Advertisement

Does teacher homework feedback matter to 6th graders’ school engagement?: a mixed methods study

  • Jennifer Cunha
  • Pedro RosárioEmail author
  • José Carlos Núñez
  • Guilherme Vallejo
  • Juliana Martins
  • Julia Högemann
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

The effectiveness of homework on improving student academic achievement depends on several factors; for example, feedback provided by the teacher (i.e. grading) and student engagement are important moderators in this process. However, the relationships between the types of homework feedback commonly used by teachers and student school engagement have not yet been examined. Anchored in the Self-Determination Theory, this mixed methods sequential explanatory study investigated how five types of teacher homework feedback predict three dimensions of students’ school engagement. The participants included 6th graders (N = 4288) and their mathematics teachers (N = 170). For this investigation, a quantitative phase was run, followed by a qualitative phase. The quantitative data were analyzed using multivariate multilevel regression models. The quantitative data showed positive relationships between five types of feedback and school engagement, albeit with different results at student and class levels. The findings showed small effect sizes. The qualitative data, based on a purposeful sampling, provided further insights regarding the low effect sizes that were found. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four themes were identified as follows: homework at home and/or at the study center, perceived homework feedback types, school engagement, and school disaffection. Both data sets indicated directions to strengthen the benefits of homework feedback and to maximize students’ learning. This research paper discusses practical implications as well as future research directions.

Keywords

Homework feedback types School engagement School disaffection Mathematics Sequential explanatory design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank Sofia Kirkman and Connor Holmes for the English editing of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was conducted at Psychology Research Centre (UID/PSI/01662/2013), University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education through national funds and co-financed by FEDER through COMPETE2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007653). The first author was supported by a PhD fellowship from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT – SFRH/BD/95341/2013).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012). N. C. R. M. How many qualitative interviews is enough? National Center for Research Methods. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/.
  3. Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1–43). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, S., & Kalish, N. (2007). The case against homework: How homework is hurting children and what parents can do about it. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in written feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 251–261.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3586751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, H. (2001). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, H., Robinson, J., & Patall, E. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corno, L., & Xu, J. (2004). Homework as the job of childhood. Theory Into Practice, 43(3), 227–233.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4303_9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. 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, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Pekrun, R., Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., & Newall, N. E. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of achievement goals: from affective antecedents to emotional effects and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 948–963.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972). Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative feedback and threats. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation & self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F., & Krusell, J. (1975). Cognitive evaluation theory and some comments on the Calder and Staw critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(1), 81–85.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Epstein, J. L., & van Voorhis, F. L. (2012). The changing debate: From assigning homework to designing homework. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary debates in child development and education (pp. 263–273). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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(4), 1075–1085.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fernández-Alonso, R., Álvarez-Díaz, M., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2017). Students’ achievement and homework assignment strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferreira, P. C., Simão, A. V., & Silva, A. L. (2014). Does training in how to regulate one’s learning affect how students report self-regulated learning in diary tasks? In Metacognition and learning (pp. 1–32).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9121-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48, 2134–2156.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 97–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Furlong, M. J., & Christenson, S. L. (2008). Engaging students at school and with learning: a relevant construct for all students. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 365–368.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hancock, D. R. (2000). Impact of verbal praise on college students’ time spent on homework. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(6), 384–389.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 543–560.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.604951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hanover Research. (2013). Student perception surveys and teacher assessments. Washington, DC: Author Retrieved from https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/Hanover-Research-Student-Surveys.pdf.Google Scholar
  39. Harwell, M. R. (2011). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. In C. Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The sage handbook for research in education: Pursuing ideas as the keystone of exemplary inquiry (pp. 147–182). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation: a review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774–795.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.5.774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hospel, V., & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students' engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: a mixed methods study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93–135.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9025-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: it is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory's motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1175–1188.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Joët, G., Usher, E., & Bressoux, P. (2011). Sources of self-efficacy: an investigation of elementary school students in France. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 649–663.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kackar, R. N., & Harville, D. A. (1984). Approximations for standard errors of estimators of fixed and random effects in mixed linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 853–862.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2288715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kenward, M. G., & Roger, J. H. (2009). An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 53, 2583–2595.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2008.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kerr, K. (2017). Exploring student perceptions of verbal feedback. Research Papers in Education, 32(4), 444–462.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1319589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2003). Perceptions of teacher’s feedback and learning environment as predictors of intrinsic motivation in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 333–346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00012-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2007). Special topic: the case for and against homework. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 74–79.Google Scholar
  55. McCrudden, M. T., Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on Norwegian students’ document selection: a mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 147–162.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mih, C., & Mih, V. (2016). Fear of failure, disaffection and procrastination as mediators between controlled motivation and academic cheating. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 20(2), 117–132.Google Scholar
  57. Mouratidis, M., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 240–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Cerezo, R., González-Pienda, J., Rosário, P., Mourão, R., & Valle, A. (2015a). Homework and academic achievement across Spanish compulsory education. Educational Psychology, 35(6), 726–746.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.817537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Núñez, J., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., & Valle, A. (2015b). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., Terry, K., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2004). Possible selves as roadmaps. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(2), 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2005). Achievement Emotions Questionnaire Mathematics (AEQ-M). User’s manual. Munich: University of Munich, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  65. Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Peterson, E., & Irving, S. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18, 238–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pulfrey, C., Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2013). Autonomy and task performance: explaining the impact of grades on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 39–57.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–20). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  71. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T. (2015). To what extent do teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 170–185.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Baldaque, M., Nunes, T., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., et al. (2009). Homework, self-regulated learning and math achievement. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 14(2), 179–192.Google Scholar
  73. Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Trigo, L., Suárez, N., Fernandéz, E., & Tuero-Herrero, E. (2011). English as a Foreign Language (EFL) homework diaries: evaluating gains and constraints for self-regulated learning and achievement. Psicothema, 23(4), 681–687.Google Scholar
  74. Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Mourão, R., & Pinto, R. (2015a). Does homework design matter? The role of homework’s purpose in student mathematics achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 10–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Suárez, N., 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(1528), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Azevedo, R., Nunes, A. R., Fuentes, S., & Moreira, T. (2016). Promoting Gypsy children school engagement: a story-tool project to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 47, 84–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450–461.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  82. Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. School Field, 7(2), 224–233.Google Scholar
  83. SAS Institute, Inc. (2017). SAS/STAT® 14.3 user’s guide. Cary: SAS Institute, Inc..Google Scholar
  84. Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X304398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sinkovics, R. R., & Ghauri, P. N. (2008). Enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 48(6), 689–714.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-008-0103-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Skipper, Y., & Douglas, K. (2012). Is no praise good praise? Effects of positive feedback on children's and university students’ responses to subsequent failures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 327–339.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02028.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Skipper, Y., & Douglas, K. (2015). The influence of teacher feedback on children's perceptions of student–teacher relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 276–288.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modelling (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  93. Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: a review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Swann, W. B., Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & McClarty, K. L. (2007). Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62, 84–94.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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, 243–258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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(1), 26–50.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006b). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., & Lüdke, O. (2009). Between-teacher differences in homework assignments and the development of 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Vallejo, G., Ato, M., Fernández, P., & Livavic-Rojas. (2018). Sample size estimation for heterogeneous growth curve models with attrition. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1059-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Walberg, H. J., & Paik, S. J. (2000). Effective educational practices. Brussels: International Academy of Education & International Bureau of Education.Google Scholar
  104. Walberg, H. J., Paschal, R. A., & Weinstein, T. (1985). Homework’s powerful effects on learning. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 76–79.Google Scholar
  105. Wallace, T. L., & Chhuon, V. (2014). Proximal processes in urban classrooms engagement and disaffection in urban youth of color. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 937–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85(2), 722–737.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287–301.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Xu, J. (2008). Models of secondary school students’ interest in homework: a multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1180–1205.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Xu, J. (2010). Homework purposes reported by secondary school students: a multilevel analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 171–182.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903382939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Xu, J. (2014). Regulation of motivation: predicting students’ homework motivation management at the secondary school level. Research Papers in Education, 29(4), 457–478.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2013.775324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Xu, J. (2015). Investigating factors that influence conventional distraction and tech-related distraction in math homework. Computers & Education, 81, 304–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Zhu, Y., & Leung, F. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 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). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied PsychologyUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversidad de OviedoOviedoSpain
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y HumanidadesUniversidad Politécnica y Artística de ParaguayMayor Sebastián Bullo s/n, AsunciónParaguay

Personalised recommendations