents’ expectations and behaviors are very important

for future homework involvement. That is why teachers should
encourage and help families to be involved in homework (Ozcani 2020;
Zhou, Zhou, and Traynor 2020). In fact, programs to encourage family
involvement are very effective in these cases due to the benefits to the
pupils and the improvement in family-school relationships that we have
already mentioned (Echaune, Ndiku, and Sang 2015; Gelber and Isen
2013).
Teachers are responsible for ensuring that students benefit from the
homework assigned to them. Moreover, they can vary all the factors
involved in order to achieve substantive improvement in education. It is
for this reason that their involvement in homework is of critical
importance if students are to derive maximum benefit from it (Ozcan
2020).
One of the aims of assigning homework is to improve the quality of
student learning, but it also aims to keep parents involved and informed
about what is happening at school (Gallo 2015). Both parents and
teachers have been reported to have mentioned the usefulness and
benefits of homework but also cautioned that homework should be
focused on helping students increase their content knowledge. In other
words, they stressed the importance of reducing quantity and repetition or
memorization exercises as they do not increase learning quality (Marcum
2018). Moreover, when teachers do not assign high-quality homework, it
is of no benefit or can be detrimental to learning. One of the failures
found in the education field with regard to this issue is a lack of programs
that encourage cooperation between all stakeholders, which would
increase the quality of learning through homework (Marcum 2018;
Bedford 2014).
The homework assignment process starts with the teacher’s choice of
a topic and content, with the goal of achieving certain learning in the
classroom for later review in class (Landers 2014). For homework to be
of quality, it must have five characteristics: a clear academic goal,
allowing students to put new knowledge into practice effectively; a
student-appropriate design and options; it must promote self-efficacy; be
fun; and be interesting (Vatterott 2018). Teachers generally assign

homework for four reasons: it is beneficial to students, parents want it,
the education authority expects it, and homework teaches discipline and
responsibility (Hoeke 2017). Teachers consider the most useful and
meaningful homework to be related to reading and memorization
activities (Hoeke 2017). Research has shown that in order to achieve
useful, high-quality homework, students must create original projects and
this can be accompanied by an active methodology such as the flipped
classroom (Ekici 2014). Despite being seen as beneficial in all respects,
homework quality has been found to depend on careful crafting, purpose,
a requirement for high-level thinking, differentiation, and the amount of
material (Vatterott 2010).
A study by Peltier (2011) showed that 47% of teachers did not
differentiate homework. This does not produce benefits, and may even
make it difficult for many pupils with certain difficulties to continue
learning. In addition, differentiation increases students’ responsibility for
homework as they see it as part of their hobbies, they do it because they
want to improve or because they find it enjoyable as it is adapted and
related to an active methodology (Hoeke 2017). Differentiation will be
discussed in the following section as part of dealing with diversity.
Studies such as Ozcan (2020) reported that the type of subject
influences the design and assignment of tasks. Subjects such as math and
science involve a greater investment of time and more homework tasks.
Despite this, a significant, positive correlation has not been found
between the amount of homework and subsequent performance (Fan et
al. 2017; Ozcan 2020; Cooper 2001). The general conclusion, regardless
of topic, is that the amount of homework and the time spent on it does not
have a significant effect. For this reason, the importance of the quality of
homework is highlighted (Areepattamannil and Kaur 2013).
Finally, there are certain teacher-related variables that influence
students’ involvement in homework, as well as how teachers assign it.
One of these concerns teachers’ expectations of students’ performance in
homework. These expectations are influenced by the race and gender of
pupils and have been studied by Pendergast et al. (2018). In that study it
was found that teachers rated white girls and white students more highly
than those from racial minorities in terms of competence. This means that
teachers thought that girls and white students were more capable and
skilled in homework. We can therefore conclude that there are certain
biases and expectations that may have a negative impact on student
performance and hence encourage such differences.
Possible differences in teachers’ expectations of homework have also
been studied (Peltier 2011). In that study, no significant relationships
were found between teacher attitudes and homework at primary and
secondary school levels.
Another variable that has been shown to be of great importance is
feedback (Fyfe 2016). Learners with less prior knowledge benefit much
more from feedback. For high-achieving learners, feedback has little
impact, while for those with a lower level, feedback positively affects
subsequent scores. Feedback is closely related to homework because
good quality feedback improves students’ learning outcomes (Ekici
2014). In fact, it has been found that students do not learn with
homework where they do not receive feedback on it (Ekici 2014). This is
a teacher training problem, because teachers do not know how to provide
quality feedback or how to work with parents to improve the chances of
students successfully completing their homework (LaRocque et al. 2011).
In conclusion, the assignment and design of quality homework must
take into account variables related to the subject, teachers’ expectations
of their students and homework, and the importance of feedback. These
variables, together with good collaboration between family and school,
enhance pupils’ homework performance and encourage family
involvement.
DEALING WITH DIVERSITY AND HOMEWORK
Society has progressed in aspects such as technology, social rights,

and education, and all of this has translated into a change in how people
with Special Educational Needs (SEN) are educated. Inclusive education
is a key topic in educational research on methodologies, educational

policies, and educational resources (Echeita and Ainscow 2011).
Inclusive education offers opportunities to all students, facilitates their
inclusion in society and encourages education without barriers. This type
of education meets the needs of all students, with SEN or otherwise, in
heterogeneous and diverse environments such as ordinary schools, thus
promoting educational quality (Farooq and Rafiq 2019).
Currently, many educational elements are being modified based on
this, but is homework being considered? Is homework being adapted to
real needs?
The educational process must be adapted to students’ needs, the pace
at which they learn, and their real learning events. For this reason, the
teaching system should be reorganized to achieve quality schooling that
supports all students’ social, emotional and academic development
(Bennett 2017).
Homework has been studied from various perspectives, and there are
two points of view from the SEN perspective. On the one hand, authors
such as Pressman et al. (2015) state that homework can have negative
effects such as a lack of motivation, stress, or unequal opportunities.
These conditions are complicated by SEN students’ cognitive difficulties.
On the other hand, authors such as Bempechat (2004) explain that
homework encourages these students to develop good habits,
perseverance and academic discipline, as well as autonomous problem
solving.
One of the most commonly studied topics is the dilemma about the
resources that students have available to do homework (time, number of
tasks, family support), since these variables influence the motivation for
homework (Rodríguez et al. 2019), especially in SEN students. In
addition to affecting motivation, school assignments are part of students’
grades and therefore become unequal conditions, violating the principle
of equity among students who do not have the same resources (Ainscow
2012).
Therefore, authors such as Fredericks, Blumenfeld and Paris (2004)
have advocated for the design of differentiated task assignments,
considering each student’s behavioral, cognitive, and emotional

commitment.
Assigning homework that promotes equity between students is a
great challenge for teachers. Equitable tasks must be varied, multilevel,
and offer the possibility of choosing between different alternatives
(Woodhead et al. 2009). These types of tasks must be related to the
lesson and must be clearly explained in appropriate language. They
should be begun in the classroom in order to seek an opportunity for
exchanges between teachers and students (McNary, Glasgow and Hicks
2005).
Diversity in today’s schools is inescapable and reflects the
differences of students in ability, needs, learning rates, and motivation.
This requires appropriate teaching methods that are tailored to these very
different needs. In order to promote this type of focus on homework,
there are methodologies such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL),
the Flipped classroom, and Differentiated Instruction (DI).
Universal Design Learning (UDL) encourages universal access to
learning for all students, including those with special educational needs.
UDL values the flexibility of teaching to meet the needs of students
(Rose and Meyer 2006). There are three main strands: 1) It offers
different forms of participation to maintain motivation; 2) It offers
different forms of representation, offering the content in different ways;
3) It offers different forms of action and expression, so that students can
exhibit their knowledge in multiple ways (Meyer, Rose and Gordon
2014). Implementing UDL has a number of benefits such as support for
diversity through a multidisciplinary design, an opportunity for students
to demonstrate their knowledge more comprehensively (Boothe et al.
2018), and compliance with the principle of inclusion laid out in
educational legislation.
The flipped classroom is another methodology that reverses the usual
classroom process, with students spending time at home on the more
theoretical parts and doing the practical and problem-solving parts in
class (Bishop and Vergeler 2013). According to those authors, this type
of learning is more active and collaborative. This methodology involves
the student as an active part of the learning, students experiment,

investigate, discover, and create knowledge (Akçayır and Akçayır 2018).
It also encourages collaborative learning by relying on peers, both in
classroom activities and in activities at home via technology (Nederveld
and Berge 2015). All of this helps students develop social skills,
teamwork, and active peer learning (Johnson and Johnson 1999).
Finally, Differentiated Instruction (DI) was created because there is
no single teaching style that adapts to all students. DI was conceived as a
flexible, equitable way of approaching the teaching process. (Gheyssens
2020) It is a teaching modality that requires the modification of content,
processes, products, and groups, considering students’ prior knowledge,
interests, and learning profiles (Smale-Jacobsen 2019).
Focusing homework through these methodologies encourages the
development of social skills and self-management. It is important to do
this from an early stage and is more important in students with special
educational needs. Self-management means being able to manage
behavior through self-control, self-assessment, and self-learning (Sipila-
Thomas, Cho and Brodhead 2020). The development of self-management
in students with special educational needs leads to improved autonomy,
social relationships, and better inclusion in ordinary classrooms
(Hampshire et al. 2016). Students with special educational needs are
more likely to have difficulties in the social sphere. Students with poor
social skills are also more likely to experience anxiety, depression, and
bullying (Arini, Sunardi and Sri Yamtinah 2019). For this reason, it is
essential to use methodologies in which students improve their social
skills and their capacity for self-management.
This methodology requires considering the needs of students in terms
of performance and motivation and is applied by placing students into
different groups, providing feedback and enrichment to students who
need it and considering flexibility in tasks with respect to time, and
resources (Heacox 2012; Suprayogi, Vlacke and Godwin 2017).
In general, a proportion of students will have difficulties completing
homework due to lack of family involvement, poor understanding of the
task, or their academic level. Students with special educational needs
spend more time doing homework but complete a smaller proportion of it

than other students, hence the need for these methodologies. Studies
(Bryan, Burstein and Bryan 2001; Stockall 2017) indicate that there are
notable differences between the strategies used for intervention and for
homework. In addition, authors such as Tomlinson et al. (2003) report
that many teachers do not demonstrate initiative or dynamism in response
to student diversity.
CONCLUSION
Despite the negative view of homework, several studies have

demonstrated how useful and important it is in improving student
learning. This learning not only refers to the acquisition of content, but is
also related to self-management skills, organization, social skills,
autonomy, and perseverance. The importance of homework assignment
by teachers should be highlighted here, as it requires a change in
methodology, as well as an improvement in family and teacher
involvement, focusing specifically on the feedback to be used, the
explanation of its importance, and support for needs or difficulties that
arise during the process.
One of the most frequently asked research questions is how to ensure
quality homework. As mentioned above, especially when working with
students with special needs, it is essential to vary the activities and move
away from memorization, repetition, and mechanical learning. Currently,
there are many alternatives that have proven useful and effective, such as
active methodologies, the flipped classroom, UDL, and DI.
Beyond those, and considering the changes in education driven by
the COVID-19 pandemic, certain technology-related strategies and
activities have emerged that are also very useful. These methodologies
seek to improve student learning through activities in virtual learning
environments and through using digital tools. This is why it is important
to underscore the usefulness of all those innovative technology-based
methodologies that go beyond traditional teaching. These types of
methodologies are creative and dynamic, and encourage critical thinking,

organization, and student self-regulation.
As far as family and teacher involvement is concerned, it has already
been seen that there needs to be collaboration and cooperation between
the family and the school because of the benefits this produces for the
whole educational community, particularly for students, including the
benefits of dealing with diversity.
The family tends to support and accompany their children in solving
homework problems. It is the teachers who oversee homework
development and assignment. We could say that homework is a
connection between the family and the teachers, mediated by the pupils.
As we noted, a range of personal variables (related to pupils,
teachers, and families) influence involvement in homework. Therefore,
the expectations of the agents involved should be considered, as well as
the psychological resources and other socio-economic variables involved.
Finally, considering all of the information above, we can conclude
that homework is useful and beneficial when it is of high quality, when it
focuses on the needs and interests of students, is accompanied by good
feedback, and is based on the involvement of families and teachers, as
well as on the cooperation of the educational community.
REFERENCES
Ainscow, M. (2012). Moving knowledge around: Strategies for fostering

equity with educational systems. Journal of educational change,
13(3), 289-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-012-9182-5.
Akçcayir, G., and Murat, A. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of
its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334-
345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021.
Aldous, J. (2006). Family, ethnicity, and immigrant youths’ educational
achievements. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1663-1667.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06292419.
Amor, A., Hagiwara, M., Shogren, K. A., Thompson, J. R., Verdugo, M.

A., Burke, K. M., and Aguayo, V. (2019). International perspectives
and trends in research on inclusive education: A systematic review.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 23(12), 1277-1295.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1445304.
Areepattamannil, S., and Kaur, B. (2013). Relationship of mathematics
homework to mathematics achievement among grade 8 students in
Singapore. 6th East Asian Regional Conference on Mathematics
Education icinde, 363-370. Phuket, Thailand: Khon Kaen Universtiy.
Arini, F. D, Sunardi, and Sri Yamtinah. (2019). Social skills of students
with disabilities at elementary level in inclusive school setting.
International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious
Understanding, 6(1), 52-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.
v6i1.489
Arkorful, V., and Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages
and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1),
29-42.
Bedford, P. D. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding
homework: An examination of the cognitive domain embedded in
third grade mathematics homework. Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1562782578).
Bempechat, J. (2004). The motivational benefits of homework: A social-
cognitive perspective. Theory into practice, 43(3), 189-196.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4303_4
Bempechat, J. (2011). The homework experience: perceptions of low-
income youth. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 250–278.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200204.
Bishop, J. L., and Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A
survey of the research. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
23(1200), 1-18.
Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J. M., Ritzen, H., and Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018).
A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators
and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10-30.

Boothe, K. A., Lohmann, M. J., Donnell, K. A., and Hall, D. D. (2018).
Applying the principles of universal design for learning (UDL) in the
college classroom. Journal of Special Education Aprrenticeship,
7(3), 1-13.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In
Power and ideology in education, Eds. Jerome Karabel, 487–511.
Connecticut, USA: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Habitus. In Habitus: A sense of place, Eds. Jean
Hillier & Emma Rooksby, 27–34. Vermont, London: Ashgate.
Bourdieu, P, and Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education,
society, and culture. 1º Ed. California: Sage Publications.
Bourdieu, P, and Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive
sociology. 1º Ed. University of Chicago Press.
Boyle, A, Flynn, M, and Hanafin, J. (2020). Optimism despite
disappointment: Irish traveller parents’ reports of their own school
experiences and their views on education. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 24(13), 1389-1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603116.2018.1530805.
Boyle, A, Hanafin, J, and Flynn, M. (2018). Parental involvement: Irish
Travellers and early years education. Encounters in Theory and
History of Education, 19, 186-204. https://doi.org/10.24908/eoe-ese-
rse.v190i0.10773
Bryan, T, Burstein, K, and Bryan, J. (2001). Students with learning
disabilities: Homework problems and promising practices.
Educational psychologist. 36(3), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.
1207/S15326985EP3603_3.
Castro, M, Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-
Asencio, E., and Gaviria, J.L. (2015). Parental involvement on
student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 14, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.edurev.
2015.01.002.
Cloude, E. B., Taub, M., and Azevedo, R. (2018). Investigating the role
of goal orientation: Metacognitive and cognitive strategy use and
learning with intelligent tutoring systems. In the International
Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Eds. Roger Nkambo,
Roger Azevedo & Julita Vassileva, 44-53. Canadá: Springer.
Cosden, M., Morrison, G., Albanese, A. L., and Macias, S. (2001). When
homework is not home work: after-school programs for homework
assistance. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 211.221. https://doi.org/
10.1207/S15326985EP3603_6.
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Homework. 1º Ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework: common ground for
administrators, teachers, and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Cooper, H. M. (2015). The battle over homework: Common ground for
administrators, teachers, and parents. 3º Ed. Nueva York: Carrel
Books.
Cooper, H. M., Steenbergen-Hu, S., and Dent, A. (2012). Homework. In
APA educational psychology handbook: Application to learning and
teaching ed. Karen Harris et al., 475-495. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Macedo, L., Nunes, A. R., Fuentes, S., Pinto, R.,
and Suárez, N. (2015). Parents’ conceptions of their homework
involvement in elementary school. Psicothema, 27(2), 159-165.
https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.210
Davidovitch, N,, and Yavich, R. (2017). Views of Students, Parents, and
Teachers on Homework in Elementary School. International
Education Studies 10(10), 90-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.
2020.1806786.
Dinkelmann, I, and Buff, A. (2016). Children’s and parents’ perceptions
of parental support and their effects on children’s achievement
motivation and achievement in matheamtics. A longitudinal
predictive mediation model. Learning and Individual Differences, 50,
122-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindig.2016.06.029.
Echaune, M., Ndiku, J. M., and Sang, A. (2015). Parental involvement in

homework and primary school academic performance in Kenya.
Journal of Education and Practice, 6(9), 46-54.
Echeita, G, and Ainscow, M. (2011). Inclusive education as a right:
framework and guidelines for action for the development of a
pending revolution. Tejuelo, 12, 26–46.
Edgerton, J. D., and Roberts, L. W. (2014). Cultural capital of habitus
Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational
inequality. Theory and Research in Education, 12)(2), 193–220.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878514530231.
Ekici, F. (2014). Elementary school students’ views on the homework
given in science courses. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(17),
594-605. https://doi.org./10.5897/EE2014.1809.
Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai. Z., He, J., and Fan, X. (2017). Homework and
students’ achievement in math and science: a 30-year meta-analysis,
1986-2015. Educational research Review, 20, 35-54.
https://doi.org./10.1016/J.EDUREV.2016.11.003
Farooq, M. S, and Rafiq, N. (2019). Quality Improvement through
Inclusive Education at Primary School Level. Journal of Research &
Reflections in Education (JRRE), 13(1), 81-91.
Fernández-Alonso, R., Álvarez-Díaz, M., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and Muñiz,
J. (2017). Students’ achievement and homework assignment
strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(286), 1-11.https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286.
Fitzmaurice, H., Flynn, M., and Hanafin, J. (2020). Parental involvement
in homework: A qualitative Bourdieusian study of class, privilege,
and social reproduction. International Studies in Sociology of
Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1789490.
Francesconi, M., Jenkins, S. P., and Siedler, T. (2010). Childhood family
structure and schooling outcomes: Evidence for Germany. Journal of
Population Economics, 23(3), 1201-1231.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Paris, A. H. (2004). School
engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of
educational research 74(1), 59-109.
Fyfe, E. (2016). Providing feedback on computer-based algebra

homework in middle-school classrooms. Computers in Human
Behavior, 63(2), 568-574. https://doi.org./.1016/j.chb.2016.05.082.
Gallo, R. S. (2015). Listen to the teacher! An exploration of the teacher's
voice regarding homework (Doctoral dissertation, Capella
University).
Gelber, A., and Isen, A. (2013). Children’s schooling and parents’
behavior: Evidence from the head start impact study. Journal of
Public Economics, 101, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.
2013.02.005.
Gheyssens, E., Coubergs, C., Griful-Freixenet, J., Engels, N., and
Struyven, K. (2020). Differentiated instruction: the diversity of
teachers’ philosophy and praxis to adapt teaching to students’
interests, readiness and learning profiles. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.
1812739.
Gonida, E. N., and Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in
homework: Relations with parent and student achievement-related
motivational belief and achievement. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3), 376-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12039.
Göllner, R., Damian, R. I., Rose, N., Spengler, M., Trautwein, U.,
Nagengast, B., and Roberts, B. W. (2017). Is doing your homework
associated with becoming more conscientious?. Journal of Research
in Personality 71, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.08.007.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., and Sandler, H.
M. (2007). Parents’ motivations for involvement in children’s
education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental
involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532–544.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.532.
Grijalva-Quiñonez, C. S., Valdés-Cuervo, A. A., Parra-Pérez, L. G., and
García-Vázquez. (2020). Parental involvement in Mexican
elementary students’ homework: Its relation with academic self-
efficacy, self-regulated learning, and academic achievement.
Psicología Educativa. Revista de los Psicólogos de la Educación,
26(2), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.5093/psed2020a5. [Educational

psychology. Journal of Educational Psychologists]
Grolnick, W.S., and Ryan, R.M. (1989). Parent styles associated with
children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., and Hyde, J. S.
(2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and
science: an experimental test of a utility-value intervention.
Psychological Science, 23(8), 899–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797611435530.
Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom:
How to reach and teach all learners. Updated Anniversary Edition.
Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Hoeke, C. (2017). Homework practices: teacher and parent perceptions of
efficacy and purpose. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper
3283. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3283.
Holmlund, H., Lindahl, M., and Plug, E. (2011). The causal effect of
parents’ schooling on children’s schooling: A comparison of
estimation methods. Journal of economic literature 49(3), 615-51.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.3.615.
Holloway, S. D., Campbell, E. J., Nagase, A., Kim, S., Suzuki, S., Wang,
Q., and Baak, S. Y. (2016). Parenting self-efficacy and parental
involvement: Mediators or moderators between socioeconomic status
and children’s academic competence in Japan and Korea. Research in
Human Development, 13(3), 258-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15427609.2016.1194710.
Hutchison, K. (2012). A labour of love: mothers, emotional capital and
homework. Gender and Education, 24(2), 195-212. https://doi.org.
10.1080/09540253.2011.602329.
Johnsosn, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and
alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. 5th ed.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Makewa, L. N. (2013). Parental involvement in high and low performing

schools in Gasabo District, Rwanda. International Journal about
Parents in Education, 7(1), 30-42.
Katz, I., Kaplan, A., and Buzukashvily, T. (2011). The role of parents’
motivation in students’ autonomous motivation for doing homework.
Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 376-386. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.001.
Keane, G, and Heinz, M. (2019). Differentiated homework: Impact on
student engagement. Journal of Practitioner Research, 4(2), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.4.2.1111.
Magalhães, P., Ferreira, D., Cunha, J., and Rosário, P. (2020). Online vs
traditional homework: A systematic review on the benefits to
students’ performance. Computers & Education, 152, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103869.
Maldonado, J. E., De Witte, K., and Declercq, K. (2021). The effects of
parental involvement in homework: two randomised controlled trials
in financial education. Empirical Economics, 1-26.
Marcum, J. (2018). Parent and teacher perceptions of elementary school
homework. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3377.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., and Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for
learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, Massachusetts: CAST
Professional Publishing.
McMullen, S. (2007). The impact of homework time on academic
achievement. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 30, 1-
40.
McNary, S. J., Glasgow, N. A., and Hicks, C. D. (2005). What successful
teachers do in inclusive classrooms: 60 research-based teaching
strategies that help special learners succeed. 1º Ed. California:
Corwin Press
Mora, T., and Escardíbul, J. (2018). Home environment and parental
involvement in homework during adolescence in Catalonia (Spain).
Youth & Society, 50(2), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118
X15626050.
Nederveld, A., and Berge, Z. L. (2015). Flipped learning in the

workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(2), 162-172.
Núñez, J. C., Epstein, J. L., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., and
Valle, A. (2017). How do student prior achievement and homework
behaviors relate to perceived parental involvement in homework?
Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1217). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2017.01217.
Núñez, J. C., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Piñeiro, I., Rodicio, M.L., and
Valle, A. (2019). Student perception of teacher and parent
involvement in homework and student engagement: the mediating
role of motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1384). https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01384.
Núñez, J.C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., and Valle,
A. Teachers’ feedback on homework, homework-related behaviors,
and academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,
108(3), 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.878298.
Landers, M. (2014). Teachers’ homework strategies in the context of
ambitious mathematics instruction: Developing new practices.
Ripem, 4(3), 63-86.
LaRocque, M., Kleiman, I., and Darling, S. (2011). Parental involvement:
the missing link in school achievement. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(3), 115-122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903472876.
Luo, W., Ng, P.T., Lee, K., and Aye, K.M. (2016). Self-efficacy, value,
and achievement emotions as mediators between parenting practice
and homework behavior: A control-value theory perspective.
Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 275-282. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.017.
OECD. (2014). Does Homework Perpetuate Inequities in Education?
Pisa in focus. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
1787/22260919.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What Students Know and
Can do. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-
en.
Osei-Akoto, I., Chowa, G., and Ansong, D. (2012). Parental involvement

and academic performance in Ghana. Youth save Research Brief,
CSD publication, 12-42.
Ozcan, B. N. (2020). Measuring students’ perceptions of teacher
involvement in mathematics homework assignments: a scale
development. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(6): 100-111.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n6p102.
Pastorelli, C., Lansford, J., Bernadette, P. L., Malone, P. S., Di Giunta,
L., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A.S., Zelli, A., Concetta, M., et al. (2015).
Positive parenting and children’s prosocial behavior in eight
countries. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(7),
824-834. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12477.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., and Robinson, J.C. (2008). Parent involvement
in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
784, 1039-1101. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325185.
Peltier, C. P. (2011). A comparative study of teachers’ attitudes and
practices regarding homework in the elementary, middle, and high
school grades. Dissertations, 616.
Pendergast, L., Nickens, L., Pham, S., Miliaresis, S., and Canivez, G. L.
(2017). Race and gender differences in teacher perceptions of student
homework performance: a preliminary examination. Contemporary
School Psychology, 22, 294-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-
0162-x.
Pfeiffer, V. (2018). Homework policy review: A case study of a public
school in the Western Cape Province. South African Journal of
Education, 38(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n1a1462.
J. A., and Schettini-Evans, A. (2015). Homework and family stress:
With consideration of parents’ self-confidence, educational level, and
cultural background. American Journal of Family Therapy, 43, 297–
313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1061407.
Reay, D. (1998). Class work: Mothers' involvement in their children's
primary schooling. 1º Ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
Ríos, D., and Herrera, D. (2017). The challenges of competence-based

assessment in the educational field. Educação e Pesquisa 43, 1073-
1086. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634201706164230.
Rodríguez, S., Núñez, J. C., Valle, A., Freire, C., Ferradás, M. M., and
Rodríguez-Llorente, C. (2019). Relationship between students’ prior
academic achievement and homework behavioral engagement: the
mediating/moderating role of learning motivation. Frontiers in
psychology 10, 1047, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01047
and Valle, A. (2018). Homework purposes, homework behaviors, and
04.001.
Rose, D.H., and Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design
for learning. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Rudman, N. P. C. (2014). A review of homework literature as a precursor
to practitioner-led doctoral research in a primary school. Research in
Education, 9(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.91.1.2.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (1987). The support of autonomy and the
control behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53(5), 1024-1037. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1024.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic
psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. 1º Ed.
Nueva York: Guilford Press.
Sha, L., Schunn, C., Bathgate, M., and Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2016). Families
support their children’s success in science learning by influencing
interest and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
53(3), 450-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21251.
Sipila-Thomas, E., Cho, E., and Brodhead, M. T. (2020). Self-
Management Strategies to Support Homework Completion with
Students With Developmental Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 52(6), 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599209
10454.
Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Maulana, R.

(2019). Differentiate instruction in secondary education: A
systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in psychology, 10,
1-23 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
Srivastava, P. (2019). Advantages & disadvantages of e-education & e-
learning. Journal of Retail Marketing & Distribution Management
2(3), 22-27.
Stockall, N. (2017). Designing homework to mediate executive
functioning deficits in students with disabilities. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 53(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451
217692565.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis.
International education journal, 7(7), 935-947.
Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., and Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their
implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 291-301. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020.
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T.
R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., and Reynolds, T. (2003).
Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest,
and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of
literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), 119-145.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., and Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting
homework effort: Support for domain-specific, multilevel homework
models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 438–456. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438
homework effort. Learning and Instruction 17(3), 372-388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009
Valdés-Cuervo, A. A., Grijalva-Quiñonez, C. S., and Parra-Pérez, L. G.
(2020). Mothers’ motivational beliefs and children’s learning purpose
for doing homework: The mediate effects of autonomy support and
control. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English Ed.), 25(2), 100-108.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2020.05.002.
Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Núñez, J.C., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I., and
Rosário, P. (2016). Academic goals, student homework engagement,
and academic achievement in elementary school. Frontiers in
Psychology 7(463), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00463.
Vatterott, C. (2010). Five hallmarks of good homework. Educational
leadership, 68(1), 10-15.
We Are Social & Hootsuite. (2020). Digital 2020: Global Digital
Overview. Retrieved February 9, 2020, from https://wearesocial.
com/digital-2020.
Wei, J., Pomerantz, E. M., Fei-Ying, F., Yu, Y., Wang, M., Wang, Q.
(2019). Why does parent’s involvement in youth’s learning vary
across elementary, middle, and high school? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 56, 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cedpsych.2018.12.007.
Woodhead, M., Ames, P., Abebe, W., and Streuli, N. (2009). Equity and
quality?: Challenges for early childhood and primary education in
Ethiopia, India and Peru. 1º Ed. Amsterdam: Bernard van Leer
Foundation.
Yotyodying, S., and Wild, E. (2014). Antecedents of different qualities of
home-based parental involvement: Findings from a cross-cultural
study in Germanu and Thailand. Learning, Culture and Social
Interaction, 3(2), 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.02.002.
Zare, R. N., Cox, C. T., Murphy, K., and Bayas, C. (2017).
Implementation of Peer-Reviewed Homework Assignments. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 46(3), 40-46.
Zhou, S., Zhou, W., and Traynor, A. (2020). Parent and teacher
homework involvement and their associations with students’
homework disaffection and mathematics achievement. Learning and
Individual Differences, 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.
101780.
Chapter 5
HOMEWORK IN INTERNATIONAL
LARGE-SCALE ASSESSMENTS:
THE ROLE OF STUDENT ATTITUDES
AND MOTIVATIONS
Rubén Fernández-Alonso1,* and José Muñiz2

1
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Oviedo, Spain
2
Nebrija University, Madrid, Spain
ABSTRACT
Doing homework as a complement to activities done in school is

the usual practice in most educational systems. The aim of this chapter
is to summarize the evidence provided by International Large-scale
Assessments (ILSA) about homework. We focus on student
engagement, motivation and attitudes towards homework. This is a
novel focus, because ILSAs prioritize the study of contextual factors
and organizational and teaching processes associated with educational
quality, and are less interested in the student perspective. Because of
that, ILSAs have traditionally placed more emphasis on aspects of
*
Corresponding Author’s E-mail: fernandezaruben@uniovi.es.
126 Rubén Fernández-Alonso and José Muñiz
homework such as qualitative characteristics, the types of homework

assignments, and teaching practices around setting homework, or the
role of the family in helping and providing the conditions in which
homework is done. Nonetheless, the context questionnaires used in
ILSAs include items that allow for the analysis of aspects related to
student attitudes and motivations towards homework. This chapter
reviews three types of student homework behavior: commitment,
attitudes and emotions. These three types of behavior seem to be clearly
linked to students’ academic results, although there are differences
between the different countries studied.
Keywords: international large-scale assessment, PISA, TIMSS,

homework compliance, homework time, homework emotions
INTRODUCTION
Every day, all over the world, millions of students spend part of their
out-of-school time doing their homework. For example, 98% of 8th grade
teachers who participated in the 2007 edition of the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), reported giving
their students some amount of mathematics homework (Mullis et al.,
2008). There are various reasons for this to be such a widespread
practice. On the one hand, assigning homework serves a variety of
purposes (Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Magalhães et al., 2020). In
addition, homework is appealing to those who run education systems, as
it is a cheap way of increasing school efficacy and time on task (Paschal
et al., 1984; Walberg, 1984).
As it is such a widespread resource, it makes sense that the topic has
been analyzed by International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSA).
However, because of the goals of ILSAs, they prioritize the study of
teaching and organizational process in schools and the sociodemographic
and family backgrounds rather than students’ points of view, and their
treatment of homework is in line with this approach. Because of that,
ILSA studies emphasize the analysis of basic quantitative characteristics
(homework time, frequency and amount); types of homework
Homework in International Large-Scale Assessments 127
assignments (reading the textbook, doing problems, memorizing formulas

and procedures, working on projects, etc.); and teaching practices
associated with assigning it (feedback, grading, etc.). They have also
explored family help with homework, and the provision of conditions,
resources, and opportunities for doing it (Mullis et al., 2016a;
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD,
2011, 2020).
In contrast, ILSAs have been much less interested in the student
perspective, and only very rarely have investigated students’ perceptions,
ideas, and understanding about homework. One way or another, they
repeat what happens all too often in educational research, in which the
student point of view is usually relegated to a secondary position
(Warton, 2001; Rosário et al., 2009).
The objective of this chapter is to review the evidence provided by
ILSAs about students’ commitment, motivation, and attitudes towards
homework. It is organized in three sections. The first analyzes aspects
which make up commitment to homework: homework completion and
the effort made in doing so. The second section reviews two aspects of
homework behavior: homework time and doing set tasks autonomously.
The third section covers the evidence about students’ emotions regarding
homework. The chapter ends with some general conclusions.
COMMITMENT TO HOMEWORK
The 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

constructed a scale called Mathematics work ethic, which was part of the
measures of student self- regulated cognition (OECD, 2014). The scale
had two items which allowed specific examination of students’
commitment to homework: completing homework on time and making an
effort in doing it. Both variables are very important in establishing
student homework profiles (Xu, 2021).
Completing Homework that is Set
There is a solid body of research indicating that regularly completing

homework is associated with better academic performance (Cooper et al.,
1998; Fan et al., 2017; Fernández-Alonso, Álvarez-Díaz, Woitschach et
al., 2017; Magalhães et al., 2020; Núñez, Suárez, Cerezo et al., 2015).
PISA asked students on two occasions (2000 and 2012) whether they
handed homework in on time. It is important to note that neither the
formulation of the items, nor the response options, were exactly the same
on the two occasions (OECD, 2020). In PISA 2000, they used a general
statement (I finish my homework on time) which used a four level
response (from never to always). In PISA 2012, the statement was more
specific (I finish my homework on time for mathematics class) with the
response being given on a four-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree
to strongly agree). Nonetheless, despite the differences, the data do allow
some comparison. Table 1 shows that, in OECD countries as a whole,
two out of three students reported appropriate commitment to homework.
In addition, in the OECD as a whole, there was a positive relationship
between completing homework and the results in the evaluation. Figure 1
shows the scores in the three basic PISA competencies according to the
response chosen. In PISA 2000, the differences between students who
completed homework sometimes or mostly ranged between 31 and 35
points depending on the subject, and were statistically significant. The
difference almost doubled when comparing the more extreme groups
(never vs always). However, the relationship was not strictly linear, as
there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups
who (mostly and always) did their homework on time. With the wording
in 2012, the relationship was not as strong. The differences between the
extreme groups ranged between 25 and 31 points. In contrast, there was
an approximately linear relationship, with statistically significant
differences between the four groups.
Table 1. Percentage of students (in brackets: standard error)

according to the level of agreement with the statement: I finish my
homework on time. PISA 2000 and 2012
Never/Strongly Sometimes/Disagree Mostly/ Always/Strongly agree

disagree Agree
2000 6 (0.01) 28 (0.02) 45 (0.02) 22 (0.01)
2012 7 (0.01) 24 (0.01) 46 (0.02) 23 (0.01)
PISA 2000 PISA 2012

550
PISA Score
525
500
475
450
425
400
Never Sometimes Mostly Always Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Reading Mathematics Science Reading Mathematics Science
Figure 1. Mean scores according to completing homework on time. PISA 2000 and
PISA 2012.
To fully understand these differences, it is essential to bear in mind

that in the PISA scale, the standard deviation is 100 points and that 40
points represents a difference that is equivalent to more than half a skill
level or one school year (OECD, 2010). This means that a 30-point
difference is approximately equivalent to two school terms, which would
be the advantage, in PISA performance terms, of students who hand their
homework in on time over those who do not. Clearly, if the comparison
were done with the PISA 2000 results, the discrepancy between the two
extremes would be about a year and a half. Thus, meeting homework
commitments indicates substantive differences in terms of students’
academic progress.
The comparative analysis indicates two more facts. Firstly, the

strength of the relationship between results and finishing homework on
time varies between educational systems. The effect is stronger in
English-speaking (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and
United States), Scandinavian (Denmark and Norway) and Asian countries
(Korea and Japan). In contrast, the strength of the relationship is weaker
in most Central-European countries, and in some cases (Austria, Czech
Republic, Luxembourg and Switzerland) it is practically null, or even
negative. Secondly, within each country, the strength of the relationship
exhibits a certain long-term stability.
AUS = Australia; AUT = Austria; BEL = Belgium; CAN = Canada; CHI = Chile;
CZE = Czech Republic; DNK = Denmark; FIN = Finland; FRA = France; DEU
= Germany; GRC = Greece; HUN = Hungary; ISL = Iceland; IRL = Ireland;
ISR = Israel; ITA = Italy; JNP = Japan; KOR = Korea; LVA = Latvia; LUX =
Luxembourg; MEX = Mexico; NZL = New Zealand; NOR = Norway; POL =
Poland; PRT = Portugal; SPA = Spain; SWE = Sweden; CHE = Switzerland;
GBR = United Kingdom; USA = United States
Figure 2. Comparison of difference (Cohen’s d) between students based on

homework commitment. PISA 2000 and PISA 2012.
To test these statements, the following analysis was performed: the

four original item categories were dichotomized equally to produce two
groups according to whether they finished their homework on time or
not. For each PISA edition, country, and subject, Cohen’s d was
calculated as an estimation of the size of the difference in means between
groups. Figure 2 shows the results for Cohen’s d in Mathematics for
countries with comparable data in PISA 2000 and 2012.
The correlation of the effect size between the two evaluations is high
(r = .75), indicating that in countries where the differences between the
more committed and less committed students was high in 2000, it tended
to remain high twelve years later. For reading (r = .67) and science (r =
.71) the correlations are similar, which seems to confirm that within each
country the differences in PISA results depend on student commitment to
homework and the results demonstrate some stability over the time of the
comparison. Figure 2 also shows that, consistent with what was noted
above, Central-European countries tend to be clustered in the bottom-left
quadrant, where the relationship between results and doing homework on
time is weaker, whereas English-speaking countries are concentrated in
the upper-right quadrant, indicating larger effects.
Homework Effort
The effort made to complete homework is a well-studied variable,

and is considered a classic predictor of school results (Flunger et al.,
2015, 2021; Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein et al., 2006). PISA 2012
presented students with the statement I work hard on my mathematics
homework (OECD, 2020), and students responded how much they agreed
on a four-point Likert scale. Figure 3 shows the percentages of students
and the mean scores in the three competencies based on the chosen
response option.
In the OECD as a whole, practically 6 out of 10 fifteen-year-olds
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. However, the differences in
the mean scores for the four groups were small. For example, the line for
the mean scores in science is practically flat, especially in the last three
groups, and there were no statistically significant differences. In reading,
the strongly disagree group demonstrated a statistically significantly
different result to the other three, but the mean scores form a curve, as the
strongly agree group had a slightly lower result than the two central
groups. In mathematics the line is straighter, but there were no
statistically significant differences.
Comparative analysis indicates that the strength of the performance-
homework effort relationship varies widely between countries. The
original variable was dichotomized and within each country the
difference in means between groups was expressed as Cohen’s d. Figure
4 shows the effect size in different countries in mathematics, in
descending order. Positive values indicate that the students who agreed
with the statement demonstrated better performance, while negative
values indicate that the students who disagreed with the statement
performed better.
Figure 3. Percentage of students and mean scores according to homework effort.

PISA 2012.
Figure 4. Difference in mathematics (Cohen`s d) based on agreement with the

statement I work hard on my mathematics homework. PISA 2012.
The differences were generally small, and only in a very few cases
was d > 0.20. This group included two Asian OECD countries (Japan and
Korea), three English-speaking countries (Australia, Ireland and United
Kingdom), two Scandinavian countries (Denmark and Norway) and two
countries from southern Europe (Greece and Portugal). Once again the
differences seemed to fit a certain cultural pattern, most Central and
eastern European countries were in the band of null or even negative
effects (Austria, Estonia, Netherlands and Switzerland). Although the
sizes of the effects may be characterized as small (Cohen, 1992), it
should be noted that, according to the PISA scale, values of around 0.20
points would indicate differences of approximately half a school year.
These results are, to a certain extent, unexpected, and trying to find
an explanation consistent with the information in the PISA database is
challenging. One initial methodological explanation may be the limitation
of calculating the effect size on a single, previously dichotomized, item.
Another reason, this time more cultural, may be that the expression work
hard might have different interpretations in different countries, and may
even be understood differently by students within a single country. For
example, students with learning difficulties may feel the need to make a
significant effort to complete their homework but their results would
generally be worse than their classmates. Similarly, highly cognitively

capable students, or those with better prior knowledge may recognize that
they do not need a great deal of effort to complete their homework, and
their results would probably be above average.
Research with greater levels of control is needed to understand why,
in a significant proportion of countries, the results are in contrast to the
evidence available, which indicates that, in homework, effort is an
important predictor of school results (Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein et al.,
2006; Trautwein, Niggli et al., 2009).
HOMEWORK BEHAVIOR: TIME SPENT

AND AUTONOMY DOING HOMEWORK
Homework Time
Initially, most research into homework focused on the relationship

between academic achievement and homework time, thanks to the
abundant evidence about this relationship (Cooper et al., 2006; Fan et al.,
2017; Trautwein & Köller, 2003). In general, reviews of the topic have
found positive effects, although there have been contradictory and
inconclusive results (Scheerens et al., 2013). Hence the debate is still
open and was an object of interest in the main ILSAs, whose questions to
students usually include something along the lines of How often do you
do homework? and How long do you spend doing your homework? The
responses to these questions allow us to estimate the time students
dedicate to homework, and to analyze the relationship between
homework time and results.
The general conclusion is that in the last three decades, the time spent
on homework has fallen worldwide. The data from TIMSS 1995 (Martin
et al., 2000) indicated that 8th grade students spent practically 60 minutes
a day on their homework in mathematics and a little less (around 50
minutes a day) in science. The same data showed that these two subjects
represented 60% of the homework workload, which leads to the

conclusion that, at the end of the 20th century, students were spending
around three hours a day on homework. With the previous data as a
baseline, Fernández-Alonso and Muñiz (in press) estimated the average
weekly time spent on homework in the TIMSS 2003-2015 evaluations
(Table 2). In TIMSS 2003, students spent practically two hours a week
on mathematics homework and around 70 minutes on science, whereas in
TIMSS 2015, that had fallen to 90 minutes for mathematics and 50 for
science. Similarly, the OECD (2013) reported a fall in homework time in
most countries, the international figures falling from 5.9 hours a week in
PISA 2003 to 4.9 hours in PISA 2012.
Fernández-Alonso and Muñiz (in press) calculated the Pearson
correlations between student homework times in 8th grade and results in
mathematics and science in the four editions of TIMSS noted above.
Table 3 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the distribution of the
correlation coefficients. The mean of the correlations is practically zero,
while the standard deviations confirm that in most countries, the
magnitude of the correlation coefficients for results-student homework
time failed to reach .10. Hence, the data indicates that time spent on
homework seems to have little relation to educational results.
These results raise two questions. Why, in contrast to logical
expectations, is greater homework time not associated with better results?
And if homework time cannot be associated with better results, what
justifies continuing the teaching practice of assigning homework?
Table 2. Average homework time (hours per week) in TIMSS

assessments by year and subject (in brackets: standard error)
TIMSS 2003 TIMSS 2007 TIMSS 2011 TIMSS 2015

Mathematics 1.99 (0.01) 1.92 (0.01) 1.62 (0.01) 1.53 (0.01)
Science 1.15 (0.01) 1.18 (0.01) 0.92 (0.01) 0.87 (0.01)
Table 3. Pearson correlations between student homework time

and results in TIMSS assessments by year and subject
NC Mean SD Max Min

2003 Mathematics 51 -.01 .08 .15 -.14
Science 51 -.06 .08 .15 -.23
2007 Mathematics 56 .01 .10 .26 -.19
Science 56 -.04 .08 .20 -.17
2011 Mathematics 49 .01 .09 .28 -.13
Science 49 -.05 .07 .12 -.17
2015 Mathematics 35 .02 .08 .21 -.09
Science 35 -.02 .07 .19 -.13
NC: Number of countries; SD: Standard deviation; Max: Maximum value; Min: Minimum
value
The answer to the first question is that the relationship between

achievement and homework time is not linear, but rather curvilinear. The
best results are associated with moderate workloads and above a certain
amount the results either get worse or, in most cases, exhibit no more
significant gains (Mullis et al., 2008, 2016b). The data from PISA 2009
confirm the non-linear relationship, as beyond around four hours of
weekly homework, the additional time has no significant impact on the
results of the evaluation (OECD, 2011). To understand this curvilinear
relationship we need to answer a previous question: Why do some
students need more time than others to complete their homework? In
response to this question, Flunger et al. (2015) created five student
profiles according to effort and time spent on homework and school
results. They found that the two profiles that spent most time on
homework (high-effort learners and struggling learners) exhibited
contrasting school results (the former had better results, the latter had
worse results). Similarly, fast learners did not need much time to do their
homework and tended to achieve good results at school. In short, the time
spent on homework is affected by other variables which in turn influence
school results: cognitive ability, school history, prior knowledge,
motivation, gender, age, and sociological factors. Therefore, in order to
analyze the relationship between performance and homework time, it is
necessary to control for the effect of other variables that affect homework
time. Only in this way is it possible to estimate a net effect, which is not
confounded or affected by other variables that may weaken any
explanation (Trautwein & Koller, 2003).
The second question posed above is extremely important. If
homework only benefits some students depending on their profiles of
homework and personal and sociodemographic characteristics, what
sense does the policy of assigning homework to all students make?
Answering this means understanding that homework is a multilevel
phenomenon and distinguishing three quantitative variables: homework
time, homework frequency and homework amount (Flunger et al., 2021;
Trautwein & Koller, 2003). These variables have different meanings and
effects depending on the level of analysis. Homework time is an
individual measure and reflects the students work habits. As Table 3
shows, the correlation with results is weak, something confirmed by
studies using hierarchical-linear analysis (De Jong et al., 2000; Dettmers
et al., 2010; Farrow et al., 1999; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2014; Murillo
& Martínez-Garrido, 2013; Núñez et al., 2014), and when the effect is
statistically significant, it is negative (e.g., Chang et al., 2014; Fernández-
Alonso et al., 2015; 2019; Fernández-Alonso, Álvarez-Díaz, Woitschach
et al., 2017; Lubbers et al., 2010; Núñez, Suárez, Rosario et al., 2015;
Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein, Schnyder et al., 2009).
However, when time is measured at the classroom level, different
variables are obtained (homework frequency and homework amount)
which have new meanings and which reflect teachers’ homework
policies: the amount of homework they assign and how often they assign
it (Trautwein & Köller, 2003). Examined at the class level, results should
be interpreted as the gain (or loss) experienced by the class group as a
whole who are set more homework or who have it set more often.
Research has shown that homework variables measured at the class level
are positively and significantly associated with results (De Jong et al.,
2000; Dettmers et al., 2009; Farrow et al., 1999; Fernández-Alonso et al.,
2014, 2015, 2016; Fernández-Alonso, Álvarez-Díaz, Woitschach et al.,
2017; OECD, 2013; Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein et al., 2002; Trautwein,
Schnyder et al., 2009).
To test this idea, Fernández-Alonso and Muñiz (in press) reanalyzed

the data from Table 3 at the class level, finding that the mean correlations
for countries varied between .15 and (TIMSS 2003) and .21 (TIMSS
2015), which confirmed that the quantitative measures at the class level
were positively, significantly associated with school results. Similarly,
Fernández-Alonso et al. (2019) re-analyzed the data from the TERCE
study [Tercer Estudio Regional Comparativo y Explicativo], the ILSA in
Latin America and the Caribbean, and found that the effect of student
homework time was negative or not significant in 12 of the 15 countries,
whereas in more than half of cases the effects of either homework
frequency or homework amount were significant and positive.
Homework Autonomy
Homework is the only instructional activity that is done outside of

school without the direct supervision of the teacher (Cooper et al., 1998,
2006). It is an opportunity for the student to take on academic
responsibilities and develop their own working habits. Regardless of the
type of tasks set (from practice and revision exercises to project or small
research activities) when teachers set homework, they seek to encourage
students’ autonomous work, and they usually expect their students to
work independently. Educational research has confirmed that
autonomously doing homework and the self-regulation processes
associated with it enhance the homework-academic performance
relationship (Kitsantas et al., 2011; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2009;
Stoeger & Ziegler, 2008; Valle et al., 2019; Xu, 2013; Xu & Wu, 2013;
Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005).
The PISA 2015 Educational Career Questionnaire (ECQ) contained
seven dichotomous (yes or no) questions asking whether the student had
received help to do their homework from a member of their family or
someone else. Before presenting the results, it is important to remember
that the ECQ was optional and in 2015 was only applied in 16 of the 37
OECD countries. In addition, in some countries the response rate to these
items was less than 85% of the projected sample. Nonetheless, the sample
sizes were still very large and therefore the data offer interesting results,
albeit ones which should be taken with caution.
The table below shows the percentages of choices in each item, only
considering the valid cases, and the average scores in science (the main
competency in 2015) for each group. To avoid repetition, the results from
reading and math have been omitted, as the conclusions were practically
identical.
A large proportion of students received some kind of help with
homework. In fact, fewer than 4 out of 10 reported being completely
autonomous and receiving no help. In contrast almost 6 out of 10
reported being helped by their mothers and half also reported getting help
from their fathers. There was also a significant proportion who reported
getting help from siblings or other people.
Figure 5 shows the difference (Cohen’s d) in mean scores in science
in PISA 2015 according to the help students received. Only students who
stated that they did not get help from anybody demonstrated a positive
difference (d = 0.13).
In contrast, the groups who did get help from family members or
others had lower mean scores, hence the negative effect. For example, in
PISA scale terms, the disadvantage of the group who had help from their
mothers (d = -0.24) would be equivalent to more than half a school year.
Students who had help from grandparents and other relatives exhibited
even greater negative differences (d = -0.50), equivalent to more than a
school year. In summary, the PISA 2015 data gives a consistent picture
of the students who receive help with homework demonstrating the
lowest results. This is consistent with all of the previous evidence
indicating that homework must be done autonomously to promote
learners’ responsibility and self-regulation (Cooper et al., 2000;
Fernández-Alonso, Álvarez-Díaz, Suárez-Álvarez et al., 2017; Pomerantz
et al., 2007)
Table 4. Distribution of response percentages in answer to the

question: In your family, who helps you regularly with your
homework or private study? and average scores in science.
PISA 2015
Yes No
Percentage (s.e) Average (s.e.) Percentage (s.e) Average (s.e)
Nobody 36 (0.2) 513 (0.9) 64 (0.2) 500 (0.7)
Mother 59 (0.2) 491 (0.7) 41 (0.2) 513 (0.9)
Father 47 (0.2) 495 (0.8) 53 (0.2) 508 (0.8)
Siblings 38 (0.2) 482 (0.8) 62 (0.2) 514 (0.7)
Grandparents 16 (0.2) 463 (1.4) 84 (0.2) 511 (0.7)
Other relatives 20 (0.2) 466 (1.1) 80 (0.2) 513 (0.7)
Other person 30 (0.2) 487 (0.9) 70 (0.2) 513 (0.7)
(s.e.): standard error
Note: in each item, negative effects indicate that the group who responded yes had
lower results
Figure 5. Difference (Cohen’s d) in mean scores in science between those who

responded yes to the seven items for the question: In your family, who helps you
regularly with your homework or private study? PISA 2015.
EMOTIONS WHILE DOING HOMEWORK
The emotions that students experience in the face of homework

(anxiety, tension, boredom, annoyance, etc.) is a relatively recent line of
research (Trautwein, Niggli et al., 2009) which offers promising results.
Longitudinal studies have indicated that these emotions tend to be stable
over time and demonstrate significant effects on homework achievement,
motivation, and effort (Dettmers et al., 2011; Trautwein, Niggli et al.,
2009).
In the two PISA editions in which mathematics was the main
competence (2003 and 2012), the student context questionnaire included
the following statement I get very tense when I have to do mathematics
homework (OECD, 2020). Students responded on a four-level Likert
scale (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). The students’ responses
indicated that, in the OECD as a whole, practically one in three 15-year-
old students reported feeling tense and nervous doing mathematics
homework (Table 5). The percentages were similar in the two editions,
although in 2012 there was a slight increase in the proportion of students
with more negative emotions.
Figure 6 shows the average scores in mathematics according to the
level of tension students felt about homework in the OECD countries.
The relationship is linear, negative, and highly significant. In both
editions there was a similar pattern: students who reported more tension
had lower results. The difference between the two extremes is around 0.9
of a standard deviation, which in PISA scale terms, would be equivalent
to almost two school years.
Table 5. Percentage of students (in brackets: standard error)

according to level of agreement with the statement: I get very tense
when I have to do mathematics homework. PISA 2003 and 2012
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

2003 8 (0.01) 22 (0.01) 49 (0.01) 21 (0.01)
2012 10 (0.01) 23 (0.01) 44 (0.01) 23 (0.01)
Figure 6. Scores in mathematics according to negative emotions felt about

mathematics homework. PISA 2003 and PISA 2012.
Comparative analysis between educational systems leads to two

further conclusions. The percentage of students experiencing negative
emotions varied notably between countries, while within countries the
percentages were stable.
Figure 7 compares the percentage of students who felt tension doing
homework in the two PISA editions. It shows notable differences in the
proportions of students who experienced negative emotions. Whereas in
Finland and The Netherlands, only a minority of students reported
negative emotions (around 10%), in other cases such as Japan, France,
and Turkey, and all of the Latin American OECD countries (Chile,
Mexico and Colombia), half of the students felt tension when doing
homework. Furthermore, these emotions were very stable over time: the
correlation between the percentages of students reporting tension in the
two editions of PISA is very high (r = .94). In the chart, most of the
points are very close to the trend line, indicating that the countries with a
high percentage of students reporting tension in 2003 continued to
demonstrate high levels of negative emotions a decade later. This
stability may be indicating that negative homework emotions are a
cultural artefact, in other words, that in some countries the students
experience more negative emotions than in others, although with the data
available it is not possible to hazard a guess as to the reasons for these
differences.
AUS = Australia; AUT= Austria; BEL= Belgium; CAN = Canada; CZE = Czech
Republic; DNK = Denmark; FIN = Finland; FRA = France; DEU = Germany;
GRC = Greece; HUN = Hungary; ISL = Iceland; IRL = Ireland; ITA = Italy;
JNP = Japan; KOR = Korea; LVA = Latvia: LUX = Luxembourg; MEX
= Mexico; NLD = Netherlands; NLZ = New Zealand; NOR = Norway; POL =
Poland; PRT = Portugal; SVK = Slovak Republic; SPA = Spain; SWE =
Sweden; CHE = Switzerland; TUR = Turkey; GBR = United Kingdom; USA =
United States
Figure 7. Change in the percentage of students experiencing negative emotions about

mathematics homework. PISA 2003 and PISA 2012.
Finally, the negative relationship between unpleasant emotions about

homework in mathematics and the PISA results seems universal. For this
study, the original items were dichotomized to produce two groups of
students (tense and confident) and the differences between the two
groups in mathematics results was estimated as Cohen’s d. Table 6 shows
the distribution of the effect size for countries.
Table 6. Distribution of effect size (Cohen´s d) between emotions

about homework and results in mathematics.
PISA 2003 and PISA 2012
PISA Year NC Mean SD Max Min
2003 31 0.56 0.12 0.77 0.24
2012 37 0.57 0.11 0.78 0.27
NC: Number of countries; SD: Standard deviation; Max: Maximum value; Min: Minimum
value
PISA 2003 PISA 2012

PISA Score
600
r = -.42 r = -.45
KOR
FIN
NLD BEL KOR
550
JNP
CHE CAN JNP CHE
NLZ NLD DEU
CZE AUS BEL CAN
FIN POL
DNK DEU EST
GBR FRA AUT AUS
SWE ISL AUT DNK SVN IRL NLZ
IRL CZE
SVK NOR 500 ISL GBR FRA
HUN LUX
POL PRT LVA NOR
SPA SVK LUX
LVA USA SWE ITA
HUN LTU SPA
ISR
USA
PRT ITA
GRC TUR
450
GRC
TUR
CHI
MEX
MEX
COL
400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Unpleasant emotions (%) Unpleasant emotions (%)
AUS = Australia; AUT = Austria; BEL = Belgium; CAN = Canada; CHI = Chile; COL =
Colombia; CZE = Czech Republic; DNK = Denmark; EST = Estonia; FIN = Finland;
FRA = France; DEU = Germany; GRC = Greece; HUN = Hungary; ISL = Iceland; IRL =
Ireland; ISR = Israel; ITA = Italy; JNP = Japan; KOR = Korea; LVA = Latvia; LTU =
Lithuania; LUX = Luxembourg; MEX = Mexico; NLD = Netherlands; NLZ = New
Zealand; NOR = Norway; POL = Poland; PRT = Portugal; SVK = Slovak Republic; SVN
= Slovenia; SPA = Spain; SWE = Sweden; CHE = Switzerland; TUR = Turkey; GBR =
United Kingdom; USA = United States
Figure 8. Relationship between mean score in mathematics and the proportion of

students reporting unpleasant homework emotions. PISA 2003 and PISA 2012.
The mean effect size was around 0.6, which is moderate (Cohen,
1992), although in terms of the PISA competence scale, this difference
would approximate to one and a half school years. Hence, the effect is
not only significant, but substantial. To end the analysis in this section,
note that the relationship between unpleasant homework emotions and
PISA results was not only found within the countries. More interestingly
it was also reflected in some way in the comparison between countries.
Figure 8 compares the percentage of students who reported feeling tense
about mathematics homework with the result in mathematics in each
country in the two editions of PISA with comparable data.
There is a moderate, negative correlation (rPISA-03 = .-42; rPISA-12 = .-
45), indicating that the countries with higher proportions of students who
feel tense doing their homework tend to exhibit lower results.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Homework Commitment
The PISA test understands students’ commitment to homework in

two aspects: doing the assigned homework and making an effort to do
homework. In terms of doing homework on time, the data reviewed lead
to three general conclusions:
 Approximately two out of three 15-year-olds fulfil their

responsibility of handing homework in on time.
 In the OECD countries as a whole, there is a positive relationship
between the habit of handing homework in on time and PISA
results, which is consistent with evidence from previous studies
(Cooper et al., 1998; Fan et al., 2017; Núñez, Suárez, Cerezo et
al., 2015). Students who hand homework in on time may have an
advantage of two school years compared to students who do not.
 The relationship between handing homework in on time and
school results varies between countries. In general, it is stronger
in English-speaking, Scandinavian, and Asian countries and

lower in Central-European countries. This relationship is stable
over time, such that the countries in which the effect of
homework completion was higher in 2000 tended to still have
stronger effects 12 years later (2012), which may indicate certain
cultural patterns in the relationship between results and
homework completion.
The second component related to students’ commitment to

homework is the effort they report. To assess that, PISA 2012 asked
students to rate their agreement with the statement: I work hard on my
mathematics homework.
 Six out of ten students agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement, and therefore reported that they work hard on their
mathematics homework.
 In the OECD as a whole, there was no clear relationship between
the levels of agreement with the statement and the results in the
subjects evaluated by PISA.
 In general, within countries, the relationship between student
homework effort and the PISA results was weak. This result is
not in line with previous findings (Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein et
al., 2006). There are methodological and cultural reasons that
may explain this discrepancy.
Student Homework Behavior
It is very common for ILSAs to ask students about the time they
spend doing homework. In addition, PISA 2015 asked students whether
they did their homework autonomously or whether they had help. With
regard to time spent on homework, three main conclusions can be drawn:
 Over the last quarter century, the workload of homework set by

teachers has fallen worldwide (Fernández-Alonso & Muñiz, in
press; Martin et al., 2000; OECD, 2013).
 The best academic results are related to moderate homework
loads. Once a certain workload threshold is passed, the academic
results diminish or fail to demonstrate substantial improvement
(Mullis et al., 2008, 2016b; OECD, 2011). These results are in
line with studies indicating that the relationship between time
spent on homework and academic achievement is a multilevel
situation modulated by other variables that must be considered
when studying that relationship (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015,
2019; Flunger et al., 2015; Trautwein, 2007; Trautwein & Koller,
2003).
 Doing homework autonomously has a greater effect than time
spent doing it. This is associated with self-regulation processes
and autonomous management of academic tasks (Kitsantas &
Zimmerman, 2009; Xu, 2013; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005).
Students who do their homework autonomously exhibit better
academic results than students who need help.
Emotions about Homework
In PISA 2003 and 2012, the student context questionnaire included

the item: I get very tense when I have to do mathematics homework. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the results:
 In the OECD as a whole, practically one in three 15-year-old

students reported feeling tense and nervous when doing
mathematics homework, although the percentage varied notably
between countries. The results were found to be stable over time
within countries.
 Consistent with the available evidence (Dettmers et al., 2011;
Trautwein, Niggli et al., 2009), in all of the OECD countries,
unpleasant emotions when doing homework were found to be

negatively associated with PISA results. This effect was stable
over time: the countries with greater proportions of students with
negative emotions about homework in PISA 2003 were also the
countries with the highest proportions in PISA 2012.
REFERENCES
Chang, C. B., Wall, D., Tare, M., Golonka, E. & Vatz, K. (2014).
Relations of attitudes toward homework and time spent on homework
to course outcomes: The case of foreign language learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1049-1065. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0036497.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-
159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Cooper H., Lindsay, J. J. & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in the home:
How student, family, and parenting-style differences relate to the
homework process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4),
464-487. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1036.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., Nye, B. & Greathouse, S. (1998).
Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of
homework assigned and completed, and student achievement.
10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.70.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C. & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework
improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003.
Review of Educational Research, 76, 1-62. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3102/00346543076001001.
De Jong, R., Westerhof, K. J. & Creemers, B. P. M. (2000). Homework
and student math achievement in junior high schools. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 6(2), 130-157. https://doi.org/10.
1076/1380-3611(200006)6:2;1-E;F130.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U. & Lüdtke, O. (2009). The relationship

between homework time and achievement is not universal: Evidence
from multilevel analyses in 40 countries. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 20, 375-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09243450902904601.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R. & Frenzel,
A. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in mathematics:
Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and achievement
outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 25-35.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kunter, M. & Baumert, J.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018453.
Epstein, J. L. & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’
roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181-
193. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3603_4.
Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J. & Fan, X. (2017). Homework and
1986–2015. Educational Research Review, 20, 35-54,
Farrow, S., Tymms, P. & Henderson, B. (1999). Homework and
attainment in primary schools. British Educational Research Journal,
25(3), 323-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250304.
Fernández-Alonso, R. & Muñiz, J. (in press): Homework: Facts and
fictions. In T. Nilsen, A. Stancel-Piątak & J. Gustafsson (Eds.)
International Handbook of Comparative Large-Scale Studies in
Education: Perspectives, Methods and Findings. Springer
International Publishing.
Fernández-Alonso, R., Álvarez-Díaz, M., Woitschach, P., Suárez-
Álvarez, J. & Cuesta, M. (2017). Parental involvement and academic
performance: Less control and more communication. Psicothema,
29(4), 453-461. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2017.181.
Fernández-Alonso, R., Álvarez-Díaz, M., Suárez-Álvarez, J. & Muñiz, J.

(2017). Students’ achievement and homework assignment strategies.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 286. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.00286.
Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J. & Muñiz, J. (2014). Tareas
escolares en el hogar y rendimiento en matemáticas: una
aproximación multinivel con estudiantes de enseñanza primaria.
[Homework and academic performance in mathematics: A multilevel
approach with primary school student]. Revista de Psicología y
Educación, 9(2), 15-29. [Journal of Psychology and Education]
Adolescents’ homework performance in mathematics and science:
Personal factors and teaching practices. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 107(4), 1075-1085. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000032.
Homework and performance in mathematics: The role of the teacher,
the family and the student’s background. Revista de Psicodidáctica,
21(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.13939.
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.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 95. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2019.00095.
Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A. &
Schnyder, I. (2015). The Janus-faced nature of time spent on
homework: Using latent profile analyses to predict academic
achievement over a school year. Learning and Instruction, 39, 97-
Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A. &
Schnyder, I. (2021). Using multilevel mixture models in educational
research: An illustration with homework research. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 89(1), 209-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220973.2019.1652137.
Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J. & Ware, H. (2011). The role of homework

support resources, time spent on homework, and self-efficacy beliefs
in mathematics achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2),
312-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200206.
Kitsantas, A. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2009). College students’ homework
and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory
beliefs. Metacognition Learning, 4, 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11409-008-9028-y.
Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P. C., Kuyper, H. & Hendriks, A. A. J.
(2010). Does homework behavior mediate the relation between
personality and academic performance? Learning and Individual
Differences, 20, 203-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.
01.005.
Magalhães, P., Ferreira, D., Cunha, J. & Rosário, P. (2020). Online vs
traditional homework: A systematic review on the benefits to
students’ performance. Computers & Education, 152, 103869.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103869.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gregory, K. D., Hoyle, C. & Shen, C.
(2000). Effective Schools in Science and Mathematics. TIMSS &
PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O. & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007
International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and
Eighth Grades. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston
College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P. & Hooper, M. (2016a). TIMSS
Advanced 2015 International Results in Advanced Mathematics and
Physics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston
College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P. & Hooper, M. (2016b). TIMSS
2015 International Results in Mathematics. Retrieved from Boston
College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website:
http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/.
Murillo, F. J. & Martínez-Garrido, C. (2013). Homework influence on

academic performance. A study of Iberoamerican students of primary
education. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 18(1), 157-171. https://doi.org/
10.1387/RevPsicodidact.6156. [Journal of Psychodidactics]
Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational
Psychology, 35(6), 726-746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.
2013.817537.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A. & Epstein, J.
L. (2015). Relationships between perceived parental involvement in
homework, student homework behaviors and academic achievement:
Differences among elementary, junior high and high school students.
Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 375-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s11409-015-9135-5.
Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Rosário, P., Tuero, E. & Valle, A. (2014).
Student, teacher, and school context variables predicting academic
achievement in biology: Analysis from a multilevel perspective.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 19(1), 145-171. https://doi.org/10.1387
/RevPsicodidact.7127. [Journal of Psychodidactics]
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do –
Student performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume
I). OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en.
OECD. (2011). Quality time for students: Learning in and out of school.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264087057-en
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful?
Resources, policies and practices (Volume IV). OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Technical Report. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2020). PISA Data Explorer. https://pisadataexplorer.oecd.org/
ide/idepisa/.
Paschal, R. A., Weinstein, T. & Walberg. H. J. (1984). The effects of
homework on learning: A quantitative synthesis. The Journal of

00220671.1984.10885581.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A. & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how,
whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives:
More is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77(3),
373-410. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305567.
Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Baldaque, M., Nunes, T., Núñez, J. C.,
González-Pienda, J. A., Cerezo, R. & Valle, A. (2009). Tareas para
casa, autorregulación del aprendizaje y rendimiento en matemáticas.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 14(2), 179-192. [Homework, self-
regulation of learning and performance in mathematics. Journal of
Psychodidactics]
Scheerens, J., Hendriks, M., Luyten, H., Sleegers, P. & Cees, G. (2013).
Productive time in education. A review of the effectiveness of
teaching time at school, homework and extended time outside school
hours. University of Twente.
Stoeger, H. & & Ziegler, A. (2008). Evaluation of a classroom based
training to improve self-regulation in time management tasks during
homework activities with fourth graders. Metacognition and
Learning, 3, 207-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9027-z.
Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework-achievement relation reconsidered:
homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17, 372-388.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I. & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting
homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel
456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438.
and achievement: still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology
Review, 15, 115-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023460414243.
Trautwein, U., Köller, O., Schmitz, B. & Baumert, J. (2002). Do
homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis
in 7th grade mathematics. Contemporary Educational Psychology,

27, 26-50. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1084.
Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I. & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Between-
students’ homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 176-189. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176.
Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M. & Lüdtke, O.
(2009). Chameleon effects in homework research: The homework–
achievement association depends on the measures used and the level
of analysis chosen. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1),
77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001.
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(4), 422-428. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema
2019.191.
Warton, P. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students.
Educational Psychologist, 36, 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15326985EP3603_2.
Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools.
Educational Leadership, 41(8), 19-27.
Xu, J. (2013). Why do students have difficulties completing homework?
The need for homework management. Journal of Education and
Training Studies, 1(1), 98-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/
jets.v1i1.78.
Xu, J. & Wu, H. (2013). Self-Regulation of homework behavior:
Homework management at the secondary school level. The Journal
00220671.2012.658457.
Xu, J. (2021) Empirically derived profiles of homework purposes in

eleventh grade students: a latent profile analysis. Current
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01987-y.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and
academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and
perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 30(4), 397-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2005.05.003.
Chapter 6
SETTING QUALITY HOMEWORK:

THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
OF AN INTERVENTION PROPOSAL
Susana Rodríguez Martínez1,*, Tania Vieites1,

Isabel Piñeiro Aguín1, Antonio Valle Arias1
and Eleftheria Gonida2
1
2
Department of Developmental and School Psychology,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
ABSTRACT
The objective of this chapter is to provide some key points to guide

how to set quality homework. We propose an approach for setting
homework that comes from some of the weaknesses and gaps that are
evident in how homework is set normally. Looking at these gaps, and a
set of principles derived from research into learning, motivation, and
homework, led to the creation of the MITCA method of setting
*
Corresponding Author’s E-mail: susana.rodriguez1@udc.es.
158 S. R. Martínez, T. Vieites, I. P. Aguín et al.
homework (based on the Spanish initials [el Método de Implementación

de Tareas para Casa]. This method aims at making homework an
educational resource that can improve learning, self-regulation, and
student engagement. The method proposes that homework should (a) be
understood by students as instrumental, interesting, and useful for their
academic progress, (b) have a clear purpose and be sensitive to student
diversity, (c) help students evaluate themselves and understand their
own strengths and improvement opportunities, and (d) contribute to
improving students planning and time management skills.
INTRODUCTION
Homework, the school tasks which are set for students to do outside
of the classroom, has become the focus of agents involved in the learning
process. Some believe that setting homework encourages students to
participate in their learning, helping them to develop good study habits
and strengthening their emotional engagement with the school (Cooper,
2007; Keane & Heiz, 2019; Suárez et al., 2017; Trautwein, 2007). Others
argue the opposite, believing that, for example, too much homework is
set, or that poor quality homework can contribute to student rejection,
weakening their engagement with the school and potentially increasing
anxiety and stress about school tasks (Galloway et al., 2013; Pressman et
al, 2015).
One of the principal defenders of homework’s importance is
Trautwein (2007), who showed that homework improved students’ study
skills and their attitudes towards schoolwork, in addition to showing them
that learning is not limited to the classroom. One of the arguments that
teachers tend to make in favor of homework is that it reinforces and
complements what is learned in class. Homework has also been shown to
improve academic performance (Cooper, 1989) and self-regulation of
learning (Rosário, 2009). Teachers also seem to agree that homework
helps students to develop the habit of studying, coping, and making an
effort, along with a sense of responsibility for their own learning
(Bembenutty, 2011). In short, various studies into homework to date
suggest that these tasks tend to have a positive impact on student
Setting Quality Homework 159
development. In this regard, Epstein (2011) identified a series of aims for

those who might set homework: to practice or prepare content that is
covered in class, to encourage personal development, to strengthen the
relationship between the family and the school, to encourage interactions
between classmates, and to strengthen the relationships between parents
and their children, among others.
In contrast, homework’s detractors believe that, in addition to
limiting family time, homework may also make students averse to
schoolwork as it stops them from enjoying themselves and participating
in other extracurricular sporting or cultural activities (Vila, 2012).
Another argument against homework often centers on the amount of
homework that is set, especially when students or families feel
overburdened. It is also argued that homework tasks can be too repetitive,
generally selections from textbooks, based on memorization, and not
particularly motivating. Vila (2012) indicated that homework activities
can also increase inequality between students by highlighting
socioeconomic and cultural differences between families and in students’
backgrounds. Although some parents help their children with their
homework, others may not have the necessary education or the economic
resources to do that. In this regard, it is worth noting that, occasionally,
parents’ involvement in homework activities may clash with what
teachers have taught in the classroom (Cooper, 2001).
In the homework literature, the empirical evidence has not been
consistent in relation to the role of a number of factors such as time spent
on homework, effort expenditure during homework, motivation for
homework and feedback provided by the teacher. For example, the
results regarding the impact of time spent on homework on student
academic performance are not clear and are occasionally contradictory
(Rosário et al., 2011). In fact, the time that students spend on homework
does not seem by itself to guarantee their engagement in doing the tasks
and its quality (Rosário et al., 2008). Spending long time on homework
may be an indicator of low cognitive competency in the knowledge area,
poor self-regulation skills, poor management of distractors, or negative
emotions associated with doing these tasks at home, whereas spending a
short time on homework tasks may be associated with good competence

in the knowledge area (e.g., De Jong et al., 2000; Rosário et al., 2008). In
fact, various studies have shown that students who spend longer on
homework do not necessarily get better results than their classmates (De
Jong et al., 2000; Muhlenbruck et al., 2000; Trautwein, 2007), and that
this interaction may be mediated by students’ age or school grade.
Specifically, the interaction between time devoted on homework and
outcomes ranges from moderate to weak for students in later school years
(see e.g., Cooper & Valentine, 2001), whereas there is no relation at all
for primary school students (Cooper et al., 2000).
If we accept spending more time on homework to be more of an
indicator of motivational deficits or difficulties with learning than a sign
of high effort or motivation (Trautwein & Köller, 2003; Trautwein et al.,
2009), homework effort has been shown to have a more positive impact
on academic performance than time spent on it, per se, dedicated to
homework (Trautwein et al., 2006). This effort is assessed by three
specific variables that measure students’ behavioral engagement with
homework: the amount of homework completed, the time spent, and the
time use (Regueiro, 2018; Regueiro et al., 2014; Rodríguez et al., 2019;
Rosário et al., 2018; Valle et al., 2017). In addition to homework effort, it
is important to study the type of student’s motivation to do their
homework. There is empirical evidence indicating that the impact of
homework on learning may differ between those students who do their
homework because they are interested in or enthusiastic with it and
students who do their homework for other reasons, such as a sense of
obligation, a desire for praise, or even to avoid punishment (Walker et al.,
2004). This empirical evidence has shown that the benefit students get
from doing homework depends both on the type of motivation underlying
their engagement during homework and the types of strategies they
employ while they are doing their homework such as employing a
predominantly superficial approach rather than a deep approach to their
homework (Rodríguez-Pereiro et al., 2015). In the end, the motivation
towards homework (Trautwein et al., 2006) and, more specifically, the
type of motivation sustained when facing difficulties with homework is
key for understanding the quality of student engagement (Ryan & Deci,
2000).
Finally, the role of homework in students’ learning and performance
may also depend to some extent on the feedback they are given by the
teacher (Núñez et al., 2015; Trautwein et al., 2009). If, as on occasion,
they don’t get enough feedback from the teacher about their homework or
the feedback doesn’t order to increase their motivation and their self-
regulated learning processes, that may negatively contribute to the impact
of the homework on their learning and performance as well as affecting
their disposition to engage with homework tasks.
THE MITCA METHOD

OF HOMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION
Although previous studies seem to have concluded that homework is

beneficial for learning and school achievement, we still do not have clear
criteria about how, when, and how much homework should be set
(Detterms, et al., 2010; Rosàrio, et al., 2019). Given the key importance
of the characteristics of homework and its underlying purposes, on the
one hand, and the relative scarcity of guidance about the prerequisites for
quality homework, on the other, Valle and Rodríguez (2020) recently
developed an evidence-based method to support teachers organize
homework in a way that improves their students’ learning, self-
regulation, and engagement. Based on the Spanish initials, the method is
called MITCA (Método de Implementación de Tareas para Casa, i.e.,
Homework Implementation Method) and provides the basic principles for
homework to become a valuable educational resource for teachers and
ultimately for students. This method has been designed for the last years
of Primary Education with the aim of promoting students’ self-regulation
before continuing their studies in Secondary Education, although MITCA
can also be carried out at higher stages.
The method proposes that homework should (a) be understood by

students as instrumental, interesting, and useful for their academic
progress, (b) have a clear purpose and be sensitive to student diversity,
(c) help students evaluate themselves and understand their own strengths
and improvement opportunities, and (d) contribute to improving students’
planning and time management skills. To fulfill the above aims, five
concrete principles have been conceptualized. In the following section,
the five principles underlying the MITCA method are presented.
The MITCA Principles
With the aim of making homework into an educational resource that

can improve student self-regulation and school engagement, the MITCA
method has been designed along five principles. These
principles/conditions are related, first, to the homework tasks (required
processes, mental work, and content) and, second, to the teacher
responsibilities in relation to homework (transmitting motivation, time
management and feedback). Specifically: (1) Homework tasks should not
be only review and post-topic activities; similar proportions of review,
organization, and production tasks as well as feasible (not frustrating)
pre-topic activities are also appropriate; (2) homework tasks should be
described previously by the mental work they involve and the content
they cover; (3) teachers should communicate to the students the
usefulness, importance, and applicability of the homework tasks they set;
(4) homework is set weekly and students establish specific times to do it;
and (5) homework is corrected/marked weekly, whether in class or
individually, differentiating between things which need improvement and
positive points. These five conditions for setting homework can be
labeled respectively as: diverse, specific, valuable, weekly, and corrected.
In the following paragraphs, each of the above conditions for setting
quality homework is described.
Varied Tasks
Homework is usually repetitive, based on memorization, does not

support self-regulated learning skills, and, generally, is not very
motivating. Frequently, tasks are set after the content has been covered in
the classroom and include post-topic activities. To address this issue,
MITCA suggests two lines of task variety: (i) tasks should be
proportionally distributed among tasks requiring review, organization,
and production processes by the students, and (ii) tasks should include
preliminary activities for content that has not yet been taught (pre-topic
activities) which would potentially help activate students’ curiosity.
The idea of task diversity in MITCA was developed based on a
classification of homework tasks in line with suggestions made by Mayer
(Mayer, 2014a, 2014b), the SOAR framework (Kiewra, 2005; Jairam et
al., 2014), and the ICAP framework of cognitive engagement modes
(Chi, 2009; Chi & Wylie, 2014). In the context of models of self-
regulated learning which emphasize the importance of understanding the
cognitive operations required for a task as strategies facilitating encoding
and storage of the material to learn (Weinstein et al., 2011), MITCA
identifies specific characteristics of different types of tasks according to
the cognitive processes they involve. These task characteristics are
summarized below:
 Review tasks: tasks which involve selecting, recognizing,

differentiating, identifying, or writing definitions, concepts, and
procedures.
 Organization tasks: activities that require the student to order
ideas, describe sequences, construct classification tables, or to
produce outlines, flow diagrams, or sequences, etc.
 Production tasks: tasks which involve actions such as
paraphrasing, giving examples, solving new problems, producing
explanations for others, constructing stories or problems,
guessing non-explicit information, resolving novel issues or
situations, and discussing and defending positions and opinions.
In light of a significant body of empirical research in recent years

about the impact of cognitive strategies on the promotion of
understanding and learning (see, e.g., Dunlosky et al., 2013; Fiorella &
Mayer 2015; Novak, 2010; Sweller et al., 2011), more active engagement
with homework is expected when the above types of homework tasks are
assigned. In addition to the benefits that review and organization
homework tasks have for the students (e.g., identifying information,
writing, ordering concepts etc.), the MITCA model strongly emphasizes
more constructive modes of work on behalf of the students. Specifically,
activities like paraphrasing or drafting an opinion, preparing explanations
for others or defending an argument in public require the student to get
actively engaged in the material, process the information in various ways,
reflect upon it and practice self-regulated skills. As Alleman et al., (2010)
suggested, assigning meaningful homework enriches the school
curriculum by promoting critical thinking, problem solving, the
development of new skills, and the creation of product. Diversification of
homework tasks may also be expected to contribute to academic
performance, to the amount of homework engaged with, and meta-
knowledge of tasks (Alleman et al., 2010).
Moreover, setting sufficiently diverse homework activities, with a
certain amount of discretion on behalf of the teachers, will help teachers
tailor homework to different learning styles, paces, interests and
preferences of their students, and will potentially advance student
engagement with homework and, ultimately opportunities for mastery to
all and equity (Cooper et al., 2006; Holte, 2016). Thus, for example,
students who have not yet mastered some content or skill can continue
with tasks involving review or organization activities, while others can
choose to engage with more production-oriented tasks, which may be
more suitable and more motivating for them. We believe that the MITCA
approach improves the organization of the teacher’s work and promotes
the achievement of the learning objectives he has for his students, and
provides the learner with a solid platform for implementing cognitive
strategies during their learning episodes outside the classroom.
Specific Tasks
Homework tasks are usually set based on textbooks for the various
school subjects, with a page number and frequently an identifier. Specific
information about the content of the homework, the necessary cognitive
skills addressed by each activity, the time required, or the purpose behind
homework are less likely to be provided to the students. This insufficient
or non-appropriate information may contribute to encouraging superficial
engagement with homework, mainly towards homework completion and
limited focus on the process itself and deeper understanding. To address
this problem MITCA reminds teachers the need to define the tasks they
set in terms of cognitive processing and content (e.g., McCardle et al.,
2016). Setting homework includes specifying the content to learn, (e.g.,
adverbs and adjectives, subtraction problems) and identifying the specific
mental actions to employ in each episode of learning at home (e.g.,
differentiate/create).
This condition for setting homework is a radical change to the usual
practice of setting homework tasks. Rather than telling the students what
page or exercise to do at home (e.g., exercise 2 on page 32 of the Spanish
textbook and exercise 3 on page 12 of the mathematics textbook),
homework tasks are formulated based on the content of each activity
(e.g., the exercise differentiates adverbs from adjectives, and the exercise
has to do with inventing a subtraction problem) and help the student to
identify and focus on the relevant parts of the study material. In addition,
because practicing a skill, for example, needs a different focus from the
student than learning new information (Marzano et al., 2000), specifying
tasks in terms of the required mental actions and/or specific cognitive
processes that should be employed for the particular homework tasks will
tune students’ attention on the learning process and on the required
strategies to proceed with homework.
Worthwhile Tasks
Students sometimes do not understand the value of homework tasks

for their learning or for their personal development (Coutts, 2004),
whereas teachers usually consider the value of homework as self-evident
to students or simply as part of students’ school duties. In addition,
research in the field of achievement motivation has shown that students’
intrinsic motivation, interest, and positive attitudes towards school tasks
tend to decline as students move from primary to secondary school and
onwards (Pan et al., 2013; Regueiro et al., 2014). In this context, it seems
important for teachers to share with students how useful the tasks being
set are, as well as their value in relation to the content covered in the
classroom and to various general everyday activities. Based on theory
and evidence indicating that the value students attribute to homework is a
key element of their engagement with it (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Wigfield & Cambria, 2010), MITCA urges teachers to communicate to
their students the usefulness, interest, importance, and applicability of the
tasks they set for homework.
The value of a task is a complex construct made up of the level of
enjoyment it provides, the extent to which it contributes to meeting
individual needs and personal fulfilment, and its usefulness in achieving
short- and long-term goals (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield &
Cambria, 2010). Educational researchers are relatively unanimous that
intrinsic factors such as interest in tasks constitutes a strong motivational
factor that predicts deep processing of information, better performance
and self-regulated learning (e.g., Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Wigfield &
Cambria, 2010). At the same time, extrinsic factors such as attributing
some kind of utility to tasks (e.g., saying that this kind of task will be in
the exam or the best answers will be shown in class) or instrumental
value(e.g., saying that this will help students to make good purchases in
the sales or learn to speak in public) may also contribute to cognitive and
emotional engagement with the tasks as well as to student performance
(Katz & Assor, 2006; Miller & Brickman, 2004; Rosenzweig, Wigfield,
& Hulleman, 2020). Based on these premises, MITCA affirms that the
subjective value attributed to homework tasks can be improved when

teachers clarify expectations, when homework covers a variety of tasks
taken into account, as much as possible,students’ interest and needs, and
when teachers identify their utility and instrumental value.
When teachers underline the importance and value of the homework
tasks they set, students are more likely to be more engaged, to put more
effort at home, and complete those tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Keane &
Heinz, 2019; Wigfield, 1994). Setting homework tasks with clear
purposes and guidelines, offering students the chance to review, continue
or broaden their learning, assigning diverse tasks covering students’
preferences and interests, and including explicit information about the
value of successfully doing the tasks and their instrumental utility will all
contribute positively to students’ dedication and engagement with
homework.
Weekly Homework
Homework has an impact on the time the students have available

outside of school hours and requires behavioral self-regulation and
willpower, that is the skill to organize one’s surroundings, manage time,
concentrate, and control motivation and emotions (Corno, 2004; Xu,
2010; Xu & Corno, 2003). This combination of skills is usually assumed,
but rarely explicitly trained, examined or addressed specifically in the
classroom. In this context, MITCA focuses specifically on time
management, proposing weekly homework, and encouraging teachers to
help students to schedule and establish specific times for them to do their
homework.
The advantages of effective time management in education are the
subject of attention from various fields, and traditionally have been
addressed from educational guidance centers especially in higher
education. In fact, the practices associated with poor time management,
such as not properly distributing the time among different tasks,
cramming before exams, or not meeting deadlines, —have been
examined in the literature, often as a notable source of stress, and have

been usually associated with poor academic performance (Longman &
Atkinson, 2004; Macan et al., 1990). Specifying objectives and being
committed to times and dates not only increases the number of strategies
used to tackle tasks, but also creates opportunities to actively supervise
students’ progress and give constructive feedback. In effect, this
condition of setting homework weekly—doubtless facilitates the students
to establish plans for learning episodes and constitutes a valuable
resource that allows supervision of progress, recognition of difficulties,
and increased possibilities for review by itself (McCardle et al., 2016;
Zimmerman, 2008).
Evaluated Tasks
Although empirical evidence has consistently indicated the

importance of correcting/grading, commenting on, and discussing
completed academic tasks in the classroom (Cooper & Nye, 1994; Jenson
et al., 1994; Keith, 1987; Marzano et al., 2000; Paschal et al., (1984);
Protheroe, 2009; Redding, 2000), feedback for homework is not always
given. Not providing this feedback for work set in class and done at home
is very likely to have an impact on the value students place on homework
and their perceptions of how useful and beneficial is, and ultimately may
affect their engagement in homework.
There are various types of monitoring and correction of homework.
These usually vary depending on the characteristics of the students and of
the teacher (e.g., prior student knowledge of the topic, the number of
students in the class or teacher’s methodology and teacher training).
However, due to the potential impact of homework correction on student
effort and engagement (Cooper & Nye, 1994; Jenson et al., 1994; Keith,
1987; Marzano et al., 2000; Paschal et al., (1984); Protheroe, 2009;
Redding, 2000), the MITCA approach recommends implementing
individual correction, and in the absence of that, explicit provision of
answers, solutions and necessary explanations of all homework tasks in

class.
Based on theory and empirical evidence, the MITCA approach
specifies a strategy of feedback which is informative and motivating.
Feedback which gives tailored information about the positive aspects and
strengths of homework and guidance about what needs further
improvment(informative feedback) becomes an educational resource
which can enhance learners’ self-regulation skills and improve their
academic engagement (Cooper, 2001; Fong et al., 2016). Based on the
theoretical framework of self-regulated learning underlying this approach
(Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Winne & Hadwin, 1998; Zimmerman,
2000), we might expect informative feedback about completed
homework to encourage students’ self-reflection about the quality of
progress and the difficulties they found, giving them opportunities to
improve and broaden their content knowledge but also their knowledge
about themselves as learners. Feedback which gives information on
progress achieved and future steps will potentially improve both current
learning and future learning episodes.
In addition to the informative feedback and in order to bolster
students’ confidence and expectations for success, the MITCA approach
includes the condition of motivating feedback as part of the feedback
strategy. Specifically, MITCA includes both constructive criticism and
praise of aspects that students can control, such as effort and dedication,
feedback elements that have been found to significantly, contribute to
students’ motivational engagement (see, e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2016; Fong
et al., 2019).
CONCLUSION
Given the insufficient research available about those characteristics

of homework that would contribute to quality learning, this chapter aimed
to present MITCA, a theory and evidence-based approach specifically
developed for homework aiming to contribute to improved student
learning experiences (e.g., Chi, 2009; Chi & Wylie, 2014; Fong et al.,
2019; Mayer, 2014 a, b; McCardle et al., 2016; Zimmerman, 2000,
2008). MITCA attempts to provide teachers with specific guidelines for
setting and organizing the homework activities for their students in order
them to benefit more from homework and have better learning outcomes.
The approach presented brings together the scientific evidence which
supports a significant positive relationship between homework and
performance with the difficulty in balancing homework and non-class
time, which is often referred to as a challenge (Cooper, 1989; Cooper,
Robinson & Patall, 2006; Núñez, Suárez, Cerezo et al., 2015; Núñez,
Suárez, Rosário, Vallejo, Cerezo et al., 2015; Trautwein, Köller, Schmitz
& Baumert, 2002). In this regard, the approach encourages weekly setting
of homework that includes initial help in the classroom for managing
time. Hence, although the students should establish personal schedules
for doing homework with external help (teacher assistance) in the
beginning, teachers can gradually scaffold student autonomy and
time/task management skills. Moreover, to further support proper
planning and distribution of time, the approach proposes setting
homework tasks that are as specific as possible as well as tasks that
students perceive as valuable for them.
In order to address students’ negative attitudes towards homework,
refusal and procrastination when tackling unmotivating, repetitive
homework that is based on memorization, the method suggests setting
varied and valuable tasks. Assigning activities that pique students’
curiosity as feasible pre-topic tasks, along with a range of task types such
as review, organization, and production, will encourage student
engagement with homework. In addition to specifying the academic
content to be addressed via homework, specifying the mental activity for
each homework learning episode is essential since it provides students
with valid guidelines how to work and how to implement strategies
during their learning episodes at home. Equally important is to assign
valuable tasks. Communicating the usefulness, interest, and applicability
of the homework in everyday life to the students may help enhance their
motivational engagement with the homework.
We further ensure learners perceive the value of what they do by

assuring corrections and/or explanations of their homework in the
classroom and by providing detailed feedback from the teachers based on
students’ individual work (see, e.g., Núñez, et al., 2015; Rosário et al.,
2015; Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2009; Xu & Wu, 2013). Providing
informative and motivating feedback to students, including opportunities
to improve, will encourage students’ self-reflection and enhance their
self-regulation skills.
In conclusion, this approach, summed up in the five conditions
presented in this chapter (varied, specific, valuable, weekly scheduled,
corrected tasks) hopefully represents a sufficiently clear and concise
approach for setting quality homework and a proposal for teacher
professional development. Future longitudinal and intervention studies
will provide further support of the approach. Pellentesque habitant morbi
tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Proin
pharetra nonummy pede. Mauris et orci.
FUNDING
This chapter was performed thanks to financing from research project

EDU2013- 44062-P (MINECO) and EDU2017-82984-P (MEIC) and
financing received by one of the authors from the FPI program (Ref:
PRE2018/084938), granted by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and
Universities (Spain).
REFERENCES
Alleman, J., Brophy, J., Knighton, B., Ley, R., Botwinski, B. &
Middlestead, S. (2010). Homework Done Right: Powerful Learning
in Real-Life Situations. Corwin.
Bang, H. (2012). Promising homework practices: teachers’ perspectives

on making homework for newcomer immigrant students. The High
School Journal, 95 (2), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2012.0001.
Bembenutty, H. (2011). Meaning and maladaptive homework practices:
The role of self-efficacy and self-regulation. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 22, 448–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X11022
00304.
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual
framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive
Science, 1, 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.
x.
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive
engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist,
49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. New York: Longman. https://doi.org/
10.1037/11578-000.
Cooper, H. (2007). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for
Administrators, Teachers, and Parents. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781483329420.
Cooper, H., & Nye, B. (1994). Homework for students with learning
disabilities: The implications of research for policy and practice.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(8), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.
1177/002221949402700802.
Cooper, H. (2001). Homework for All--in Moderation. Educational
Leadership, 58(7), 34-38.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. & Patall, E. (2006). Does homework improve
academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review
of Educational Research, 76, 1-62. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346
543076001001.
Cooper, H. & Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical
questions about homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 143-153.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3603_1.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J. & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in the home:
How student, family, and parenting-style differences relate to the
homework process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 464-

487. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1036.
Corno, L. (2004). Introduction to the special issue work habits and work
styles: Volition in education. Teachers College Record, 106(9),
1669–1694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00400.x.
Coutts, P. M. (2004) Meanings of Homework and Implications for
Practice. Theory Into Practice, 43 (3), 182-188. https://doi.org/10.
1207/s15430421tip4303_3.
T. (2018). “Homework feedback is…”: Elementary and middle
school teachers’ conceptions of homework feedback. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 32. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00032.
De Jong, R., Westerhof, K. J. & Creemers, B. P. M. (2000). Homework
and student math achievement in junior high schools. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 6, 130-157. https://doi.org/10.1076/1380-
3611(200006)6:2;1-E;F130.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Optimizing students’ motivation in
the era of testing and pressure: a self-determination theory
perspective. En W. C. Liu, J. C. K. Weng, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Building Autonomous Learners (pp. 9–29). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018453.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham,
D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning
techniques: promising direction from cognitive and educational
psychology. Psychological Science and the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and
goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
Elawar, M. C., & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers’

written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behavior a
little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2),
162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.2.162.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships:
Preparing educators and improving schools. London: Routledge.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity:
eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107707085.
Fong, C. J., Patall, E. A., Vasquez, A. C., & Stautberg, S. (2019). A
meta-analysis of negative feedback on intrinsic motivation.
Educational Psychology Review, 31, 121- 162. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10648-018-9446-6.
Fong, C. J., Warner, J. R., Williams, K. M., Schallert, D. L., Chen, L.,
Williamson, Z. H., & Lin, S. (2016). Deconstructing constructive
criticism: the nature of academic emotions associated with
constructive, positive, and negative feedback. Learning and
Individual Differences, 49, 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.
2016.05.019.
Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic Effects of
Homework in Privileged, High-Performing High Schools. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 490-510. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745469.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. K. (2006). The Four-Phase Model of Interest
Development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4.
Holte, K. L. (2016). Homework in primary school: could it be more
child-friendly? Studia paedagogica, 21 (4), 13-33. https://doi.org/10.
5817/SP2016-4-1.
Jairam, D., Kiewra, K. A., Rogers-Kasson, S., Patterson-Hazley, M., &
Marxhausen, K. (2014). SOAR versus SQ3R: a test of two study
systems. Instructional Science, 42, 409–420.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2006). When choice motivates and when it does
not. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 429-442.
Keane, G., & Heinz, M. (2019). Differentiated homework: Impact on

student engagement. Journal of Practitioner Research, 4 (2), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.5038/2379-9951.4.2.1111.
Kiewra, K. A. (2005). Learn how to study and SOAR to success. Upper
Saddle River: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Longman, D. G., & Atkinson, R. H. (2004). College learning and study
skills. Wadsworth Publishing.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990).
College students’ time management: correlations with academic
performance and stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 760–
768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.760.
Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. En R. E.
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2ª
Ed., pp. 43– 71). Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning.
Learning and Instruction, 29, 171-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2013.04.003.
McCardle, L., Webster, E. A., Haffey, A., & Hadwin, A. F. (2016).
Examining students’ self-set goals for self-regulated learning: Goal
properties and patterns. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2153-
2169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1135117.
Miller, R. B., & Brickman, S. J. (2004). A model of future oriented
motivation and self-regulation. Educational Psychology Review, 16,
9-33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000012343.96370.39.
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1009680513901.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept
maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Routledge.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R. & Valle, A.
(2015). Teachers’ feedback on homework, homework-related
behaviors and academic achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 108 (3), 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.

878298.
Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Cerezo, R., González-Pienda, J. A., Rosário, P.,
Psychology, 35(6), 726-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.
817537.
Pan, I., Regueiro, B., Ponte, B., Rodríguez, S., Piñeiro, I. & Valle, A.
(2013). Motivación, implicación en los deberes escolares &
rendimiento académico. Aula Abierta, 41 (3), 13-22. [Motivation,
involvement in homework & academic performance. Open
Classroom]
J. A., & Schettini-Evans, A. (2015). Homework and Family Stress:
With Consideration of Parents’ Self Confidence, Educational Level,
and Cultural Background. The American Journal of Family Therapy,
43(4), 297-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1061407.
Regueiro, B. (2018). Metas académicas, deberes escolares y aprendizaje
en estudiantes de secundaria [Universidade da Coruña].
http://hdl.handle.net/2183/21560. [Academic Goals, Homework, and
Learning in High School Students]
Regueiro, B., Pan, I., Valle, A., Nuñez, J. C., Suárez, N. & Rosàrio, P.
(2014). Motivación e implicación en los deberes escolares:
diferencias en función del rendimiento escolar y del curso. INFAD
Revista de Psicología, 1 (7), 425-436. https://doi.org/10.17060/
ijodaep.2014.n1.v7.813. [Motivation and involvement in homework:
differences based on school performance and the course. INFAD
Journal of Psychology]
Rodríguez, S., Núñez, J. C., Valle, A., Freire, C., Ferradás, M. M., &
Rodríguez-Llorente, C. (2019). Relationship Between Students’ Prior
Academic Achievement and Homework Behavioral Engagement:
The Mediating/Moderating Role of Learning Motivation. Frontiers in
Rodríguez-Pereiro, S., Regueiro, B., Piñeiro, I., Pan, I., Sánchez, B. &
Valle, A. (2015). Enfoques de trabajo e implicación en los deberes
escolares en estudiantes de Educación Primaria. Revista de estudios e
investigación en psicología y educación, 1, 90-92. https://doi.org/10.
17979/reipe.2015.0.01.468. [Work approaches and involvement in
homework in Primary Education students. Journal of Studies and
Research in Psychology and Education]
Rosário, P. Mourão, R., Trigo, L., Suárez, N., Fernández, E. & Tuero-
Herrero, E. (2011). Uso de diarios de tareas para casa en el inglés
como lengua extranjera: evaluación de pros y contras en el
aprendizaje autorregulado y rendimiento. Psicothema, 23(4), 881-
887. [Using Homework Journals in English as a Foreign Language:
Assessing the Pros and Cons of Self-Regulated Learning and
Performance. Psychothema]
C. (2019). “Homework Should Be…but We Do Not Live in an Ideal
World”: Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives on Quality Homework
and on Homework Assigned in Elementary and Middle Schools.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.
00224.
Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Baldaque, M., Nunes, T., Núñez, J. C.,
González-Pienda, J. A. & Valle, A. (2009). Tareas para casa,
autorregulación del aprendizaje y rendimiento en matemáticas.
Revista de Psicodidáctica, 14, 179-192. [Homework, self-regulation
of learning and performance in mathematics. Journal of
Psychodidactics]
Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Núñez, J. C. & Solano, P. (2008). Homework
and Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) at issue: findings and future
trends. In A. Valle, J. C. Núñez, R. G. Cabanach, J. A. González-
Pienda & S. Rodríguez (Eds.), Handbook of instructional resources
and their applications in the classroom (pp. 123-134). Nueva York:
Nova Science Publishers.

04.001.
Rosenzweig, E. O., Wigfield, A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2020). More useful
or not so bad? Examining the effects of utility value and cost
reduction interventions in college physics. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 112(1), 166-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000370.
Ryan, E. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of motivation, social development, and well-being.
American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning:
From teaching to self-reflective practice. Guilford Press.
Suárez, N., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., Regueiro, B., &
Rosário, P. (2017). Tareas para casa, rendimiento académico e
implicación de padres y profesores. International Journal of
Developmental and Educational Psychology. Revista INFAD de
Psicología., 7(1), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2014
.n1.v7.811. [Homework, academic performance and involvement of
parents and teachers. International Journal of Developmental and
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory.
Springer.
Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework-achievement relation reconsidered:
homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17, 372-388. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009.
and achievement—still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology
Review, 15, 116-145. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023460414243.
Trautwein, U., Köller, O., Schmitz, B. & Baumert, J. (2002). Do
homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis
in 7th grade mathematics. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
27, 26-50. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1084.
Trautwein, U. & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and

homework effort in six school subjects: The role of person and
family caracteristics, classroom factors and school track. Learning
and Instruction, 19, 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.
2008.05.001.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O. Kastens, C. & Köller, O. (2006). Effort on
homework in grades 5 through 9: Development, motivational
antecedents, and the association with effort on class-work. Child
Development, 77, 1094-1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.
2006.00921.x.
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I. & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting
homework effort: Support for domain-specific, multilevel homework
model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 438-456.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438.
Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M. & Ludtke, O.
(2009). Chameleon effects in homework research: The homework-
achievement association depends on the measures used and the level
of analysis chosen. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 77-
88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001.
Vila, D. (2012). A vueltas con los deberes. Muface, 222, 28-33. [Back
with homework.]
Valle, A., Regueiro, B., Suárez, N., Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., & Pan, I.
(2017). Rendimiento académico, enfoques de trabajo e implicación
en los deberes escolares. Magis. Revista Internacional de
Investigación en Educación, 10(20), 123-142. https://www.redalyc.
org/articulo.oa?id=2810/281056021008. [Academic performance,
work approaches and involvement in homework. Magis.
International Journal of Research in Education]
Valle, A. & Rodríguez, S. (2020). MITCA: Homework Implementation
Method. University of A Coruña: Publication service. https://doi.org/
10.17979/spudc.9788497496360.
Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Whetselm, D. R. & Green, C.
L. (2004). Parental involvement in homework: A review of current
research and its implications for teacher, afterschool program staff,

and parent leaders. Harvard.
Weinstein, C. E., Acee, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self‐regulation and
learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126,
45-53.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement
motivation: A development perspective. Educational Psychologist,
6(1), 49-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209024.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal
orientations and interest: Definitions, development and relations to
achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30 (1), 1-35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated
learning. Metacognition in educational theory and practice, 93, 27-
30.
Xu, J. (2010). Predicting homework time management at the secondary
Differences, 20, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.001.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2003). Family help and homework management
reported by middle school students. The Elementary School Journal,
103(5), 503-517. https://doi.org/10.1086/499737.
Xu, J. & Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior:
homework management at the secondary school level. Journal of
00220671.2012.658457.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive
perspective. En M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Goal Setting: A Key Proactive Source of
Academic Self-Regulation. En D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Motivation and Self-regulated Learning: Theory, Research,
and Applications (pp. 267–95). Erlbaum.
CONCLUSION:
TASKS FOR TEACHERS AND PARENTS
Bibiana Regueiro Fernández1,

Susana Rodríguez Martínez 2,
Isabel Piñeiro Aguín2 and Antonio Valle Arias2
1
Department of Pedagogy and Didactics, University of Santiago de
Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
2
Department of Psychology, University of A Coruña,
A Coruña, Spain
Although there is no shortage of people who question some of the

benefits of homework, it seems clear that setting it serves to solidify
knowledge, improve skills, and optimize students’ learning and academic
achievement.
To round off this manual, we present ten key guidelines for teachers
and parents to bear in mind during the homework process. They are
necessarily concise and simplified, but they are essential aspects in
achieving useful, diverse homework that motivates students.
182 B. R. Fernández, S. R. Martínez, I. P. Aguín et al.
TEACHERS MUST HAVE CLEAR OBJECTIVES

FOR SETTING HOMEWORK
Homework must have a clear purpose and must be useful for

students. If students view homework as make-work that is of little use
and has no clear objective, their intrinsic motivation and interest will
probably diminish. Because of this, before setting homework, teachers
should think about the purpose of the homework and take the necessary
steps for the students to be aware of that purpose.
TEACHERS MUST GIVE THE STUDENTS FEEDBACK
Teachers are responsible for shaping the amount, frequency,

duration, objectives, and evaluation of the homework they set for their
students. Teachers’ decisions about these questions will notably affect
how the students do the homework and particularly the quality and
benefits of the process, both in terms of motivation and how deeply the
students engage with the process. Homework tasks being something that
students find useful, interesting, and motivating will largely depend on
how the teachers set these tasks and the connections that they establish
with the learning in the classroom. Students’ homework must be followed
by teacher feedback, the best form of which will include information
about mistakes along with strategies to use to do it correctly.
HOMEWORK ADAPTED TO STUDENT DIVERSITY
Before setting homework, teachers must predict how long the

students will need to do it, bearing in mind that this will vary based on
students’ ages, levels of development, knowledge, and abilities. Proper
setting of homework must address individual differences and the
cognitive, motivational, and emotional diversity of the students
Conclusion: Tasks for Teachers and Parents 183
HOMEWORK MUST HAVE CLEAR,

EXPLICIT EVALUATION CRITERIA
The evaluation criteria for the homework must be clear and the
students must be aware of it. Teachers should communicate to students
how they will assess whether the homework has been done, and whether
it has been done correctly or not. Some students do not finish homework
because of issues in organization, the difficulty of the task, or various
other reasons. Teachers must bear in mind that punishing students may be
inappropriate. This means teachers need to clearly explain the measures
to be taken for cases in which a student does not finish their homework or
does not do it properly.
HOMEWORK IS FOR THE STUDENTS,

NOT FOR THE PARENTS
Homework should be done by the students themselves, without

anyone else’s help. Parents should provide motivational and affective
support and should always supervise and monitor so that their children do
their homework, but they should never help them actually do their
homework and should never do homework that their children do not want
to do, do not know how to do, or feel that they cannot do.
HOMEWORK THAT IS USEFUL AND LINKED

TO THE REAL WORLD
It would be interesting to help students learn to improve or maintain

their motivation for homework, as well as to teach them to be more
autonomous when doing it. As in all other aspects of education, students
have to understand why they are learning something and how it will be
184 B. R. Fernández, S. R. Martínez, I. P. Aguín et al.
useful to them in the real world, otherwise it would be almost impossible

for them to be motivated.
PARENTS MUST BE INVOLVED PROVIDING SUPPORT
It would be useful to increase the quality rather than the quantity of

parental support with homework. Given that parent figures are the
primary source of children’s socialization, another option is strengthening
the family-school relationships, with teachers who advise parents about
their participation in the homework process without making the mistake
of playing formal “teaching” roles in homework. Instead, parents should
facilitate and supervise homework, offer guidance but not answers, be
available to answer simple questions, offer positive feedback, provide
time and a quiet, well-lit space for their children to work in, ensure the
necessary materials are available, help with managing time and workload,
and contact the teacher if there are problems that they cannot resolve. In
addition, improving parents’ abilities so that they can more effectively
help with homework may also be particularly important.
MOTIVATED PARENTS, MOTIVATED STUDENTS
In general, students achieve better results when they are motivated by

their parents, when they receive affective and emotional support doing
homework, and when they talk with their parents about school, their
possible choices, and their study, both present and future. Parental
involvement around homework should be focused on enhancing
motivational conditions and affective support more than on helping to do
the homework itself. If students see that homework is important for their
experience outside school, that it responds to their interests, and helps
reinforce their knowledge, they will also see its importance and, of
course, parents will also be part of this process, understanding the
Conclusion: Tasks for Teachers and Parents 185
validity of homework as a tool that helps to consolidate classroom

learning.
WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN TIME SPENT

IN HOMEWORK IS THE MANAGEMENT
AND THE USE MADE OF THIS TIME?
In setting homework, the ideal is that doing more homework means

better use of the time spent on it and less time spent doing it. This is
without forgetting that homework should be set following the principle
that guides any teaching process, that it must be adapted to each students’
interests, needs, knowledge, and skills. It is for this reason that setting the
same amount, type, and level of difficulty of homework for all students is
something that particularly harms those who have greater difficulties,
who have lower levels of achievement, less prior knowledge, or who are
less motivated. Improving students’ time management skills should be a
priority for the education system, as that will help produce students who
are more autonomous and self-regulated in their learning processes and in
their day to day lives.
MOTIVATIONAL, COGNITIVE, AND BEHAVIORAL

ENGAGEMENT WITH HOMEWORK IS BENEFICIAL FOR
LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Motivational engagement (my intention or why I do the homework),

cognitive engagement (how I approach the homework), and behavioral
engagement (how much homework I do, how long I spend on it, how I
manage this time) are key aspects that affect the homework process, the
learning process, and academic achievement.
EDITORS’ CONTACT INFORMATION
Susana Rodríguez Martínez

Department of Psychology,
Faculty of Educational Sciences,
Campus of Elviña University of La Coruña,
Galicia, 15008, Spain
susana.rodriguez1@udc.es
Antonio Valle Arias

Campus of Elviña University of La Coruña
Galicia, Spain
antonio.valle@udc.es
188 Editors’ Contact Information
Isabel Piñeiro Aguín

Campus of Elviña University of La Coruña
Galicia, 15008, Spain
isabel.pineiro.aguin@udc.es
Bibiana Regueiro Fernández

University of Santiago de Compostela
bibiana.regueriro@usc.es
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Carolina Rodríguez- Llorente, PhD Student

Fátima Diaz- Freire, PhD Student
Rocio González- Suárez, PhD Student
Tania Vieites Lestón, PhD Student
University of a Coruña
Dra. Iris Estevez Blanco

University of Santiago de Compostela
Dr. Celestino Rodríguez

Dr. José Carlos Núñez
Dr. Rubén Fernández-Alonso
Dra. Trinidad García Fernández
Amanda Abín Álvarez, PhD Student
Tania Pasarín- Lavín, PhD Student
University of Oviedo
190 List of Contributors
Dr. Jennifer Cunha

Dr. Pedro Sales Luís Rosario
Juliana Martins, PhD Student
Sofia Almeida, PhD Student
University of Minho
Dr. Jianzhong Xu
University of Macao/ Mississippi State University
Dra. Sofia Eleftheria Gonida

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Dr. José Muñiz Fernández

Nebrija University
INDEX
anxiety, 17, 22, 23, 25, 30, 45, 81, 109,

A
141, 158
assignment, 12, 24, 64, 66, 91, 104, 105,
academic achievement, 2, 17, 19, 20, 21,
106, 110, 111, 115, 150
23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 49, 50, 54,
attitudes, vi, viii, 4, 8, 16, 17, 21, 27, 46,
58, 61, 65, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 95, 96, 99,
49, 65, 102, 106, 120, 125, 127, 148,
100, 101, 102, 113, 116, 118, 119, 121,
158, 166, 170
123, 134, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 155,
autonomous communities, 41
172, 175, 176, 178, 181, 185
academic learning, 47
academic motivation, 16 B
academic performance, 3, 13, 14, 16, 19,
20, 21, 25, 32, 40, 42, 45, 47, 84, 89, 92, behavioral dimension, 67, 69
95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 115, 120, behavioral engagement, 18, 19, 20, 25, 33,
128, 138, 149, 150, 151, 152, 158, 159, 35, 74, 121, 160, 176, 185
160, 164, 168, 175 behaviors, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, 22, 34, 54, 65,
academic progress, viii, 30, 129, 158, 162 82, 85, 86, 96, 100, 104, 119, 121, 152,
academic tasks, 16, 17, 147, 168 175, 177
achievement orientation, 92, 93 benefits, 7, 9, 55, 64, 79, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96,
achievement test, 25 98, 101, 103, 104, 105, 108, 111, 112,
achievement value, 17, 180 118, 137, 151, 164, 181, 182
administrators, 82, 114 boredom, 25, 45, 80, 141
adolescents, 30, 117
age, 13, 71, 136, 160
amount of homework completed, 19, 25,
67, 160
192 Index
criticism, 52, 66, 67, 90, 169, 174

C
cross-sectional study, 84
cultural differences, 159
challenges, 41, 86, 94, 111, 121
curriculum, 164
childhood, 41, 54, 123
children, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 30, 41, 47, 53,
56, 64, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, D
111, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 153,
159, 183, 184 data analysis, 73, 75
class-group level, 3, 12, 13 data collection, 71
classification, 44, 71, 163 database, 60, 133
classroom, vii, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 22, 32, 35, dealing with diversity, 90, 105, 111
39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 68, 80, 82, deep learning, 67
87, 92, 93, 96, 104, 108, 110, 111, 112, design, vi, viii, 11, 24, 34, 56, 86, 104, 105,
113, 117, 122, 137, 153, 158, 159, 163, 106, 107, 108, 113, 118, 121, 157
164, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 177, 179, distribution, 75, 135, 144, 170
182, 185 diversity, viii, 6, 90, 105, 108, 110, 111,
cognitive dimension, 67, 69 116, 158, 162, 163, 182
cognitive engagement, 2, 18, 25, 45, 75,
163, 172, 185
E
cognitive perspective, 18, 112, 180
cognitive process, 163, 165
economic resources, 159
cognitive processing, 165 economic status, 97, 101, 102
cognitive skills, 14, 165
education, vii, 8, 13, 21, 24, 30, 40, 41, 46,
cognitive style, 31 50, 56, 70, 90, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102,
completing homework, 13, 21, 81, 109,
104, 105, 106, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116,
127, 128, 129, 154 118, 122, 123, 126, 152, 153, 159, 167,
compliance, 19, 108, 126
173, 183, 185
comprehension, 66, 68 educational attainment, 10, 47
context, 1, 2, 15, 23, 25, 26, 47, 68, 69, 92,
educational practices, 94
97, 119, 126, 141, 147, 152, 163, 166, educational process, 7, 107
167
educational psychology, 87, 114, 173
control, 9, 10, 17, 18, 24, 30, 45, 47, 48, educational quality, 94, 107, 125
49, 65, 66, 70, 92, 97, 99, 102, 103, 109,
educational research, 47, 86, 107, 115, 127,
119, 121, 123, 134, 136, 149, 167, 169 150
control motivation, 167
educational system, 94, 111, 125, 130, 142
controlled trials, 99, 118 educators, 79, 174
cooperative learning, 94
elementary school, 58, 64, 65, 79, 81, 114,
correlation, 74, 131, 135, 137, 142, 145 118, 123, 154
correlation coefficient, 74, 135
elementary students, 64, 69, 78, 84, 99, 116
correlations, 73, 131, 135, 138, 175 emotion regulation, 53, 57
critical thinking, 21, 91, 111, 164
emotional reactions, 16
Index 193
emotions, viii, 16, 17, 18, 21, 28, 29, 30,

G
42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 57, 64, 65,
67, 70, 73, 78, 83, 87, 119, 126, 127,
gender, 3, 14, 23, 24, 30, 31, 35, 37, 50, 57,
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149,
58, 60, 64, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,
154, 159, 167, 174
78, 87, 92, 99, 105, 117, 120, 136
environment, 8, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 40, 41,
gender differences, 30, 120
43, 65, 67, 96, 97, 99, 101, 118
goal orientation, 16, 25, 35, 43, 46, 57, 59,
equity, 44, 107, 108, 111, 164
85, 114, 180
ethnicity, 10, 24, 101, 111
grades, 2, 3, 14, 21, 26, 71, 107, 179
evidence, viii, 7, 42, 48, 49, 51, 65, 80,
grading, 66, 67, 94, 127, 168
115, 122, 125, 127, 134, 139, 145, 147,
guidance, 48, 161, 167, 169, 184
159, 160, 161, 166, 168, 169, 170
guidelines, vii, ix, 12, 115, 167, 170, 181
exercises, 2, 4, 12, 68, 80, 94, 104, 138
expectancy-value theory, 16, 37, 180
expectations, 1, 3, 6, 14, 16, 49, 58, 104, H
105, 106, 111, 135, 167, 169
extrinsic motivation, 102 high school, 32, 54, 56, 58, 60, 69, 79, 82,
120, 123, 152
high school grades, 120
F higher education, 47, 112, 167
homework autonomy, 138
family, viii, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,
homework compliance, 19, 126
22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41,
homework effort, 18, 35, 36, 57, 64, 65,
42, 47, 51, 58, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96,
67, 69, 70, 72, 78, 86, 87, 122, 131, 132,
97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106,
146, 153, 154, 160, 178, 179
107, 109, 110, 111, 115, 120, 126, 138,
homework emotions, 53, 57, 64, 65, 70, 73,
139, 140, 148, 150, 159, 172, 174, 176,
78, 87, 126, 142, 144, 145, 154
179,180, 184
homework feedback usefulness, 64
family characteristics, 10, 35, 87
homework process, vii, ix, 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
family conflict, 91
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, 27, 49,
family environment, 22, 40, 97, 99, 101
148, 173, 181, 184, 185
family involvement, 9, 10, 22, 36, 37, 58,
homework self-regulation, 49, 50, 64
87, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,
homework time, 25, 35, 46, 51, 57, 59, 65,
103, 104, 106, 109
86, 87, 93, 118, 122, 126, 127, 134, 135,
family members, 41, 139
136, 137, 138, 149, 153, 178, 180
family support, 97, 107
feedback, v, viii, 11, 27, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51,
52, 54, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, I
74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,
87, 91, 94, 103, 106, 109, 110, 111, 116, individual character, 23, 98
119, 127, 159, 161, 162, 168, 169, 171, individual characteristics, 23, 98
173, 174, 175, 182, 184 individual differences, 182
194 Index
interest, 14, 16, 17, 23, 25, 44, 46, 48, 58, learning environment, 8, 41, 65, 110
59, 67, 68, 69, 74, 78, 80, 84, 88, 101, learning outcomes, 98, 106, 170, 172
121, 122, 134, 166, 170, 173, 174, 180, learning process, 6, 8, 22, 26, 41, 48, 81,
182 96, 158, 161, 165, 185
international competition, 40 learning skills, 163
international large-scale assessments learning styles, viii, 89, 164
(ILSA), viii, 125, 126, 138 legislation, 41, 108
interpersonal conflict, 42 leisure, 21, 22, 25, 41, 91
intervention, 84, 103, 110, 117, 171 leisure time, 21, 22, 25
intrinsic motivation, 10, 17, 25, 49, 52, Likert scale, 72, 73, 128, 131, 141
102, 166, 174, 182
involvement, viii, 8, 9, 10, 15, 20, 22, 23,
M
24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 66,
mathematics, 28, 29, 30, 34, 49, 51, 52, 53,
69, 70, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 97,
56, 59, 61, 64, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75,
98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
83, 85, 86, 88, 91, 98, 112, 117, 119,
106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115,
120, 123, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133,
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 149, 152,
134, 135, 136, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145,
153, 159, 176, 177, 178, 179, 184
146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154,
165, 173, 177, 178
J meta-analysis, 28, 52, 83, 113, 115, 149,
174
junior high school, 148, 173 methodology, 90, 95, 105, 108, 109, 110,
168
middle-class families, 97
L
models, 5, 7, 43, 59, 65, 81, 89, 90, 92, 95,
96, 122, 150, 163
learners, 43, 44, 46, 87, 102, 106, 117, 118,
motivation, viii, 8, 11, 13, 16, 17, 28, 30,
136, 139, 169, 171
33, 35, 43, 47, 51, 53, 55, 59, 65, 67, 84,
learning, vii, viii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12,
85, 87, 92, 93, 96, 99, 100, 102, 103,
15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 26, 29, 32, 39, 40, 41,
107, 108, 109, 114, 118, 119, 121, 125,
42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 56, 58,
127, 136, 141, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162,
60, 61, 64, 65, 79, 81, 87, 89, 90, 94, 95,
166, 173, 175, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183
96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107,
motivational engagement, 16, 25, 44, 49,
108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118,
169, 170, 185
119, 121, 122, 123, 133, 148, 152, 157,
158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,
168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, N
180, 181, 182, 183, 185
learning approaches, 18 nature of time, 84, 150
learning difficulties, 15, 23, 24, 133 negative attitudes, 170
learning disabilities, 113, 172
Index 195
negative effects, 10, 17, 22, 24, 91, 107, pressure on students, 40
133, 140 primary education, 13, 21, 33, 46, 57, 123,
negative emotions, 45, 141, 142, 143, 148, 152, 161, 177
159 primary school, 53, 99, 115, 120, 121, 149,
negative relation, 143 150, 160, 174
normal distribution, 73, 75 principles, 5, 113, 157, 161, 162
prior knowledge, 14, 31, 106, 109, 134,
136, 185
O
problem solving, 96, 107, 164
problem-solving, 44, 108
opportunities, viii, 5, 43, 48, 107, 127, 158,
problem-solving task, 44
162, 164, 168, 169, 171
process focus, 10
organize, 161, 167
Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA), 93, 119, 126, 127,
P 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136,
138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145,
parental control, 45, 92, 98, 102 146, 147, 148, 152
parental involvement, 8, 9, 46, 47, 54, 60, psychological resources, 103, 111
96, 99, 100, 102, 103, 112, 116, 117, psychologist, 113
118, 119, 123, 152 psychology, 51, 121, 122
parental participation, 10 punishment, 6, 7, 18, 68, 91, 160
parental support, 45, 46, 53, 97, 114, 184 purpose, viii, 4, 6, 7, 12, 23, 24, 41, 42, 56,
parenting, 30, 96, 99, 119, 120, 148, 172 66, 99, 105, 117, 122, 158, 162, 165,
parenting styles, 96 182
participation, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 24, 67,
71, 92, 108, 184
personal characteristics, viii, 1, 8, 13, 89, R
90, 93, 95, 98, 102
reading, 28, 30, 60, 98, 105, 127, 131, 132,
personal development, 6, 159, 166
139
PISA, 93, 119, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
regression, 64, 73, 75, 76, 84
131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140,
regression model, 64, 73, 75, 76
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148,
requirements, 22, 43, 50, 83
152
researchers, vii, 4, 5, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 65,
positive attitudes, 102, 166
82, 96, 166
positive beliefs, 10
resources, 1, 9, 18, 107, 109, 127, 151, 177
positive correlation, 69, 105
response, 110, 122, 128, 131, 136, 138,
positive effects, 19, 20, 22, 24, 42, 134
140
positive emotions, viii, 73
positive feedback, 184
positive relationship, 69, 79, 94, 128, 145, S
170
potential benefits, 40, 49 school achievement, 119, 161
196 Index
school activities, 41 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58,
school community, 60 65, 67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87,
school work, 6, 10 90, 92, 94, 100, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109,
schooling, 8, 64, 82, 91, 107, 115, 116, 117 110, 113, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123,
science, 28, 52, 83, 86, 105, 115, 117, 121, 125, 127, 131, 135, 136, 138, 141, 146,
131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 140, 149, 150 147, 148, 150, 152, 158, 159, 160, 162,
second language, 50 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 172,
secondary education, 13, 27, 55, 122, 161 173, 174, 175, 182, 183, 189, 190
secondary school students, 58 student achievement, 27, 52, 116, 148
self-assessment, 109 student development, 158
self-concept, 29, 59 student engagement, 3, 15, 25, 27, 31, 85,
self-confidence, 120 86, 100, 118, 119, 125, 158, 161, 164,
self-control, 109 170, 175
self-discipline, 21, 91 student level, 3, 12, 15, 42
self-discovery, 93 student motivation, 13, 103
self-efficacy, 16, 21, 25, 30, 45, 53, 58, 85, supervision, 4, 19, 91, 138, 168
96, 99, 102, 104, 116, 117, 119, 121, synthesis, 83, 120, 148, 152, 172
151, 155, 172
self-expression, 98
T
self-reflection, 169, 171
self-regulated learning, v, vii, 32, 39, 40,
teacher, v, viii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 19, 24,
43, 49, 56, 58, 60, 61, 96, 99, 102, 116,
31, 43, 46, 49, 51, 53, 56, 57, 63, 64, 65,
161, 163, 166, 169, 175, 177, 178, 180
66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85,
self-regulation, vii, viii, 11, 18, 21, 25, 32,
87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 100, 103,
37, 42, 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 60, 64, 66,
104, 105, 106, 110, 111, 116, 117, 118,
67, 69, 80, 88, 96, 111, 117, 138, 139,
119, 120, 122, 123, 138, 150, 152, 154,
147, 153, 154, 158, 159, 161, 162, 167,
159, 161, 162, 164, 168, 170, 171, 174,
169, 171, 172, 175, 177, 180
180, 182, 184
social capital, 97
teacher attitudes, 106
social class, 97, 101
teacher involvement, viii, 89, 90, 93, 95,
social development, 178
103, 110, 111, 120
social interactions, 94
teacher support, 53
social relations, 109
teacher training, 106, 168
social relationships, 109
teacher-student relationship, 91
special education, 71, 90, 108, 109
teaching experience, 70
spending, 19, 42, 70, 93, 108, 135, 159,
teaching strategies, 118
160
Tercer Estudio Regional Comparativo y
standard deviation, 129, 135, 141
Explicativo, 138
standard error, 129, 135, 140, 141
training, 91, 94, 101, 153
student, vi, vii, viii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10,
transformation, 93, 94
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23,
24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42,
Index 197
Trends in International Mathematics and work ethic, 127

Science Study (TIMSS), 61, 126, 134, working memory, 31
135, 136, 138, 151 working situation, 10
workload, 91, 135, 147, 184
workplace, 119
W
worldwide, 134, 147
work environment, 97

(Education in Competitive and Globalizing World) Susana Rodrguez Martinez, Antonio Valle Arias, Isabel Pieiro Aguin, Bibiana Regueiro Fernandez - Handbook of Homework_ Theoretical Principles and Pract

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Education in Competitive and Globalizing World) Susana Rodrguez Martinez, Antonio Valle Arias, Isabel Pieiro Aguin, Bibiana Regueiro Fernandez - Handbook of Homework_ Theoretical Principles and Pract

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDUCATION IN A COMPETITIVE AND GLOBALIZING WORLD

Additional books and e-books in this series can be found

SUSANA RODRÍGUEZ MARTÍNEZ

NOTICE TO THE READER

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN:  HERRN

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Chapter 5 Homework in International

The aim of this handbook is to offer a series of contributions about

The third chapter, “The Role of the Perceived Usefulness of Teacher

The final chapter, “Epilogue. Tasks for Teachers and Parents,” by

Susana Rodríguez Martínez

This handbook was performed thanks to financing from research

HOMEWORK: CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS

Carolina Rodríguez-Llorente1,*, Tania Vietes1,

student variables—behavioral, motivational, and cognitive engagement

Keywords: homework, context, family, teacher, student.

Homework is probably one of the most complex aspects of the

ADDRESSING THE CONCEPT

This idea of homework as a circular process is reflected in various

2019; Valle & Rodríguez, 2021). Therefore, when it comes to defining

As noted above, homework is usually set with a certain purpose. This

four groups, as suggested by Rosário et al., (2018), to practice, to

According to some of the definitions above, homework is a complex

related to family, teacher, the task characteristics, and student

In the homework process, we first find a group of variables that

Although, curiously, only one of the definitions of homework

To make it easier to interpret the positive and negative effects of

sensation of involvement in the homework process may differ between

Assignment Characteristics: Class and Student Level

Another of the main variables which has piqued researchers’ interest

engagement in the homework process and their subsequent performance

In addition to the variables that describe the influence of the

behavioral (Regueiro, 2018). In this section we define each of these

Motivational Engagement with Homework

orientations refer to the types of reasons students give for engaging in

Cognitive Engagement with Homework

use of self-regulation strategies is particularly relevant, as they contribute

Behavioral Engagement with Homework

reason, according to various researchers, is the inconsistence and poor

al., 2011). At the family level, homework encourages family involvement

In this chapter, we have addressed the construct of homework, the

Beyond continuing to clarify whether homework is more beneficial

Table 1. Variables involved in the homework process

Contextual Family variables

Student’s Motivational engagement

These three blocks of variables show a series of specific relationships

This chapter was performed thanks to financing from: Research

Buijs, M., & Admiraal, W. (2013). Homework assignments to enhance

School Teachers’ Conceptions of Homework Feedback. Frontiers in

Fernández-Alonso, R., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2014). Tareas

How the choice of instruments affects the associations between

Martínez-Vicente, M., Suárez-Riveiro, J. M., & Valiente-Barroso, C.

Role of Motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-16.

academic achievement. International Journal of Psychology, 53(6),

93-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2019.11.001. [Journal of

parents and teachers. International Journal of Developmental and

Van Voorhis, F. L. (2011). Costs and Benefits of Family Involvement in

Susana Rodríguez Martínez1,*, Rocío González- Suárez1,

This chapter aims to give a detailed explanation of the symbiosis

characterizing the underlying self-regulatory processes, emphasizing

Keywords: homework, self-regulated learning, student

aiming to regulate the amount of homework that can be set, attempting to

ISBN: HERRN