does homework improve academic achievement uk

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• More like this
• Preview Available
• Scholarly Journal

Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987-2003

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

You might have access to the full article...

Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.

Content area

In this article, research conducted in the United States since 1987 on the effects of homework is summarized. Studies are grouped into four research designs. The authors found that all studies, regardless of type, had design flaws. However, both within and across design types, there was generally consistent evidence for a positive influence of homework on achievement. Studies that reported simple homework-achievement correlations revealed evidence that a stronger correlation existed (a) in Grades 7-12 than in K-6 and (b) when students rather than parents reported time on homework. No strong evidence was found for an association between the homework-achievement link and the outcome measure (grades as opposed to standardized tests) or the subject matter (reading as opposed to math). On the basis of these results and others, the authors suggest future research.

KEYWORDS: homework, meta-analysis.

Homework can be defined as any task assigned by schoolteachers intended for students to carry out during nonschool hours (Cooper, 1989). This definition explicitly excludes (a) in-school guided study; (b) home study courses delivered through the mail, television, audio or vidéocassette, or the Internet; and (c) extracurricular activities such as sports and participation in clubs. The phrase "intended for students to carry out during nonschool hours" is used because students may complete homework assignments during study hall, library time, or even during subsequent classes.

Variations in homework can be classified according to its (a) amount, (b) skill area, (c) purpose, (d) degree of choice for the student, (e) completion deadline, (f) degree of individualization, and (g) social context. Variations in the amount of homework can appear as differences in both the frequency and length of individual assignments. Assignments can range over all the skill areas taught in school.

The purposes of homework assignments can be divided into (a) instructional and (b) noninstructional objectives (cf. Epstein, 1988,2001; Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001; Lee & Pruitt, 1979). The most common instructional purpose of homework is to provide the student with an opportunity to practice or review material that has already been presented in class (Becker & Epstein, 1982). Preparation assignments introduce material to help students obtain the maximum benefit when the new material is covered in class (Muhlenbruck, Cooper, Nye, & Lindsay, 1999). Extension homework involves the transfer of previously learned...

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Academic Goals, Student Homework Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Elementary School

Antonio valle.

1 Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain

Bibiana Regueiro

José c. núñez.

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

Susana Rodríguez

Isabel piñeiro, pedro rosário.

3 Departmento de Psicologia Aplicada, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal

There seems to be a general consensus in the literature that doing homework is beneficial for students. Thus, the current challenge is to examine the process of doing homework to find which variables may help students to complete the homework assigned. To address this goal, a path analysis model was fit. The model hypothesized that the way students engage in homework is explained by the type of academic goals set, and it explains the amount of time spend on homework, the homework time management, and the amount of homework done. Lastly, the amount of homework done is positively related to academic achievement. The model was fit using a sample of 535 Spanish students from the last three courses of elementary school (aged 9 to 13). Findings show that: (a) academic achievement was positively associated with the amount of homework completed, (b) the amount of homework completed was related to the homework time management, (c) homework time management was associated with the approach to homework, (d) and the approach to homework, like the rest of the variables of the model (except for the time spent on homework), was related to the student's academic motivation (i.e., academic goals).

Introduction

Literature indicates that doing homework regularly is positively associated with students' academic achievement (Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005 ). Hence, as expected, the amount of homework done is one of the variables that shows a strong and positive relationship with academic achievement (Cooper et al., 2001 ).

It seems consensual in the literature that doing homework is always beneficial to students, but it is also true that the key for the academic success does not rely on the amount of homework done, but rather on how students engage on homework (Trautwein et al., 2009 ; Núñez et al., 2015c ), and on how homework engagement is related with student motivation (Martin, 2012 ). There is, therefore, a call to analyze the process of homework rather than just the product; that is, to examine the extent to which the quality of the process of doing homework may be relevant to the final outcome.

Trautwein's model of homework

The model by Trautwein et al. ( 2006b ) is rooted in the motivational theories, namely the theory of the expectancy value (Eccles (Parsons) et al., 1983 ; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990 ), and the theory of self-determination (Deci et al., 2002 ), as well as on theories of learning and instruction (Boekaerts, 1999 ). Trautwein and colleagues' model analyzes students' related variables in two blocks, as follows: the motivational (aiming at directing and sustaining the behavior) and the cognitive and behavioral implications (cognitions and behaviors related to the moment of doing homework).These two blocks of variables are rooted in the literature. Motivational variables are related with the theory of expectancy-value by Eccles (Parsons) et al. ( 1983 ), while the variables addressing students' implication are related with the school engagement framework (e.g., Fredricks et al., 2004 ). However, as Eccles and Wang ( 2012 ) stress, both models are interrelated due to the fact that both variables are closely related and show reciprocal relationships.

Student homework engagement: the interplay between cognitive and behavioral components

Engagement is a relatively new construct with great relevance in the field of psychology and instruction (Fredricks et al., 2004 ). Generally considered, engagement has been described as the active implication of the person in an activity (Reeve et al., 2004 ). However, despite the close relation between engagement and motivation, literature clearly differentiates between them (e.g., Martin, 2012 ), stressing engagement as the behavioral manifestation of motivation (Skinner and Pitzer, 2012 ), or arguing that motivation is a precursor of engagement rather than part of it. In sum, motivation relates to the “why” whereas the engagement focuses on the “what” of a particular behavior.

Consistent with this perspective, the current research fitted a model with the variable engagement mediating the relationship between motivation and academic achievement (see Eccles and Wang, 2012 ). Engagement is a complex construct with observational and non-observational aspects (Appleton et al., 2008 ). Some researchers conceptualize engagement with two dimensions—behavior and emotions (e.g., Marks, 2000 )—while others define engagement with four dimensions—academic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional (e.g., Appleton et al., 2006 ). In the current study, we followed Fredricks' et al. ( 2004 ) conceptualization of engagement as a construct with three dimensions: cognitive (e.g., approaches to learning), behavioral (e.g., student homework behaviors), and emotional (e.g., interest, boredom). For the purpose of the present study, the dimension of emotion was not included in the model (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

General model hypothesized to explain the relationship between academic motivation, student homework engagement, and academic achievement .

Cognitive homework engagement

In the past few decades, a robust body of research has been addressing the relationship between the way students deal with their learning process and academic outcomes (Marton and Säljö, 1976a , b ; Struyven et al., 2006 ; Rosário et al., 2010a , 2013a ). Marton and Säljö ( 1976a , b ) examined how students studied an academic text and found two ways of approaching the task: a surface and a deep approach. The surface approach is characterized by learning the contents aiming at achieving goals that are extrinsic to the learning content. In contrast, the deep approach is characterized by an intrinsic interest in the task and students are likely to be focused on understanding the learning content, relating it to prior knowledge and to the surrounding environment (Entwistle, 2009 ; Rosário et al., 2010b ). The metaphor “surface vs. deep” constitutes an easy to perceive conceptual framework, both in the classroom setting and in other educational settings (i.e., doing homework at home), and has been shown to be a powerful tool for parents, teachers, and students when conceptualizing the ways students approach school tasks (Entwistle, 1991 ; Rosário et al., 2005 ). The core of the concept of approaches to studying (or to learning) is the metacognitive connection between an intention to approach a task and a strategy to implement it (Rosário et al., 2013b ).

The process of doing homework focuses on what students do when completing homework, that is, how they approach their work and how they manage their personal resources and settings while doing homework. It is likely that students' approaches to homework may influence not only the final homework outcome but also the quality of that process. Students who adopt a deep approach are likely to engage their homework with the intention of deepening their understanding of the knowledge learned in class. In this process, students often relate the homework exercises to prior knowledge and monitor their mastery of the content learned. This process involves intrinsic intention to understand the ideas and the use of strategies to build meaning (Cano et al., 2014 ). In contrast, students who approach homework with a surface approach are likely to do homework with extrinsic motivation (e.g., rewards of their parents, fear of upsetting their teacher). Their goals may target finishing homework as soon as and with the less effort possible to be able to do more interesting activities. Students using this approach are more likely to do homework to fulfill an external obligation (e.g., hand in homework in class and get a grade), than for the benefits for learning.

Behavioral homework engagement

Findings from prior research indicate that the more the implication of students in doing their homework the better the academic achievement (Cooper et al., 2006 ). Following Trautwein et al. ( 2006b ), our conceptualization of student homework engagement includes behaviors related with the amount of homework done, time spent on homework, and homework time management (e.g., concentration). In the present investigation, these three variables were included in the model (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

Extant findings on the relationship between the amount of homework done and academic achievement are in need of further clarification. Some authors argue for a strong and positive relationship (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ), while others found that this relationship is higher throughout schooling (Cooper et al., 2001 ; Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005 ). Authors explained this last finding arguing that the load of homework assigned by teachers vary throughout schooling, and also that the cognitive competencies of students are likely to vary with age (Muhlenbruck et al., 2000 ). More recently, Núñez et al. ( 2015c ) found that the relationship between these two variables varied as a function of the age of the students enrolled. Particularly, this relationship was found to be negative in elementary school, null in junior high school, and positive in high school.

Moreover, the relationship between the amount of homework done and academic achievement relates, among other factors, with the students' age, the quality of the homework assigned, the type of assessment, and the nature of the feedback provided. For example, some students may always complete their homework and get good grades for doing it, which does not mean that these students learn more (Kohn, 2006 ). In fact, more important than the quantity of the homework done, is the quality of that work (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2014 ).

Another variable included in the model was the time spent on homework. Findings on the relationship between time spent on homework and academic achievement are mixed. Some studies found a positive relationship (Cooper et al., 2001 , 2006 ) while others found a null or a negative one (Trautwein et al., 2006b , 2009 ). In 2009, Dettmers, Trautwein and Lüdtke conducted a study with data from the PISA 2003 (Dettmers et al., 2009 ). Findings on the relationship between the number of hours spent on homework and academic achievement in mathematics show that the students in countries with higher grades spend fewer hours doing homework than students in countries with low academic grades. At the student level, findings showed a negative relationship between time spent on homework and academic achievement in 12 out of 40 countries.

The relationship between the amount of homework done, time dedicated to homework, and academic achievement was hypothesized to be mediated by the homework time management. Xu ( 2007 ) was one of the pioneers examining the management of the time spent on homework. Initially, Xu ( 2007 ) did not find a relationship between time management and academic achievement (spend more time on homework is not equal to use efficient strategies for time management). Latter, Xu ( 2010 ) found a positive relationship between students' grade level, organized environment, and homework time management. More recently, Núñez et al. ( 2015c ) found that effective homework time management affects positively the amount of homework done, and, consequently, academic achievement. This relationship is stronger for elementary students when compared with students in high school.

Academic motivation and student homework engagement relationship

Literature has consistently shown that a deep approach to learning is associated positively with the quality of the learning outcomes (Rosário et al., 2013b ; Cano et al., 2014 ; Vallejo et al., 2014 ). The adoption of a deep approach to homework depends on many factors, but students self-set goals and their motives for doing homework are among the most critical motivational variables when students decide to engage in homework.

Literature on achievement motivation highlights academic goals as an important line of research (Ng, 2008 ). In the educational setting, whereas learning goals focus on the comprehension and mastery of the content, performance goals are more focused on achieving a better performance than their colleagues (Pajares et al., 2000 ; Gaudreau, 2012 ).

Extant literature reports a positive relationship between adopting learning goals and the use of cognitive and self-regulation strategies (Elliot et al., 1999 ; Núñez et al., 2013 ). In fact, students who value learning and show an intention to learn and improve their competences are likely to use deep learning strategies (Suárez et al., 2001 ; Valle et al., 2003a , b , 2015d ), which are aimed at understanding the content in depth. Moreover, these learning-goal oriented students are likely to self-regulate their learning process (Valle et al., 2015a ), put on effort to learn, and assume the control of their learning process (Rosário et al., 2016 ). These students persist much longer when they face difficult and challenging tasks than colleagues pursuing performance goals. The former also use more strategies oriented toward the comprehension of content, are more intrinsically motivated, and feel more enthusiasm about academic work. Some researchers also found positive relationships between learning goals and pro-social behavior (e.g., Inglés et al., 2013 ).

Reviewing the differentiation between learning goals and performance goals, Elliot and colleagues (Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Elliot, 1999 ; Elliot et al., 1999 ) proposed a three-dimensional framework for academic goals. In addition to learning goals, performance goals were differentiated as follows: (a) performance-approach goals, focused on achieving competence with regard to others; and (b) performance-avoidance goals, aimed at avoiding incompetence with regard to others. Various studies have provided empirical support for this distinction within performance goals (e.g., Wolters et al., 1996 ; Middleton and Midgley, 1997 ; Skaalvik, 1997 ; Rodríguez et al., 2001 ; Valle et al., 2006 ). Moreover, some authors proposed a similar differentiation for learning goals (Elliot, 1999 ). The rationale was as follows: learning goals are characterized by high engagement in academic tasks, so an avoidance tendency in such goals should reflect avoidance of this engagement. Hence, students who pursue a work avoidance goal are likely to avoid challenging tasks and to put on effort to do well, only doing the bare minimum to complete the task. In general, learning goals are associated with a large amount of positive results in diverse motivational, cognitive, and achievement outcomes, whereas performance goals have been linked to less adaptive outcomes, or even to negative outcomes (Valle et al., 2009 ).

Aims of this study

Several relationships between motivational, cognitive, and behavioral variables involving self-regulated learning in the classroom have recently been studied (Rosário et al., 2013a ). However, there is a lack of knowledge of the relationships between these variables throughout the process of doing homework.

The principal purpose of this work (see Figure ​ Figure1) 1 ) is to analyze how student homework engagement (cognitive and behavioral) mediates motivation and academic performance. This study aims to provide new information about an issue that is taken for granted, but which, as far as we know, lacks empirical data. The question is: to what extent students acknowledge homework as a good way to acquire competence, improve their skills and performance? Our working hypothesis is that student value homework in this regard. Therefore, we hypothesized that the more students are motivated to learn, the more they will be involved (cognitively and behaviorally) in their homework, and the higher their academic achievement.

To address this goal, we developed a path analysis model (see Figure ​ Figure1) 1 ) in which we hypothesized that: (a) the student's motivational level is significantly related to their cognitive homework engagement (i.e., the approach to studying applied to homework), and their behavioral homework engagement (i.e., amount of time spent and homework time management, and amount of homework completed); (b) student's cognitive and behavioral homework engagement are positively associated with academic achievement; and (c) cognitive and behavioral homework engagement are related (the more deep cognitive engagement, the more time spent and time management, and the more amount of homework is done).

Participants

The study enrolled 535 students, aged between 9 and 13 ( M = 10.32, SD = 0.99), of four public schools, from the last three years of the Spanish Elementary Education (4th, 5th, and 6th grade level), of whom 49.3% were boys. By grade, 40.4% ( n = 216) were enrolled in the 4th grade, 35.1% ( n = 188) in the 5th grade, and 24.5% ( n = 131) in the 6th grade.

Learning goals

The level and type of motivation for academic learning was assessed with the Academic Goals Instrument (Núñez et al., 1997 ). Although, this instrument allows differentiating a broad range of academic goals, for the purposes of this work, we only used the subscale of learning goals (i.e., competence and control). The instrument is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from one (not at all interested) to five (absolutely interested in learning and acquiring competence and control in the different subjects). An example item is: “I make an effort in my studies because performing the academic tasks allows me to increase my knowledge.” The reliability of the scale is good (α = 0.87).

Approach to homework

To measure the process of approaching homework, we adapted the Students' Approaches to Learning Inventory (Rosário et al., 2010a , 2013a ), taking into account both the students' age and the homework contexts. This instrument is based on voluminous literature on approaches to learning (e.g., Biggs et al., 2001 ; Rosário et al., 2005 ), and provides information about two ways of approaching homework. For the purpose of this research, we only used the deep approach (e.g., “Before starting homework, I usually decide whether what was taught in class is clear and, if not, I review the lesson before I start”). Students respond to the items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from one (not at all deep approach) to five (completely deep approach). The reliability of the scale is good (α = 0.80).

Time spent on homework, homework time management, and amount of homework completed

To measure these three variables, we used the Homework Survey (e.g., Rosário et al., 2009 ; Núñez et al., 2015a , b ; Valle et al., 2015b , c ). To measure the time spent on homework , students responded to three items (in general, in a typical week, on a typical weekend) with the general formulation, “How much time do you usually spend on homework?,” with the response options 1, <30 min; 2, 30 min to 1 h; 3, 1 h to an hour and a half; 4, 1 h and a half to 2 h; 5, more than 2 h. Homework time management was measured through the responses to three items (in general, in a typical week, on a typical weekend) in which they were asked to indicate how they managed the time normally spent doing homework, using the following scale: 1, I waste it completely (I am constantly distracted by anything); 2, I waste it more than I should; 3, regular; 4, I manage it pretty much; 5, I optimize it completely (I concentrate and until I finish, I don't think about anything else). Finally, the amount of homework completed by students (assigned by teachers) was assessed through responses to an item about the amount of homework usually done, using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, none; 2, some; 3, one half; 4, almost all; 5, all).

Academic achievement

Assessment of academic achievement was assessed through students' report card grades in Spanish Language, Galician Language, English Language, Knowledge of the Environment, and Mathematics. Average achievement was calculated with the mean grades in these five areas.

Data of the target variables was collected during regular school hours, by research assistants, after obtaining the consent of the school administration and of the teachers and students. Prior to the application of the questionnaires, which took place in a single session, the participants were informed about the goals of the project, and assured that data was confidential and used for research purposes only.

Data analysis

The model was fit with AMOS 18 (Arbuckle, 2009 ). The data were previously analyzed and individual cases presenting a significant number of missing values were eliminated (2.1%), whereas the rest of the missing values were replaced by the mean. Taking into account the analysis of the characteristics of the variables (e.g., skewness and kurtosis in Table ​ Table1), 1 ), we used the maximum likelihood method to fit the model and estimate the values of the parameters.

Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and correlation matrix of the target variables .

A series of goodness-of-fit statistics were used to analyze our model. Beyond chi-square (χ 2 ) and its associated probability ( p ), the information provided by the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1983 ); the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990 ); and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne and Cudeck, 1993 ) was used. According to these authors, the model fits well when GFI and AGFI > 0.90, CFI > 0.95, and RMSEA ≤ 0.05.

Descriptive analysis

The relations between the variables included in the model as well as the descriptive statistics are shown in Table ​ Table1. 1 . All the variables were significantly and positively related, except for the time spent on homework, which was only related to the amount of homework done. According to the value of the means of these variables, students in the last years of elementary school: (a) reported a high level of motivation to learn and mastery; (b) used preferentially a deep approach to homework; (c) did the homework assigned by the teachers most of the times; (d) usually spent about an hour a day on homework; (e) reported to manage their study time effectively; and (f) showed a medium-high level of academic achievement.

Evaluation and re-specification of the initial model

The data obtained indicated that the initial model (see Figure ​ Figure1) 1 ) presented a poor fit to the empirical data: χ 2 = 155.80, df = 8, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.917, AGFI = 0.783, TLI = 0.534, CFI = 0.751, RMSEA = 0.186, 90% CI (0.161, 0.212), p < 0.001. Analysis of the modification indexes revealed the need to include three direct effects initially considered as null, and to eliminate a finally null effect (included in the initial model as significant). The strategy adopted to modify the initial model involved including and estimating the model each time a new effect was included. The final model comprised three effects (academic goals on homework time management, on amount of homework done, and on academic achievement) and the elimination of the initially established effect of the approach to studying on the time spent doing homework. The inclusion or elimination of the effects in the model was determined accounting for their statistical and theoretical significance. The final model resulting from these modifications is shown in Figure ​ Figure2, 2 , with an adequate fit to the empirical data: χ 2 = 12.03, df = 6, p = 0.061, GFI = 0.993, AGFI = 0.974, TLI = 0.975, CFI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.043, 90% CI (0.000, 0.079), p = 0.567.

The results of the fit of the hypothesized model (standardized outcomes): Relations in dashed lines were found to be statistically significant, but this was not established in the initial model .

Assessment of the relationships on the final model

Table ​ Table2 2 presents the data obtained for the relationships considered in the final model (see also Figure ​ Figure2 2 ).

Fit of the hypothesized model (standardized outcomes): final model of student engagement in homework .

The data from Table ​ Table2 2 and Figure ​ Figure2 2 indicates that the majority of the relationships between the variables are consistent with the hypotheses. First, we found a statistically significant association between the learning goals (i.e., competence and control), the approach to homework ( b = 0.50, p < 0.001), two of the variables associated with engagement in homework (the amount of homework done [ b = 0.27, p < 0.001], homework time management [ b = 0.30, p < 0.001]), and academic achievement ( b = 0.34, p < 0.001). These results indicate that the more oriented students are toward learning goals (i.e., competence and control), the deeper the approach to homework, the more homework is completed, the better the homework time management, and the higher the academic achievement.

Second, a statistically significant association between the deep approach and homework time management ( b = 0.30, p < 0.001) and the amount of homework done ( b = 0.09, p < 0.05) was found. These results reflect that the deeper the students' approach to homework, the better the management of the time spent on homework, and the more the homework done. Third, there was a statistically significant association between homework time management, time spent on homework, and the amount of homework done ( b = 0.23, p < 0.001, and b = 0.10, p < 0.01, respectively). These results confirm, as expected, that the more time students spent doing homework and the better students manage their homework time, the more homework they will do. Four, we found a statistically significant relation between the amount of homework done and academic achievement ( b = 0.20, p < 0.001). This indicates that the more homework students complete the better their academic achievement.

In summary, our findings indicate that: (a) academic achievement is positively associated with the amount of homework completed; (b) the amount of homework done is related to homework time management; (c) homework time management is associated with how homework is done (approach to homework); and (d) consistent with the behavior of the variables in the model (except for the time spent on homework), how homework is done (i.e., approach to homework) is explained to a great extent (see total effects in Table ​ Table3) 3 ) by the student's type of academic motivation.

Standardized direct, indirect, and total effects for the final model .

Finally, taking into account both the direct effects (represented in Figure ​ Figure2) 2 ) and the indirect ones (see Table ​ Table3), 3 ), the model explained between 20 and 30% of the variance of the dependent variables (except for the time spent on homework, which is not explained at all): approach to homework (24.7%), time management (26.9%), amount of homework done (24.4%), and academic achievement (21.6%).

Consistent with prior research (e.g., Cooper et al., 2001 ), our findings showed that students' academic achievement in the last years of elementary education is closely related to the amount of homework done. In addition, the present study also confirms the importance of students' effort and commitment to doing homework (Trautwein et al., 2006a , b ), showing that academic achievement is also related with students' desire and interest to learn and improve their skills. Therefore, when teachers assign homework, it is essential to attend to students' typical approach to learning, which is mediated by the motivational profile and by the way students solve the tasks proposed (Hong et al., 2004 ). The results of this investigation suggest that the adoption of learning goals leads to important educational benefits (Meece et al., 2006 ), among which is doing homework.

Importantly, our study shows that the amount of homework done is associated not only with the time spent, but also with the time management. Time spent on homework should not be considered an absolute indicator of the amount of homework done, because students' cognitive skills, motivation, and prior knowledge may significantly affect the time needed to complete the homework assignment (Regueiro et al., 2015 ). For students, managing homework time is a challenge (Corno, 2000 ; Xu, 2008 ), but doing it correctly may have a positive influence on their academic success (Claessens et al., 2007 ), on homework completion (Xu, 2005 ), and on school achievement (Eilam, 2001 ).

Despite, that previous studies reported a positive relationship between the time spent on homework and academic achievement (Cooper et al., 2006 ), the present research shows that time spent on homework is not a relevant predictor of academic achievement. Other studies have also obtained similar results (Trautwein et al., 2009 ; Núñez et al., 2015a ), indicating that time spent on homework is negatively associated to academic achievement, perhaps because spending a lot of time on homework may indicate an inefficient working style and lack of motivation (Núñez et al., 2015a ). Besides, our data indicates that spending more time on homework is positively associated to the amount of homework done.

Although, some studies have found that students who spend more time on homework also tend to report greater commitment to school work (Galloway et al., 2013 ), our findings indicated that spending more time doing homework was not related to a deeper engagement on the task. A possible explanation may be that using a deep approach to school tasks subsumes engaging in homework with the aim of practicing but also to further extend the content learned in class. This approach does not depends on the time spent doing homework, rather on the students' motives for doing homework.

Another important contribution of this study concerns learning-oriented goals—usually associated with positive outcomes in motivational, cognitive, and achievement variables (Pajares et al., 2000 ). Results indicate that the motivation to increase competence and learning is also related to approaching homework deeply and to manage homework efficiently. Consistent with previous findings (Xu, 2005 ), these results provide additional empirical support to time management goals (Pintrich, 2004 ).

There is a robust relationship between learning-oriented goals and a deep approach, and between a deep approach and the amount of homework done. All this indicates that these results are in line with prior research, meaning that the adoption of a deep approach to learning is related with high quality academic achievement (Lindblom-Ylänne and Lonka, 1999 ; Rosário et al., 2013b ).

Educational implications and study limitations

One of the major limitations of this study lies in the type of research design used. We used a cross-sectional design to examine the effects among the variables within a path analysis model. However, to establish a cause-effect relationship a temporal sequence between two variables is needed a requirement that can only be met with longitudinal designs. Future studies should consider address this limitation.

Despite the above limitation, our results can be considered relevant and show important educational implications. It is essential for teachers and school administrators to be sensitized about the effects of teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' homework engagement (Rosário et al., 2015 ), and of these variables in students' school engagement and academic success. Likewise, research on students' learning should be undertaken from the perspective of the learners to understand how students use their knowledge and skills to do homework and to solve problems posed therein. On the other hand, research should examine in-depth the use of learning strategies during homework, as well as how students' motivations at an early age may foster homework completion and increase the quality of school outcomes. For this last purpose, teachers should pay attention not only to the acquisition of curricular content but also to the development of the appropriate thinking skills and self-regulated learning strategies (Rosário et al., 2010b ; Núñez et al., 2013 ). Finally, the amount of homework done and its positive relationship with academic achievement should be considered as a final outcome of a process rooted on a comprehensive and meaningful learning. Students motivated to learn are likely to approach homework deeply and manage homework time efficaciously. As a result, they tend to do more homework and outperform. In sum, is doing homework a good way to acquire competence, improve skills, and outperform? Our data suggest a positive answer.

Author contributions

AV and BR Collect data, data analysis, writing the paper. JN and PR data analysis, writing the paper. SR and IP writing the paper.

Conflict of interest statement

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

Acknowledgments

This work was developed through the funding of the research project EDU2013-44062-P, of the State Plan of Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2013-2016 (MINECO) and to the financing received by one of the authors in the FPU program of the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport.

• Appleton J. J., Christenson S. L., Furlong M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct . Psychol. Sch. 45 , 369–386. 10.1002/pits.20303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appleton J. J., Christenson S. L., Kim D., Reschly A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument . J. Sch. Psychol. 44 , 427–445. 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arbuckle J. L. (2009). Amos 18.0 User's Guide . Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bentler P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models . Psychol. Bull. 107 , 238–246. 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biggs J., Kember D., Leung D. Y. (2001). The revised two-actor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F . Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71 , 133–149. 10.1348/000709901158433 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boekaerts M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where are today . Int. J. Educ. Res. 31 , 445–458. 10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M. W., Cudeck R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit , in Testing Structural Equation Models , eds Bollen K., Long J. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage; ), 136–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cano F., García A., Justicia F., García-Berbén A. B. (2014). Enfoques de aprendizaje y comprensión lectora: el papel de las preguntas de los estudiantes y del conocimiento previo [Approaches to learning and reading comprehension: the role of students' questions and of prior knowledge] . Rev. Psicodidáctica 19 , 247–265. 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.10186 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Claessens B. J. C., van Eerde W., Rutte C. G., Roe R. A. (2007). A review of the time management literature . Pers. Rev. 36 , 255–276. 10.1108/00483480710726136 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Jackson K., Nye B., Lindsay J. J. (2001). A model of homework's influence on the performance evaluations of elementary school students . J. Exp. Educ. 69 , 181–200. 10.1080/00220970109600655 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Robinson J. C., Patall E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003 . Rev. Educ. Res. 76 , 1–62. 10.3102/00346543076001001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corno L. (2000). Looking at homework differently . Element. Sch. J. 100 , 529–548. 10.1086/499654 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (2002). Handbook of Self-Determination Research . New York, NY: University of Rochester Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dettmers S., Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. (2009). The relationship between homework time and achievement is not universal: evidence from multilevel analyses in 40 countries . Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 20 , 375–405. 10.1080/09243450902904601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles J., Wang M. T. (2012). Part I Commentary: so what is student engagement anyway? ,in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , eds Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 133–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles (Parsons) J., Adler T. F., Futterman R., Goff S. B., Kaczala C. M., Meece J. L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic choice: origins and changes , in Achievement and Achievement Motivation , ed Spence J. (San Francisco, CA: Freeman; ), 75–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eilam B. (2001). Primary strategies for promoting homework performance . Am. Educ. Res. J. 38 , 691–725. 10.3102/00028312038003691 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals . Educ. Psychol. 34 , 169–189. 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Church M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72 , 218–232. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., McGregor H. A., Gable S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: a mediational analysis . J. Educ. Psychol. 91 , 549–563. 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.549 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Entwistle N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment . High. Educ. 22 , 201–204. 10.1007/BF00132287 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Entwistle N. J. (2009). Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 students] . Rev. Psicol. Educ. 9 , 15–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fredricks J. A., Blumenfeld P. C., Paris A. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence . Rev. Educ. Res. 74 , 59–109. 10.3102/00346543074001059 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galloway M., Conner J., Pope D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged, high-performing high schools . J. Exp. Educ. 81 , 490–510. 10.1080/00220973.2012.745469 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaudreau P. (2012). Goal self-concordance moderates the relationship between achievement goals and indicators of academic adjustment . Learn. Individ. Differ. 22 , 827–832. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.06.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong E., Milgram R. M., Rowell L. L. (2004). Homework motivation and preference: a learner-centered homework approach . Theory Pract. 43 , 197–203. 10.1207/s15430421tip4303_5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Inglés C. J., Martínez-González A. E., García-Fernández J. M. (2013). Conducta prosocial y estrategias de aprendizaje en una muestra de estudiantes españoles de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria [Prosocial behavior and learning strategies in a sample of Spanish students of Compulsory Secondary Education] . Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 6 , 33–53. 10.1989/ejep.v6i1.101 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jöreskog K. G., Sörbom D. (1983). LISREL - 6 User's Reference Guide . Mooresville, IN: Scientifi c Software. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohn A. (2006). Abusing research: the study of homework and other examples . Phi Delta Kappan 88 , 9–22. 10.1177/003172170608800105 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindblom-Ylänne S., Lonka K. (1999). Individual ways of interacting with the learning environment - are they related to study success? Learn. Instruct. 9 , 1–18. 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00025-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years . Am. Educ. Res. J. 37 , 153–184. 10.3102/00028312037001153 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin A. J. (2012). Motivation and engagement: conceptual, operational, and empirical clarity , in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , eds Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 303–311. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marton F., Säljö R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning . I: outcome and process. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 46 , 4–11. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marton F., Säljö R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning . II: outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 46 , 115–127. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meece J. L., Anderman E. M., Anderman L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57 , 487–503. 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Middleton M., Midgley C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: an unexplored aspect of goal theory . J. Educ. Psychol. 89 , 710–718. 10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.710 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muhlenbruck L., Cooper H., Nye B., Lindsay J. J. (2000). Homework and achievement: explaining the different strengths of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels . Soc. Psychol. Educ. 3 , 295–317. 10.1023/A:1009680513901 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng C. H. (2008). Multiple-goal learners and their differential patterns of learning . Educ. Psychol. 28 , 439–456. 10.1080/01443410701739470 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A., González-Pumariega S., García M., Roces C. (1997). Cuestionario Para la Evaluación de Metas Académicas [Academic Goals Assessment Questionnaire] . Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo. [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Cerezo R., González-Pienda J. A., Rosário P., Mourão R., et al. (2015a). Homework and academic achievement across Spanish Compulsory Education . Educ. Psychol. 35 , 726–746. 10.1080/01443410.2013.817537 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Rosário P., Vallejo G., Cerezo R., Valle A. (2015b). Teachers' feedback on homework, homework-related behaviors and academic achievement . J. Educ. Res. 108 , 204–216. 10.1080/00220671.2013.878298 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Suárez N., Rosário P., Vallejo G., Valle A., Epstein J. L. (2015c). Relationships between parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students . Metacogn. Learn. 10 , 375–406. 10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J., Rosário P., Vallejo G., González-Pienda J. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring program in middle school . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 38 , 11–21. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pajares F., Britner S. L., Valiante G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 , 406–422. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1027 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pintrich P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16 , 385–407. 10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pintrich P. R., De Groot E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom performance . J. Educ. Psychol. 82 , 33–40. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reeve J., Jang H., Carrell D., Jeon S., Barch J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support . Motiv. Emot. 28 , 147–169. 10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 [Homework motivation and engagement throughout compulsory education] . Rev. Psicodidáctica 20 , 47–63. 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.12641 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez S., Cabanach R. G., Piñeiro I., Valle A., Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A. (2001). Metas de aproximación, metas de evitación y múltiples metas académicas [Approach goals, avoidance goals and multiple academic goals] . Psicothema 13 , 546–550. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., González-Pienda J. A., Pinto R., Ferreira P., Lourenço A., Paiva O. (2010a). Efficacy of the program “Testas's (mis)adventures” to promote the deep approach to learning . Psicothema 22 , 828–834. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Mourão R., Baldaque M., Nunes T., Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A., et al. (2009). Homework, self-regulation of learning and math performance . Rev. Psicodidáctica 14 , 179–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. A., Ferrando J. P., Paiva O., Lourenço A., Cerezo R., et al. (2013a). The relationship between approaches to teaching and approaches to studying: a two-level structural equation model for biology achievement in high school . Metacogn. Learn. 8 , 47–77. 10.1007/s11409-013-9095-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A., Almeida L., Soares S., Rúbio M. (2005). Academic learning from the perspective of Model 3P of J. Biggs . Psicothema 17 , 20–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A., Valle A., Trigo L., Guimarães C. (2010b). Enhancing self-regulation and approaches to learning in first-year college students: a narrative-based program assessed in the Iberian Peninsula . Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 25 , 411–428. 10.1007/s10212-010-0020-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Cunha J., Azevedo R., Pereira R., et al. (2016). Promoting Gypsy children school engagement: a story-tool project to enhance self-regulated learning . Contemp. Educ. Psychol . [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Cunha J., Nunes T., Suárez N., et al.. (2015). The effects of teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' EFL performance: a randomized-group design . Front. Psychol. 6 : 1528 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J., Valle A., González-Pienda J., Lourenço A. (2013b). Grade level, study time, and grade retention and their effects on motivation, self-regulated learning strategies, and mathematics achievement: a structural equation model . Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28 , 1311–1331. 10.1007/s10212-012-0167-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skaalvik E. (1997). Self- enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self- perceptions, and anxiety . J. Educ. Psychol. 89 , 71–81. 10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.71 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner E. A., Pitzer J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience , in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , eds Christenson S. L., Reschly A. L., Wylie C. (New York, NY: Springer; ), 21–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Struyven K., Dochy F., Janssens S., Gielen S. (2006). On the dynamics of students' approaches to learning: the effects of the teaching/learning environment . Learn. Instr. 16 , 279–294. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suárez J. M., Cabanach R. G., Valle A. (2001). Multiple-goal pursuit and its relation to cognitive, self-regulatory, and motivational strategies . Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71 , 561–572. 10.1348/000709901158677 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Kastens C., Köller O. (2006a). Effort on homework in grades 5 through 9: development, motivational antecedents, and the association with effort on classwork . Child Dev. 77 , 1094–1111. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00921.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Ludtke O., Schnyder I., Niggli A. (2006b). Predicting homework effort: support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model . J. Educ. Psychol. 98 , 438–456. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., 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 . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34 , 77–88. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Cabanach R. G., Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A., Rodríguez S., Piñeiro I. (2003a). Cognitive, motivational, and volitional dimensions of learning: an empirical test of a hypothetical model . Res. High. Educ. 44 , 557–580. 10.1023/A:1025443325499 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Cabanach R. G., Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A., Rodríguez S., Piñeiro I. (2003b). Multiple goals, motivation and academic learning . Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 73 , 71–87. 10.1348/000709903762869923 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Cabanach R. G., Rodríguez S., Núñez J. C., González-Pienda J. A. (2006). Metas académicas, estrategias cognitivas y estrategias de autorregulación del estudio [Academic goals, cognitive and self-regulatory strategies] . Psicothema 18 , 166–170. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Núñez J. C., Cabanach R. G., González-Pienda J. A., Rodríguez S., Rosário P., et al.. (2009). Academic goals and learning quality in higher education students . Span. J. Psychol. 12 , 96–105. 10.1017/S1138741600001517 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Núñez J. C., Cabanach R., Rodríguez S., Rosário P., Inglés C. (2015a). Motivational profiles as a combination of academic goals in higher education . Educ. Psychol. 35 , 634–650. 10.1080/01443410.2013.819072 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Pan I., Núñez J. C., Rosário P., Rodríguez S., Regueiro B. (2015b). Deberes escolares y rendimiento académico en Educación Primaria [Homework and academic achievement in Primary Education] . An. Psicol. 31 , 562–569. 10.6018/analesps.31.2.171131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Pan I., Regueiro B., Suárez N., Tuero E., Nunes A. R. (2015c). Predicting approach to homework in primary school students . Psicothema 27 , 334–340. 10.7334/psicothema2015.118 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Regueiro B., Rodríguez S., Piñeiro I., Freire C., Ferradás M., et al. (2015d). Perfiles motivacionales como combinación de expectativas de autoeficacia y metas académicas en estudiantes universitarios [Motivational profiles as a combination of self-efficacy expectations and academic goals in university students] . Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 8 , 1–8. 10.1016/j.ejeps.2015.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vallejo G., Tuero E., Núñez J. C., Rosário P. (2014). Performance evaluation of recent information criteria for selecting multilevel models in behavioral and social sciences . Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 14 , 48–57. 10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70036-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolters C. A., Yu S. L., Pintrich P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students' motivational beliefs and self- regulated learning . Learn. Individ. Differ. 8 , 211−238. 10.1016/s1041-6080(96)90015-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2005). Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high school students . J. Educ. Res. 99 , 46–55. 10.3200/JOER.99.1.46-55 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2007). Middle-school homework management: more than just gender and family involvement . Educ. Psychol. 27 , 173–189. 10.1080/01443410601066669 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2008). Validation of scores on the Homework Management Scale for high school students . Educ. Psychol. Meas. 68 , 304–324. 10.1177/0013164407301531 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2010). Predicting homework time management at the secondary school level: a multilevel analysis . Learn. Individ. Differ. 20 , 34–39. 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman B. J., Kitsantas A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: the mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30 , 397–417. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003

2006, Review of Educational Research

In this article, research conducted in the United States since 1987 on the effects of homework is summarized. Studies are grouped into four research designs. The authors found that all studies, regardless of type, had design flaws. However, both within and across design types, there was generally consistent evidence for a positive influence of homework on achievement. Studies that reported simple homework–achievement correlations revealed evidence that a stronger correlation existed (a) in Grades 7–12 than in K–6 and (b) when students rather than parents reported time on homework. No strong evidence was found for an association between the homework–achievement link and the outcome measure (grades as opposed to standardized tests) or the subject matter (reading as opposed to math). On the basis of these results and others, the authors suggest future research.

Related Papers

Educational Testing Service

This paper identifies three noncognitive domains relevant for academic achievement in K-12—student engagement, behavioral learning strategies, and school climate. The paper also documents empirical findings that show relationships between these three noncognitive domains and academic achievement, especially in the areas of reading and mathematics. Key words: K-12, noncognitive, academic achievement, reading, mathematics

Gastroentérologie Clinique et Biologique

Antal Molnár

Review of Educational Research

Journal of School Psychology

Joshua Langberg

e-Neuroforum

School Psychology Quarterly

Jodene Fine

maria hendriks

Saundra Nettles

American Educational Research Journal

Sabina Kleitman

Education Research International

Rim Razzouk

This paper reviews the research literature on the relationship between parental involvement (PI) and academic achievement, with special focus on the secondary school (middle and high school) level. The results first present how individual PI variables correlate with academic achievement and then move to more complex analyses of multiple variables on the general construct described in the literature. Several PI variables with correlations to academic achievement show promise: (a) communication between children and parents about school activities and plans, (b) parents holding high expectations/aspirations for their children&#39;s schooling, and (c) parents employing an authoritative parenting style. We end the results section by discussing the findings in light of the limitations of nonexperimental research and the different effects of children&#39;s versus parents&#39; perspectives on academic achievement.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology

shima mousavi

The Sociological Quarterly

Douglas Downey

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Bernhard Schmitz

Kathleen M Lynch

Proceedings of the 2001 SBMO/IEEE MTT-S International Microwave and Optoelectronics Conference. (Cat. No.01TH8568)

Aziz Benlarbi-delai

Journal of Clinical Child &amp; Adolescent Psychology

Timothy Wigal

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Katie McClarty

Educational Research Review

Cem güzeller

Social Psychology of Education

Jim LIndsay

Harris Cooper

The High School Journal

Terrell L Strayhorn

Educational Research and Evaluation

Ruth Zuzovsky

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Nachshon Meiran

Imane Radif

Michele Gill

Journal of Educational Psychology

Robyn Gibson

Journal of research on adolescence : the official journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence

Stacy Ewings

Angela Duckworth

Russell Rumberger

Lihul Anwar

Stephen Holt

British Educational …

Hanke Korpershoek

Journal of Educational Psychology (vol. 106, iss. 4, pp. 1049–1065)

Charles B Chang

Daniel Muñoz caro

Frontiers in Psychology

Amanda Cosgriff

Hefer Bembenutty

Online Submission

Benjamin Dalton

Elizabeth Glennie

Michael Nussbaum

Deaweh Benson

kassian nkwera

Samantha Hallman

Melaku Desalegn

RELATED TOPICS

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

Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to this page

Copy and paste the URL below to share this page.

• DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2016.1178213
• Corpus ID: 153288872

Does high school homework increase academic achievement?

• C. Kalenkoski , S. Pabilonia
• Published in Social Science Research… 22 March 2016
• Education, Economics

38 Citations

Gender gaps in high school students’ homework time.

• Highly Influenced

Effects of Homework on Student Academic Achievement: A Descriptive Study

Snooze or lose: high school start times and academic achievement.

• 12 Excerpts

Trends of Homework in Mathematics: Comparative Research Based on TIMSS Study

Racial and ethnic differences in homework time among u.s. teens, adolescents’ time allocation and skill production, the role of parenting in predicting student achievement: considerations for school counseling practice and research, effects of homework creativity on academic achievement and creativity disposition: evidence from comparisons with homework time and completion based on two independent chinese samples, youth employment and academic performance: production functions and policy effects, work and play take school time away the impact of extracurricular and work time on educational time for live-at-home college students, 45 references, the role of homework in improving school quality, when is homework worth the time: evaluating the association between homework and achievement in high school science and math, the homework–achievement relation reconsidered: differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort, children's media use and homework time, time to work or time to play: the effect of student employment on homework, sleep, and screen time, does homework improve academic achievement a synthesis of research, 1987–2003, are we wasting our children's time by giving them more homework, the role of homework in student learning outcomes: evidence from a field experiment, does high school employment affect high school academic performance, the impact of homework on student achievement, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Quick links

Our courses

Sorry, we couldn't find any courses that match your search. Try searching for something else.

Our research

Search our website

Popular searches

Your search term has returned 0 results

NEWS • 13 May 2022

Primary school children get little academic benefit from homework

Paul Hopkins, Lecturer and Researcher in Education, on the usefulness of homework for primary school pupils.

Homework: a word that can cause despair not just in children, but also in parents and even teachers. And for primary school children at least, it may be that schools setting homework is more trouble than it’s worth.

There is evidence that homework can be useful at secondary school. It can be used to consolidate material learnt in class or to prepare for exams.

However, it is less clear that homework is useful for children at primary school (ages 5 to 11) or in early years education (ages 3 to 5).

What is homework for?

There are no current guidelines on how much homework primary school children in England should be set. In 2018 then education secretary Damien Hinds stated that “We trust individual school head teachers to decide what their policy on homework will be, and what happens if pupils don’t do what’s set”.

While there is not much data available on how much homework primary school pupils do, a 2018 survey of around 1,000 parents found that primary pupils were spending an average of 2.2 hours per week on homework.

The homework done by primary school children can include reading, practising spellings, or revising for tests. Charity the Education Endowment Foundation suggests that the uses for homework at primary school include reinforcing the skills that pupils learn in school, helping them get ready for tests and preparing them for future school lessons.

Homework can also act as a point of communication between home and school, helping parents feel part of their child’s schooling.

However, the 2018 Ofsted Parents’ Panel – which surveyed the views of around 1,000 parents in England on educational issues – found that 36% of parents thought that homework was not helpful at all to their primary school children. The panel report found that, for many parents, homework was a significant source of stress and negatively affected family life.

Little academic benefit

Not much academic research has been carried out on the impact of homework for children in primary school. The available meta-studies – research that combines and analyses the findings of a number of studies – suggest that homework has little or no positive benefit for the academic achievement of children of primary school age. A central reason for this seems to be the inability of children to complete this homework without the support provided by teachers and the school.

Some research has suggested that primary pupils lack the independent study skills to do homework, and that they are not able to stay focused on the work.

What’s more, homework may actually have a negative effect if parents set unrealistic expectations, apply pressure or use methods that go counter to those used at school.

Homework may also increase inequalities between pupils. High achievers from economically privileged backgrounds may have greater parental support for homework, including more educated assistance, higher expectations and better settings and resources.

However, it is possible that setting homework for primary school children has benefits that cannot be easily measured, such as developing responsibility and independent problem-solving skills. It could also help children develop habits that will be useful in later school life.

A common task set for homework in primary schools is for children to read with their parents. There is some evidence that this has a positive impact as well as providing enjoyment, but the quality of interaction may be more important than the quantity.

If the purpose of homework is to develop the relationship between home and school and give parents more stake in the schooling of their children then this may well be a positive thing. If this is its purpose, though, it should not be used as a means to improve test scores or school performance metrics. For the youngest children, anything that takes time away from developmental play is a bad thing.

Rather, any homework should develop confidence and engagement in the process of schooling for both children and parents.

Last updated

Browser does not support script.

Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003

In this article, research conducted in the United States since 1987 on the effects of homework is summarized. Studies are grouped into four research designs. The authors found that all studies, regardless of type, had design flaws. However, both within and across design types, there was generally consistent evidence for a positive influence of homework on achievement. Studies that reported simple homework-achievement correlations revealed evidence that a stronger correlation existed (a) in Grades 7-12 than in K-6 and (b) when students rather than parents reported time on homework. No strong evidence was found for an association between the homework-achievement link and the outcome measure (grades as opposed to standardized tests) or the subject matter (reading as opposed to math). On the basis of these results and others, the authors suggest future research.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats

Dimensions citation stats, published in, publication date, start / end page, related subject headings.

• 39 Education
• 13 Education