homework in higher education

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

How to use homework to support student success.

• by: Sandra Chafouleas
• January 13, 2022
• Community Engagement

Editor’s Note: Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor Sandra Chafouleas shares insights on supporting students’ homework during the pandemic in the following piece, which originally appeared  in Psychology Today , where she publishes a blog.

COVID has brought many changes in education. What does it mean for homework?

School assignments that a student is expected to do outside of the regular school day—that’s homework. The general guideline is 10 minutes of nightly homework per grade level beginning after kindergarten. This amounts to just a few minutes for younger elementary students to up to 2 hours for high school students.

The guidance seems straightforward enough, so why is homework such a controversial topic? School disruptions, including extended periods of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, have magnified the controversies yet also have provided an opportunity to rethink the purpose and value of homework.

Debates about the value of homework center around two primary issues: amount and inequity.

First, the amount of assigned homework may be much more than the recommended guidelines. Families report their children are stressed out over the time spent doing homework. Too much homework can challenge well-being given the restricted time available for sleep, exercise, and social connection. In a 2015 study , for example, parents reported their early elementary children received almost three times the recommended guidelines. In high school, researchers found an average of three hours of homework per night for students living in economically privileged communities.

“ Debates about the value of homework center around two primary issues: amount and inequity.”

Second, homework can perpetuate inequities. Students attending school in less economically privileged communities may receive little to no homework, or have difficulty completing it due to limited access to needed technology. This can translate into fewer opportunities to learn and may contribute to gaps in achievement.

There isn’t a ton of research on the effects of homework, and available studies certainly do not provide a simple answer. For example, a 2006 synthesis of studies suggested a positive influence between homework completion and academic achievement for middle and high school students. Supporters also point out that homework offers additional opportunities to engage in learning and that it can foster independent learning habits such as planning and a sense of responsibility. A more recent study involving 13-year-old students in Spain found higher test scores for those who were regularly assigned homework in math and science, with an optimal time around one hour—which is roughly aligned with recommendations. However, the researchers noted that ability to independently do the work, student effort, and prior achievement were more important contributors than time spent.

Opponents of homework maintain that the academic benefit does not outweigh the toll on well-being. Researchers have observed student stress, physical health problems, and lack of life balance, especially when the time spent goes over the recommended guidelines. In a survey of adolescents , over half reported the amount and type of homework they received to be a primary source of stress in their lives. In addition, vast differences exist in access and availability of supports, such as internet connection, adult assistance, or even a place to call home, as 1.5 million children experience homelessness in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic has re-energized discussion about homework practices, with the goal to advance recommendations about how, when, and with whom it can be best used. Here’s a summary of key strategies:

Strategies for Educators

Make sure the tasks are meaningful and matched..

First, the motto “ quality over quantity ” can guide decisions about homework. Homework is not busy-work, and instead should get students excited about learning. Emphasize activities that facilitate choice and interest to extend learning, like choose your own reading adventure or math games. Second, each student should be able to complete homework independently with success. Think about Goldilocks: To be effective, assignments should be just right for each learner. One example of how do this efficiently is through online learning platforms that can efficiently adjust to skill level and can be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

Ensure access to resources for task completion.

One step toward equity is to ensure access to necessary resources such as time, space, and materials. Teach students about preparing for homework success, allocating classroom time to model and practice good study habits such as setting up their physical environment, time management, and chunking tasks. Engage in conversations with students and families to problem-solve challenges When needed, connect students with homework supports available through after-school clubs, other community supports, or even within a dedicated block during the school day.

Be open to revisiting homework policies and practices.

The days of penalizing students for not completing homework should be long gone. Homework is a tool for practicing content and learning self-management. With that in mind, provide opportunities for students to communicate needs, and respond by revising assignments or allowing them to turn in on alternative dates. Engage in adult professional learning about high-quality homework , from value (Should I assign this task?) to evaluation (How should this be graded? Did that homework assignment result in expected outcomes?). Monitor how things are going by looking at completion rates and by asking students for their feedback. Be willing to adapt the homework schedule or expectations based on what is learned.

Strategies for Families

Understand how to be a good helper..

When designed appropriately, students should be able to complete homework with independence. Limit homework wars by working to be a good helper. Hovering, micromanaging, or doing homework for them may be easiest in the moment but does not help build their independence. Be a good helper by asking guiding questions, providing hints, or checking for understanding. Focus your assistance on setting up structures for homework success, like space and time.

Use homework as a tool for communication.

Use homework as a vehicle to foster family-school communication. Families can use homework as an opportunity to open conversations about specific assignments or classes, peer relationships, or even sleep quality that may be impacting student success. For younger students, using a daily or weekly home-school notebook or planner can be one way to share information. For older students, help them practice communicating their needs and provide support as needed.

Make sure to balance wellness.

Like adults, children need a healthy work-life balance. Positive social connection and engagement in pleasurable activities are important core principles to foster well-being . Monitor the load of homework and other structured activities to make sure there is time in the daily routine for play. Play can mean different things to different children: getting outside, reading for pleasure, and yes, even gaming. Just try to ensure that activities include a mix of health-focused activities such as physical movement or mindfulness downtime.

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) accredits the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. Read more about CAEP Accreditation, including the programs covered and the accountability measures .

Some content on this website may require the use of a plug-in, such as  Adobe Acrobat Viewer .

• Support the Neag School

Neag School of Education 249 Glenbrook Road, Unit 3064 Charles B. Gentry Building Storrs, CT 06269-3064

860-486-3815 [email protected]

Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?

A conversation with a Wheelock researcher, a BU student, and a fourth-grade teacher

“Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids’ lives,” says Wheelock’s Janine Bempechat. “It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful. It has to do with the value of practicing over and over.” Photo by iStock/Glenn Cook Photography

Do your homework.

If only it were that simple.

Educators have debated the merits of homework since the late 19th century. In recent years, amid concerns of some parents and teachers that children are being stressed out by too much homework, things have only gotten more fraught.

“Homework is complicated,” says developmental psychologist Janine Bempechat, a Wheelock College of Education & Human Development clinical professor. The author of the essay “ The Case for (Quality) Homework—Why It Improves Learning and How Parents Can Help ” in the winter 2019 issue of Education Next , Bempechat has studied how the debate about homework is influencing teacher preparation, parent and student beliefs about learning, and school policies.

She worries especially about socioeconomically disadvantaged students from low-performing schools who, according to research by Bempechat and others, get little or no homework.

BU Today  sat down with Bempechat and Erin Bruce (Wheelock’17,’18), a new fourth-grade teacher at a suburban Boston school, and future teacher freshman Emma Ardizzone (Wheelock) to talk about what quality homework looks like, how it can help children learn, and how schools can equip teachers to design it, evaluate it, and facilitate parents’ role in it.

BU Today: Parents and educators who are against homework in elementary school say there is no research definitively linking it to academic performance for kids in the early grades. You’ve said that they’re missing the point.

Bempechat : I think teachers assign homework in elementary school as a way to help kids develop skills they’ll need when they’re older—to begin to instill a sense of responsibility and to learn planning and organizational skills. That’s what I think is the greatest value of homework—in cultivating beliefs about learning and skills associated with academic success. If we greatly reduce or eliminate homework in elementary school, we deprive kids and parents of opportunities to instill these important learning habits and skills.

We do know that beginning in late middle school, and continuing through high school, there is a strong and positive correlation between homework completion and academic success.

That’s what I think is the greatest value of homework—in cultivating beliefs about learning and skills associated with academic success.

You talk about the importance of quality homework. What is that?

Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids’ lives. It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful. It has to do with the value of practicing over and over.

What are your concerns about homework and low-income children?

The argument that some people make—that homework “punishes the poor” because lower-income parents may not be as well-equipped as affluent parents to help their children with homework—is very troubling to me. There are no parents who don’t care about their children’s learning. Parents don’t actually have to help with homework completion in order for kids to do well. They can help in other ways—by helping children organize a study space, providing snacks, being there as a support, helping children work in groups with siblings or friends.

Isn’t the discussion about getting rid of homework happening mostly in affluent communities?

Yes, and the stories we hear of kids being stressed out from too much homework—four or five hours of homework a night—are real. That’s problematic for physical and mental health and overall well-being. But the research shows that higher-income students get a lot more homework than lower-income kids.

Teachers may not have as high expectations for lower-income children. Schools should bear responsibility for providing supports for kids to be able to get their homework done—after-school clubs, community support, peer group support. It does kids a disservice when our expectations are lower for them.

The conversation around homework is to some extent a social class and social justice issue. If we eliminate homework for all children because affluent children have too much, we’re really doing a disservice to low-income children. They need the challenge, and every student can rise to the challenge with enough supports in place.

What did you learn by studying how education schools are preparing future teachers to handle homework?

My colleague, Margarita Jimenez-Silva, at the University of California, Davis, School of Education, and I interviewed faculty members at education schools, as well as supervising teachers, to find out how students are being prepared. And it seemed that they weren’t. There didn’t seem to be any readings on the research, or conversations on what high-quality homework is and how to design it.

Erin, what kind of training did you get in handling homework?

Bruce : I had phenomenal professors at Wheelock, but homework just didn’t come up. I did lots of student teaching. I’ve been in classrooms where the teachers didn’t assign any homework, and I’ve been in rooms where they assigned hours of homework a night. But I never even considered homework as something that was my decision. I just thought it was something I’d pull out of a book and it’d be done.

I started giving homework on the first night of school this year. My first assignment was to go home and draw a picture of the room where you do your homework. I want to know if it’s at a table and if there are chairs around it and if mom’s cooking dinner while you’re doing homework.

The second night I asked them to talk to a grown-up about how are you going to be able to get your homework done during the week. The kids really enjoyed it. There’s a running joke that I’m teaching life skills.

Friday nights, I read all my kids’ responses to me on their homework from the week and it’s wonderful. They pour their hearts out. It’s like we’re having a conversation on my couch Friday night.

It matters to know that the teacher cares about you and that what you think matters to the teacher. Homework is a vehicle to connect home and school…for parents to know teachers are welcoming to them and their families.

Bempechat : I can’t imagine that most new teachers would have the intuition Erin had in designing homework the way she did.

Ardizzone : Conversations with kids about homework, feeling you’re being listened to—that’s such a big part of wanting to do homework….I grew up in Westchester County. It was a pretty demanding school district. My junior year English teacher—I loved her—she would give us feedback, have meetings with all of us. She’d say, “If you have any questions, if you have anything you want to talk about, you can talk to me, here are my office hours.” It felt like she actually cared.

Bempechat : It matters to know that the teacher cares about you and that what you think matters to the teacher. Homework is a vehicle to connect home and school…for parents to know teachers are welcoming to them and their families.

Ardizzone : But can’t it lead to parents being overbearing and too involved in their children’s lives as students?

Bempechat : There’s good help and there’s bad help. The bad help is what you’re describing—when parents hover inappropriately, when they micromanage, when they see their children confused and struggling and tell them what to do.

Good help is when parents recognize there’s a struggle going on and instead ask informative questions: “Where do you think you went wrong?” They give hints, or pointers, rather than saying, “You missed this,” or “You didn’t read that.”

Bruce : I hope something comes of this. I hope BU or Wheelock can think of some way to make this a more pressing issue. As a first-year teacher, it was not something I even thought about on the first day of school—until a kid raised his hand and said, “Do we have homework?” It would have been wonderful if I’d had a plan from day one.

Explore Related Topics:

• Share this story

Senior Contributing Editor

Sara Rimer A journalist for more than three decades, Sara Rimer worked at the Miami Herald , Washington Post and, for 26 years, the New York Times , where she was the New England bureau chief, and a national reporter covering education, aging, immigration, and other social justice issues. Her stories on the death penalty’s inequities were nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and cited in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Her journalism honors include Columbia University’s Meyer Berger award for in-depth human interest reporting. She holds a BA degree in American Studies from the University of Michigan. Profile

She can be reached at [email protected] .

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 81 comments on Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?

Insightful! The values about homework in elementary schools are well aligned with my intuition as a parent.

when i finish my work i do my homework and i sometimes forget what to do because i did not get enough sleep

same omg it does not help me it is stressful and if I have it in more than one class I hate it.

Same I think my parent wants to help me but, she doesn’t care if I get bad grades so I just try my best and my grades are great.

I think that last question about Good help from parents is not know to all parents, we do as our parents did or how we best think it can be done, so maybe coaching parents or giving them resources on how to help with homework would be very beneficial for the parent on how to help and for the teacher to have consistency and improve homework results, and of course for the child. I do see how homework helps reaffirm the knowledge obtained in the classroom, I also have the ability to see progress and it is a time I share with my kids

The answer to the headline question is a no-brainer – a more pressing problem is why there is a difference in how students from different cultures succeed. Perfect example is the student population at BU – why is there a majority population of Asian students and only about 3% black students at BU? In fact at some universities there are law suits by Asians to stop discrimination and quotas against admitting Asian students because the real truth is that as a group they are demonstrating better qualifications for admittance, while at the same time there are quotas and reduced requirements for black students to boost their portion of the student population because as a group they do more poorly in meeting admissions standards – and it is not about the Benjamins. The real problem is that in our PC society no one has the gazuntas to explore this issue as it may reveal that all people are not created equal after all. Or is it just environmental cultural differences??????

I get you have a concern about the issue but that is not even what the point of this article is about. If you have an issue please take this to the site we have and only post your opinion about the actual topic

This is not at all what the article is talking about.

This literally has nothing to do with the article brought up. You should really take your opinions somewhere else before you speak about something that doesn’t make sense.

we have the same name

so they have the same name what of it?

lol you tell her

totally agree

What does that have to do with homework, that is not what the article talks about AT ALL.

Yes, I think homework plays an important role in the development of student life. Through homework, students have to face challenges on a daily basis and they try to solve them quickly.I am an intense online tutor at 24x7homeworkhelp and I give homework to my students at that level in which they handle it easily.

More than two-thirds of students said they used alcohol and drugs, primarily marijuana, to cope with stress.

You know what’s funny? I got this assignment to write an argument for homework about homework and this article was really helpful and understandable, and I also agree with this article’s point of view.

I also got the same task as you! I was looking for some good resources and I found this! I really found this article useful and easy to understand, just like you! ^^

i think that homework is the best thing that a child can have on the school because it help them with their thinking and memory.

I am a child myself and i think homework is a terrific pass time because i can’t play video games during the week. It also helps me set goals.

Homework is not harmful ,but it will if there is too much

I feel like, from a minors point of view that we shouldn’t get homework. Not only is the homework stressful, but it takes us away from relaxing and being social. For example, me and my friends was supposed to hang at the mall last week but we had to postpone it since we all had some sort of work to do. Our minds shouldn’t be focused on finishing an assignment that in realty, doesn’t matter. I completely understand that we should have homework. I have to write a paper on the unimportance of homework so thanks.

homework isn’t that bad

Are you a student? if not then i don’t really think you know how much and how severe todays homework really is

i am a student and i do not enjoy homework because i practice my sport 4 out of the five days we have school for 4 hours and that’s not even counting the commute time or the fact i still have to shower and eat dinner when i get home. its draining!

i totally agree with you. these people are such boomers

why just why

they do make a really good point, i think that there should be a limit though. hours and hours of homework can be really stressful, and the extra work isn’t making a difference to our learning, but i do believe homework should be optional and extra credit. that would make it for students to not have the leaning stress of a assignment and if you have a low grade you you can catch up.

Studies show that homework improves student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college. Research published in the High School Journal indicates that students who spent between 31 and 90 minutes each day on homework “scored about 40 points higher on the SAT-Mathematics subtest than their peers, who reported spending no time on homework each day, on average.” On both standardized tests and grades, students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69% of students who didn’t have homework. A majority of studies on homework’s impact – 64% in one meta-study and 72% in another – showed that take home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement. Research by the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) concluded that increased homework led to better GPAs and higher probability of college attendance for high school boys. In fact, boys who attended college did more than three hours of additional homework per week in high school.

So how are your measuring student achievement? That’s the real question. The argument that doing homework is simply a tool for teaching responsibility isn’t enough for me. We can teach responsibility in a number of ways. Also the poor argument that parents don’t need to help with homework, and that students can do it on their own, is wishful thinking at best. It completely ignores neurodiverse students. Students in poverty aren’t magically going to find a space to do homework, a friend’s or siblings to help them do it, and snacks to eat. I feel like the author of this piece has never set foot in a classroom of students.

THIS. This article is pathetic coming from a university. So intellectually dishonest, refusing to address the havoc of capitalism and poverty plays on academic success in life. How can they in one sentence use poor kids in an argument and never once address that poor children have access to damn near 0 of the resources affluent kids have? Draw me a picture and let’s talk about feelings lmao what a joke is that gonna put food in their belly so they can have the calories to burn in order to use their brain to study? What about quiet their 7 other siblings that they share a single bedroom with for hours? Is it gonna force the single mom to magically be at home and at work at the same time to cook food while you study and be there to throw an encouraging word?

Also the “parents don’t need to be a parent and be able to guide their kid at all academically they just need to exist in the next room” is wild. Its one thing if a parent straight up is not equipped but to say kids can just figured it out is…. wow coming from an educator What’s next the teacher doesn’t need to teach cause the kid can just follow the packet and figure it out?

Well then get a tutor right? Oh wait you are poor only affluent kids can afford a tutor for their hours of homework a day were they on average have none of the worries a poor child does. Does this address that poor children are more likely to also suffer abuse and mental illness? Like mentioned what about kids that can’t learn or comprehend the forced standardized way? Just let em fail? These children regularly are not in “special education”(some of those are a joke in their own and full of neglect and abuse) programs cause most aren’t even acknowledged as having disabilities or disorders.

But yes all and all those pesky poor kids just aren’t being worked hard enough lol pretty sure poor children’s existence just in childhood is more work, stress, and responsibility alone than an affluent child’s entire life cycle. Love they never once talked about the quality of education in the classroom being so bad between the poor and affluent it can qualify as segregation, just basically blamed poor people for being lazy, good job capitalism for failing us once again!

why the hell?

you should feel bad for saying this, this article can be helpful for people who has to write a essay about it

This is more of a political rant than it is about homework

I know a teacher who has told his students their homework is to find something they are interested in, pursue it and then come share what they learn. The student responses are quite compelling. One girl taught herself German so she could talk to her grandfather. One boy did a research project on Nelson Mandela because the teacher had mentioned him in class. Another boy, a both on the autism spectrum, fixed his family’s computer. The list goes on. This is fourth grade. I think students are highly motivated to learn, when we step aside and encourage them.

The whole point of homework is to give the students a chance to use the material that they have been presented with in class. If they never have the opportunity to use that information, and discover that it is actually useful, it will be in one ear and out the other. As a science teacher, it is critical that the students are challenged to use the material they have been presented with, which gives them the opportunity to actually think about it rather than regurgitate “facts”. Well designed homework forces the student to think conceptually, as opposed to regurgitation, which is never a pretty sight

Wonderful discussion. and yes, homework helps in learning and building skills in students.

not true it just causes kids to stress

Homework can be both beneficial and unuseful, if you will. There are students who are gifted in all subjects in school and ones with disabilities. Why should the students who are gifted get the lucky break, whereas the people who have disabilities suffer? The people who were born with this “gift” go through school with ease whereas people with disabilities struggle with the work given to them. I speak from experience because I am one of those students: the ones with disabilities. Homework doesn’t benefit “us”, it only tears us down and put us in an abyss of confusion and stress and hopelessness because we can’t learn as fast as others. Or we can’t handle the amount of work given whereas the gifted students go through it with ease. It just brings us down and makes us feel lost; because no mater what, it feels like we are destined to fail. It feels like we weren’t “cut out” for success.

homework does help

here is the thing though, if a child is shoved in the face with a whole ton of homework that isn’t really even considered homework it is assignments, it’s not helpful. the teacher should make homework more of a fun learning experience rather than something that is dreaded

This article was wonderful, I am going to ask my teachers about extra, or at all giving homework.

I agree. Especially when you have homework before an exam. Which is distasteful as you’ll need that time to study. It doesn’t make any sense, nor does us doing homework really matters as It’s just facts thrown at us.

Homework is too severe and is just too much for students, schools need to decrease the amount of homework. When teachers assign homework they forget that the students have other classes that give them the same amount of homework each day. Students need to work on social skills and life skills.

I disagree.

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

Homework is helpful because homework helps us by teaching us how to learn a specific topic.

As a student myself, I can say that I have almost never gotten the full 9 hours of recommended sleep time, because of homework. (Now I’m writing an essay on it in the middle of the night D=)

I am a 10 year old kid doing a report about “Is homework good or bad” for homework before i was going to do homework is bad but the sources from this site changed my mind!

Homeowkr is god for stusenrs

I agree with hunter because homework can be so stressful especially with this whole covid thing no one has time for homework and every one just wants to get back to there normal lives it is especially stressful when you go on a 2 week vaca 3 weeks into the new school year and and then less then a week after you come back from the vaca you are out for over a month because of covid and you have no way to get the assignment done and turned in

As great as homework is said to be in the is article, I feel like the viewpoint of the students was left out. Every where I go on the internet researching about this topic it almost always has interviews from teachers, professors, and the like. However isn’t that a little biased? Of course teachers are going to be for homework, they’re not the ones that have to stay up past midnight completing the homework from not just one class, but all of them. I just feel like this site is one-sided and you should include what the students of today think of spending four hours every night completing 6-8 classes worth of work.

Are we talking about homework or practice? Those are two very different things and can result in different outcomes.

Homework is a graded assignment. I do not know of research showing the benefits of graded assignments going home.

Practice; however, can be extremely beneficial, especially if there is some sort of feedback (not a grade but feedback). That feedback can come from the teacher, another student or even an automated grading program.

As a former band director, I assigned daily practice. I never once thought it would be appropriate for me to require the students to turn in a recording of their practice for me to grade. Instead, I had in-class assignments/assessments that were graded and directly related to the practice assigned.

I would really like to read articles on “homework” that truly distinguish between the two.

oof i feel bad good luck!

thank you guys for the artical because I have to finish an assingment. yes i did cite it but just thanks

thx for the article guys.

Homework is good

I think homework is helpful AND harmful. Sometimes u can’t get sleep bc of homework but it helps u practice for school too so idk.

I agree with this Article. And does anyone know when this was published. I would like to know.

It was published FEb 19, 2019.

Studies have shown that homework improved student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college.

i think homework can help kids but at the same time not help kids

This article is so out of touch with majority of homes it would be laughable if it wasn’t so incredibly sad.

There is no value to homework all it does is add stress to already stressed homes. Parents or adults magically having the time or energy to shepherd kids through homework is dome sort of 1950’s fantasy.

What lala land do these teachers live in?

Homework gives noting to the kid

Homework is Bad

homework is bad.

why do kids even have homework?

Comments are closed.

Latest from Bostonia

American academy of arts & sciences welcomes five bu members, com’s newest journalism grad took her time, could boston be the next city to impose congestion pricing, alum has traveled the world to witness total solar eclipses, opening doors: rhonda harrison (eng’98,’04, grs’04), campus reacts and responds to israel-hamas war, reading list: what the pandemic revealed, remembering com’s david anable, cas’ john stone, “intellectual brilliance and brilliant kindness”, one good deed: christine kannler (cas’96, sph’00, camed’00), william fairfield warren society inducts new members, spreading art appreciation, restoring the “black angels” to medical history, in the kitchen with jacques pépin, feedback: readers weigh in on bu’s new president, com’s new expert on misinformation, and what’s really dividing the nation, the gifts of great teaching, sth’s walter fluker honored by roosevelt institute, alum’s debut book is a ramadan story for children, my big idea: covering construction sites with art, former terriers power new professional women’s hockey league.

• About the Hub
• Announcements
• Faculty Experts Guide
• Subscribe to the newsletter

Explore by Topic

• Arts+Culture
• Politics+Society
• Science+Technology
• Student Life
• University News
• Voices+Opinion
• About Hub at Work
• Gazette Archive
• Benefits+Perks
• Health+Well-Being
• Current Issue
• About the Magazine
• Past Issues
• Support Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Subscribe to the Magazine

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Credit: August de Richelieu

Does homework still have value? A Johns Hopkins education expert weighs in

Joyce epstein, co-director of the center on school, family, and community partnerships, discusses why homework is essential, how to maximize its benefit to learners, and what the 'no-homework' approach gets wrong.

By Vicky Hallett

The necessity of homework has been a subject of debate since at least as far back as the 1890s, according to Joyce L. Epstein , co-director of the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University. "It's always been the case that parents, kids—and sometimes teachers, too—wonder if this is just busy work," Epstein says.

But after decades of researching how to improve schools, the professor in the Johns Hopkins School of Education remains certain that homework is essential—as long as the teachers have done their homework, too. The National Network of Partnership Schools , which she founded in 1995 to advise schools and districts on ways to improve comprehensive programs of family engagement, has developed hundreds of improved homework ideas through its Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork program. For an English class, a student might interview a parent on popular hairstyles from their youth and write about the differences between then and now. Or for science class, a family could identify forms of matter over the dinner table, labeling foods as liquids or solids. These innovative and interactive assignments not only reinforce concepts from the classroom but also foster creativity, spark discussions, and boost student motivation.

"We're not trying to eliminate homework procedures, but expand and enrich them," says Epstein, who is packing this research into a forthcoming book on the purposes and designs of homework. In the meantime, the Hub couldn't wait to ask her some questions:

What kind of homework training do teachers typically get?

Future teachers and administrators really have little formal training on how to design homework before they assign it. This means that most just repeat what their teachers did, or they follow textbook suggestions at the end of units. For example, future teachers are well prepared to teach reading and literacy skills at each grade level, and they continue to learn to improve their teaching of reading in ongoing in-service education. By contrast, most receive little or no training on the purposes and designs of homework in reading or other subjects. It is really important for future teachers to receive systematic training to understand that they have the power, opportunity, and obligation to design homework with a purpose.

Why do students need more interactive homework?

If homework assignments are always the same—10 math problems, six sentences with spelling words—homework can get boring and some kids just stop doing their assignments, especially in the middle and high school years. When we've asked teachers what's the best homework you've ever had or designed, invariably we hear examples of talking with a parent or grandparent or peer to share ideas. To be clear, parents should never be asked to "teach" seventh grade science or any other subject. Rather, teachers set up the homework assignments so that the student is in charge. It's always the student's homework. But a good activity can engage parents in a fun, collaborative way. Our data show that with "good" assignments, more kids finish their work, more kids interact with a family partner, and more parents say, "I learned what's happening in the curriculum." It all works around what the youngsters are learning.

Is family engagement really that important?

At Hopkins, I am part of the Center for Social Organization of Schools , a research center that studies how to improve many aspects of education to help all students do their best in school. One thing my colleagues and I realized was that we needed to look deeply into family and community engagement. There were so few references to this topic when we started that we had to build the field of study. When children go to school, their families "attend" with them whether a teacher can "see" the parents or not. So, family engagement is ever-present in the life of a school.

My daughter's elementary school doesn't assign homework until third grade. What's your take on "no homework" policies?

There are some parents, writers, and commentators who have argued against homework, especially for very young children. They suggest that children should have time to play after school. This, of course is true, but many kindergarten kids are excited to have homework like their older siblings. If they give homework, most teachers of young children make assignments very short—often following an informal rule of 10 minutes per grade level. "No homework" does not guarantee that all students will spend their free time in productive and imaginative play.

Some researchers and critics have consistently misinterpreted research findings. They have argued that homework should be assigned only at the high school level where data point to a strong connection of doing assignments with higher student achievement . However, as we discussed, some students stop doing homework. This leads, statistically, to results showing that doing homework or spending more minutes on homework is linked to higher student achievement. If slow or struggling students are not doing their assignments, they contribute to—or cause—this "result."

Teachers need to design homework that even struggling students want to do because it is interesting. Just about all students at any age level react positively to good assignments and will tell you so.

Did COVID change how schools and parents view homework?

Within 24 hours of the day school doors closed in March 2020, just about every school and district in the country figured out that teachers had to talk to and work with students' parents. This was not the same as homeschooling—teachers were still working hard to provide daily lessons. But if a child was learning at home in the living room, parents were more aware of what they were doing in school. One of the silver linings of COVID was that teachers reported that they gained a better understanding of their students' families. We collected wonderfully creative examples of activities from members of the National Network of Partnership Schools. I'm thinking of one art activity where every child talked with a parent about something that made their family unique. Then they drew their finding on a snowflake and returned it to share in class. In math, students talked with a parent about something the family liked so much that they could represent it 100 times. Conversations about schoolwork at home was the point.

How did you create so many homework activities via the Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork program?

We had several projects with educators to help them design interactive assignments, not just "do the next three examples on page 38." Teachers worked in teams to create TIPS activities, and then we turned their work into a standard TIPS format in math, reading/language arts, and science for grades K-8. Any teacher can use or adapt our prototypes to match their curricula.

Overall, we know that if future teachers and practicing educators were prepared to design homework assignments to meet specific purposes—including but not limited to interactive activities—more students would benefit from the important experience of doing their homework. And more parents would, indeed, be partners in education.

Posted in Voices+Opinion

You might also like

News network.

• Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Get Email Updates
• Submit an Announcement
• Submit an Event
• Privacy Statement
• Accessibility

Discover JHU

• About the University
• Schools & Divisions
• Academic Programs
• Plan a Visit
• my.JohnsHopkins.edu
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University . All rights reserved.
• University Communications
• 3910 Keswick Rd., Suite N2600, Baltimore, MD
• X Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Instagram

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.

Homework in America

• 2014 Brown Center Report on American Education

Subscribe to the Brown Center on Education Policy Newsletter

Tom loveless tom loveless former brookings expert @tomloveless99.

March 18, 2014

• 18 min read

Part II of the 2014 Brown Center Report on American Education

Homework!  The topic, no, just the word itself, sparks controversy.  It has for a long time. In 1900, Edward Bok, editor of the Ladies Home Journal , published an impassioned article, “A National Crime at the Feet of Parents,” accusing homework of destroying American youth.  Drawing on the theories of his fellow educational progressive, psychologist G. Stanley Hall (who has since been largely discredited), Bok argued that study at home interfered with children’s natural inclination towards play and free movement, threatened children’s physical and mental health, and usurped the right of parents to decide activities in the home.

The Journal was an influential magazine, especially with parents.  An anti-homework campaign burst forth that grew into a national crusade. [i]   School districts across the land passed restrictions on homework, culminating in a 1901 statewide prohibition of homework in California for any student under the age of 15.  The crusade would remain powerful through 1913, before a world war and other concerns bumped it from the spotlight.  Nevertheless, anti-homework sentiment would remain a touchstone of progressive education throughout the twentieth century.  As a political force, it would lie dormant for years before bubbling up to mobilize proponents of free play and “the whole child.” Advocates would, if educators did not comply, seek to impose homework restrictions through policy making.

Our own century dawned during a surge of anti-homework sentiment. From 1998 to 2003, Newsweek , TIME , and People , all major national publications at the time, ran cover stories on the evils of homework.  TIME ’s 1999 story had the most provocative title, “The Homework Ate My Family: Kids Are Dazed, Parents Are Stressed, Why Piling On Is Hurting Students.” People ’s 2003 article offered a call to arms: “Overbooked: Four Hours of Homework for a Third Grader? Exhausted Kids (and Parents) Fight Back.” Feature stories about students laboring under an onerous homework burden ran in newspapers from coast to coast. Photos of angst ridden children became a journalistic staple.

The 2003 Brown Center Report on American Education included a study investigating the homework controversy.  Examining the most reliable empirical evidence at the time, the study concluded that the dramatic claims about homework were unfounded.  An overwhelming majority of students, at least two-thirds, depending on age, had an hour or less of homework each night.  Surprisingly, even the homework burden of college-bound high school seniors was discovered to be rather light, less than an hour per night or six hours per week. Public opinion polls also contradicted the prevailing story.  Parents were not up in arms about homework.  Most said their children’s homework load was about right.  Parents wanting more homework out-numbered those who wanted less.

Now homework is in the news again.  Several popular anti-homework books fill store shelves (whether virtual or brick and mortar). [ii]   The documentary Race to Nowhere depicts homework as one aspect of an overwrought, pressure-cooker school system that constantly pushes students to perform and destroys their love of learning.  The film’s website claims over 6,000 screenings in more than 30 countries.  In 2011, the New York Times ran a front page article about the homework restrictions adopted by schools in Galloway, NJ, describing “a wave of districts across the nation trying to remake homework amid concerns that high stakes testing and competition for college have fueled a nightly grind that is stressing out children and depriving them of play and rest, yet doing little to raise achievement, especially in elementary grades.”   In the article, Vicki Abeles, the director of Race to Nowhere , invokes the indictment of homework lodged a century ago, declaring, “The presence of homework is negatively affecting the health of our young people and the quality of family time.” [iii] 

A petition for the National PTA to adopt “healthy homework guidelines” on change.org currently has 19,000 signatures.  In September 2013, Atlantic featured an article, “My Daughter’s Homework is Killing Me,” by a Manhattan writer who joined his middle school daughter in doing her homework for a week.  Most nights the homework took more than three hours to complete.

The Current Study

A decade has passed since the last Brown Center Report study of homework, and it’s time for an update.  How much homework do American students have today?  Has the homework burden increased, gone down, or remained about the same?  What do parents think about the homework load?

A word on why such a study is important.  It’s not because the popular press is creating a fiction.  The press accounts are built on the testimony of real students and real parents, people who are very unhappy with the amount of homework coming home from school.  These unhappy people are real—but they also may be atypical.  Their experiences, as dramatic as they are, may not represent the common experience of American households with school-age children.  In the analysis below, data are analyzed from surveys that are methodologically designed to produce reliable information about the experiences of all Americans.  Some of the surveys have existed long enough to illustrate meaningful trends.  The question is whether strong empirical evidence confirms the anecdotes about overworked kids and outraged parents.

Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) provide a good look at trends in homework for nearly the past three decades.  Table 2-1 displays NAEP data from 1984-2012.  The data are from the long-term trend NAEP assessment’s student questionnaire, a survey of homework practices featuring both consistently-worded questions and stable response categories.  The question asks: “How much time did you spend on homework yesterday?”  Responses are shown for NAEP’s three age groups: 9, 13, and 17. [iv]

Today’s youngest students seem to have more homework than in the past.  The first three rows of data for age 9 reveal a shift away from students having no homework, declining from 35% in 1984 to 22% in 2012.  A slight uptick occurred from the low of 18% in 2008, however, so the trend may be abating.  The decline of the “no homework” group is matched by growth in the percentage of students with less than an hour’s worth, from 41% in 1984 to 57% in 2012. The share of students with one to two hours of homework changed very little over the entire 28 years, comprising 12% of students in 2012.  The group with the heaviest load, more than two hours of homework, registered at 5% in 2012.  It was 6% in 1984.

The amount of homework for 13-year-olds appears to have lightened slightly. Students with one to two hours of homework declined from 29% to 23%.  The next category down (in terms of homework load), students with less than an hour, increased from 36% to 44%.  One can see, by combining the bottom two rows, that students with an hour or more of homework declined steadily from 1984 to 2008 (falling from 38% to 27%) and then ticked up to 30% in 2012.  The proportion of students with the heaviest load, more than two hours, slipped from 9% in 1984 to 7% in 2012 and ranged between 7-10% for the entire period.

For 17-year-olds, the homework burden has not varied much.  The percentage of students with no homework has increased from 22% to 27%.  Most of that gain occurred in the 1990s. Also note that the percentage of 17-year-olds who had homework but did not do it was 11% in 2012, the highest for the three NAEP age groups.  Adding that number in with the students who didn’t have homework in the first place means that more than one-third of seventeen year olds (38%) did no homework on the night in question in 2012.  That compares with 33% in 1984.  The segment of the 17-year-old population with more than two hours of homework, from which legitimate complaints of being overworked might arise, has been stuck in the 10%-13% range.

The NAEP data point to four main conclusions:

• With one exception, the homework load has remained remarkably stable since 1984.
• The exception is nine-year-olds.  They have experienced an increase in homework, primarily because many students who once did not have any now have some.  The percentage of nine-year-olds with no homework fell by 13 percentage points, and the percentage with less than an hour grew by 16 percentage points.
• Of the three age groups, 17-year-olds have the most bifurcated distribution of the homework burden.   They have the largest percentage of kids with no homework (especially when the homework shirkers are added in) and the largest percentage with more than two hours.
• NAEP data do not support the idea that a large and growing number of students have an onerous amount of homework.  For all three age groups, only a small percentage of students report more than two hours of homework.  For 1984-2012, the size of the two hours or more groups ranged from 5-6% for age 9, 6-10% for age 13, and 10-13% for age 17.

Note that the item asks students how much time they spent on homework “yesterday.”  That phrasing has the benefit of immediacy, asking for an estimate of precise, recent behavior rather than an estimate of general behavior for an extended, unspecified period.  But misleading responses could be generated if teachers lighten the homework of NAEP participants on the night before the NAEP test is given.  That’s possible. [v] Such skewing would not affect trends if it stayed about the same over time and in the same direction (teachers assigning less homework than usual on the day before NAEP).  Put another way, it would affect estimates of the amount of homework at any single point in time but not changes in the amount of homework between two points in time.

A check for possible skewing is to compare the responses above with those to another homework question on the NAEP questionnaire from 1986-2004 but no longer in use. [vi]   It asked students, “How much time do you usually spend on homework each day?” Most of the response categories have different boundaries from the “last night” question, making the data incomparable.  But the categories asking about no homework are comparable.  Responses indicating no homework on the “usual” question in 2004 were: 2% for age 9-year-olds, 5% for 13 year olds, and 12% for 17-year-olds.  These figures are much less than the ones reported in Table 2-1 above.  The “yesterday” data appear to overstate the proportion of students typically receiving no homework.

The story is different for the “heavy homework load” response categories.  The “usual” question reported similar percentages as the “yesterday” question.  The categories representing the most amount of homework were “more than one hour” for age 9 and “more than two hours” for ages 13 and 17.   In 2004, 12% of 9-year-olds said they had more than one hour of daily homework, while 8% of 13-year-olds and 12% of 17-year-olds said they had more than two hours.  For all three age groups, those figures declined from1986 to 2004. The decline for age 17 was quite large, falling from 17% in 1986 to 12% in 2004.  

The bottom line: regardless of how the question is posed, NAEP data do not support the view that the homework burden is growing, nor do they support the belief that the proportion of students with a lot of homework has increased in recent years.  The proportion of students with no homework is probably under-reported on the long-term trend NAEP.  But the upper bound of students with more than two hours of daily homework appears to be about 15%–and that is for students in their final years of high school.

College Freshmen Look Back  

There is another good source of information on high school students’ homework over several decades.  The Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA conducts an annual survey of college freshmen that began in 1966.  In 1986, the survey started asking a series of questions regarding how students spent time in the final year of high school.  Figure 2-1 shows the 2012 percentages for the dominant activities.  More than half of college freshmen say they spent at least six hours per week socializing with friends (66.2%) and exercising/sports (53.0%).  About 40% devoted that much weekly time to paid employment.

Homework comes in fourth pace. Only 38.4% of students said they spent at least six hours per week studying or doing homework. When these students were high school seniors, it was not an activity central to their out of school lives.  That is quite surprising.  Think about it.  The survey is confined to the nation’s best students, those attending college.  Gone are high school dropouts.  Also not included are students who go into the military or attain full time employment immediately after high school.  And yet only a little more than one-third of the sampled students, devoted more than six hours per week to homework and studying when they were on the verge of attending college.

Another notable finding from the UCLA survey is how the statistic is trending (see Figure 2-2).  In 1986, 49.5% reported spending six or more hours per week studying and doing homework.  By 2002, the proportion had dropped to 33.4%.  In 2012, as noted in Figure 2-1, the statistic had bounced off the historical lows to reach 38.4%.  It is slowly rising but still sits sharply below where it was in 1987.

What Do Parents Think?

Met Life has published an annual survey of teachers since 1984.  In 1987 and 2007, the survey included questions focusing on homework and expanded to sample both parents and students on the topic. Data are broken out for secondary and elementary parents and for students in grades 3-6 and grades 7-12 (the latter not being an exact match with secondary parents because of K-8 schools).

Table 2-2 shows estimates of homework from the 2007 survey.  Respondents were asked to estimate the amount of homework on a typical school day (Monday-Friday).  The median estimate of each group of respondents is shaded.  As displayed in the first column, the median estimate for parents of an elementary student is that their child devotes about 30 minutes to homework on the typical weekday.  Slightly more than half (52%) estimate 30 minutes or less; 48% estimate 45 minutes or more.  Students in grades 3-6 (third column) give a median estimate that is a bit higher than their parents’ (45 minutes), with almost two-thirds (63%) saying 45 minutes or less is the typical weekday homework load.

One hour of homework is the median estimate for both secondary parents and students in grade 7-12, with 55% of parents reporting an hour or less and about two-thirds (67%) of students reporting the same.  As for the prevalence of the heaviest homework loads, 11% of secondary parents say their children spend more than two hours on weekday homework, and 12% is the corresponding figure for students in grades 7-12.

The Met Life surveys in 1987 and 2007 asked parents to evaluate the amount and quality of homework.  Table 2-3 displays the results.  There was little change over the two decades separating the two surveys.  More than 60% of parents rate the amount of homework as good or excellent, and about two-thirds give such high ratings to the quality of the homework their children are receiving.  The proportion giving poor ratings to either the quantity or quality of homework did not exceed 10% on either survey.

Parental dissatisfaction with homework comes in two forms: those who feel schools give too much homework and those who feel schools do not give enough.  The current wave of journalism about unhappy parents is dominated by those who feel schools give too much homework.  How big is this group?  Not very big (see Figure 2-3). On the Met Life survey, 60% of parents felt schools were giving the right amount of homework, 25% wanted more homework, and only 15% wanted less.

National surveys on homework are infrequent, but the 2006-2007 period had more than one.  A poll conducted by Public Agenda in 2006 reported similar numbers as the Met Life survey: 68% of parents describing the homework load as “about right,” 20% saying there is “too little homework,” and 11% saying there is “too much homework.”  A 2006 AP-AOL poll found the highest percentage of parents reporting too much homework, 19%.  But even in that poll, they were outnumbered by parents believing there is too little homework (23%), and a clear majority (57%) described the load as “about right.”  A 2010 local survey of Chicago parents conducted by the Chicago Tribune reported figures similar to those reported above: approximately two-thirds of parents saying their children’s homework load is “about right,” 21% saying it’s not enough, and 12% responding that the homework load is too much.

Summary and Discussion

In recent years, the press has been filled with reports of kids over-burdened with homework and parents rebelling against their children’s oppressive workload. The data assembled above call into question whether that portrait is accurate for the typical American family.  Homework typically takes an hour per night.  The homework burden of students rarely exceeds two hours a night.  The upper limit of students with two or more hours per night is about 15% nationally—and that is for juniors or seniors in high school.  For younger children, the upper boundary is about 10% who have such a heavy load.  Polls show that parents who want less homework range from 10%-20%, and that they are outnumbered—in every national poll on the homework question—by parents who want more homework, not less.  The majority of parents describe their children’s homework burden as about right.

So what’s going on?  Where are the homework horror stories coming from?

The Met Life survey of parents is able to give a few hints, mainly because of several questions that extend beyond homework to other aspects of schooling.  The belief that homework is burdensome is more likely held by parents with a larger set of complaints and concerns.  They are alienated from their child’s school.  About two in five parents (19%) don’t believe homework is important.  Compared to other parents, these parents are more likely to say too much homework is assigned (39% vs. 9%), that what is assigned is just busywork (57% vs. 36%), and that homework gets in the way of their family spending time together (51% vs. 15%).  They are less likely to rate the quality of homework as excellent (3% vs. 23%) or to rate the availability and responsiveness of teachers as excellent (18% vs. 38%). [vii]

They can also convince themselves that their numbers are larger than they really are.  Karl Taro Greenfeld, the author of the Atlantic article mentioned above, seems to fit that description.  “Every parent I know in New York City comments on how much homework their children have,” Mr. Greenfeld writes.  As for those parents who do not share this view? “There is always a clique of parents who are happy with the amount of homework. In fact, they would prefer more .  I tend not to get along with that type of parent.” [viii] 

Mr. Greenfeld’s daughter attends a selective exam school in Manhattan, known for its rigorous expectations and, yes, heavy homework load.  He had also complained about homework in his daughter’s previous school in Brentwood, CA.  That school was a charter school.  After Mr. Greenfeld emailed several parents expressing his complaints about homework in that school, the school’s vice-principal accused Mr. Greenfeld of cyberbullying.  The lesson here is that even schools of choice are not immune from complaints about homework.

The homework horror stories need to be read in a proper perspective.  They seem to originate from the very personal discontents of a small group of parents.  They do not reflect the experience of the average family with a school-age child.  That does not diminish these stories’ power to command the attention of school officials or even the public at large. But it also suggests a limited role for policy making in settling such disputes.  Policy is a blunt instrument.  Educators, parents, and kids are in the best position to resolve complaints about homework on a case by case basis.  Complaints about homework have existed for more than a century, and they show no signs of going away.

Part II Notes:

[i]Brian Gill and Steven Schlossman, “A Sin Against Childhood: Progressive Education and the Crusade to Abolish Homework, 1897-1941,” American Journal of Education , vol. 105, no. 1 (Nov., 1996), 27-66.  Also see Brian P. Gill and Steven L. Schlossman, “Villain or Savior? The American Discourse on Homework, 1850-2003,” Theory into Practice , 43, 3 (Summer 2004), pp. 174-181.

[ii] Bennett, Sara, and Nancy Kalish.  The Case Against Homework:  How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It   (New York:  Crown, 2006).  Buell, John.  Closing the Book on Homework: Enhancing Public Education and Freeing Family Time . (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004). Kohn, Alfie.    The Homework Myth:  Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing  (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2006).  Kralovec, Etta, and John Buell.  The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning  (Boston: Beacon Press, 2000).

[iii] Hu, Winnie, “ New Recruit in Homework Revolt: The Principal ,” New York Times , June 15, 2011, page a1.

[iv] Data for other years are available on the NAEP Data Explorer.  For Table 1, the starting point of 1984 was chosen because it is the first year all three ages were asked the homework question.  The two most recent dates (2012 and 2008) were chosen to show recent changes, and the two years in the 1990s to show developments during that decade.

[v] NAEP’s sampling design lessens the probability of skewing the homework figure.  Students are randomly drawn from a school population, meaning that an entire class is not tested.  Teachers would have to either single out NAEP students for special homework treatment or change their established homework routine for the whole class just to shelter NAEP participants from homework.  Sampling designs that draw entact classrooms for testing (such as TIMSS) would be more vulnerable to this effect.  Moreover, students in middle and high school usually have several different teachers during the day, meaning that prior knowledge of a particular student’s participation in NAEP would probably be limited to one or two teachers.

[vi] NAEP Question B003801 for 9 year olds and B003901 for 13- and 17-year olds.

[vii] Met Life, Met Life Survey of the American Teacher: The Homework Experience , November 13, 2007, pp. 21-22.

[viii] Greenfeld, Karl Taro, “ My Daughter’s Homework Is Killing Me ,” The Atlantic , September 18, 2013.

Education Policy K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Vanessa Williamson

April 29, 2024

Sopiko Beriashvili, Michael Trucano

April 26, 2024

Richard V. Reeves, Ember Smith

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

Students' Achievement and Homework Assignment Strategies

Rubén fernández-alonso.

1 Department of Education Sciences, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

2 Department of Education, Principality of Asturias Government, Oviedo, Spain

Marcos Álvarez-Díaz

Javier suárez-Álvarez.

3 Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

José Muñiz

The optimum time students should spend on homework has been widely researched although the results are far from unanimous. The main objective of this research is to analyze how homework assignment strategies in schools affect students' academic performance and the differences in students' time spent on homework. Participants were a representative sample of Spanish adolescents ( N = 26,543) with a mean age of 14.4 (±0.75), 49.7% girls. A test battery was used to measure academic performance in four subjects: Spanish, Mathematics, Science, and Citizenship. A questionnaire allowed the measurement of the indicators used for the description of homework and control variables. Two three-level hierarchical-linear models (student, school, autonomous community) were produced for each subject being evaluated. The relationship between academic results and homework time is negative at the individual level but positive at school level. An increase in the amount of homework a school assigns is associated with an increase in the differences in student time spent on homework. An optimum amount of homework is proposed which schools should assign to maximize gains in achievement for students overall.

The role of homework in academic achievement is an age-old debate (Walberg et al., 1985 ) that has swung between times when it was thought to be a tool for improving a country's competitiveness and times when it was almost outlawed. So Cooper ( 2001 ) talks about the battle over homework and the debates and rows continue (Walberg et al., 1985 , 1986 ; Barber, 1986 ). It is considered a complicated subject (Corno, 1996 ), mysterious (Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ), a chameleon (Trautwein et al., 2009b ), or Janus-faced (Flunger et al., 2015 ). One must agree with Cooper et al. ( 2006 ) that homework is a practice full of contradictions, where positive and negative effects coincide. As such, depending on our preferences, it is possible to find data which support the argument that homework benefits all students (Cooper, 1989 ), or that it does not matter and should be abolished (Barber, 1986 ). Equally, one might argue a compensatory effect as it favors students with more difficulties (Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 ), or on the contrary, that it is a source of inequality as it specifically benefits those better placed on the social ladder (Rømming, 2011 ). Furthermore, this issue has jumped over the school wall and entered the home, contributing to the polemic by becoming a common topic about which it is possible to have an opinion without being well informed, something that Goldstein ( 1960 ) warned of decades ago after reviewing almost 300 pieces of writing on the topic in Education Index and finding that only 6% were empirical studies.

The relationship between homework time and educational outcomes has traditionally been the most researched aspect (Cooper, 1989 ; Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ), although conclusions have evolved over time. The first experimental studies (Paschal et al., 1984 ) worked from the hypothesis that time spent on homework was a reflection of an individual student's commitment and diligence and as such the relationship between time spent on homework and achievement should be positive. This was roughly the idea at the end of the twentieth century, when more positive effects had been found than negative (Cooper, 1989 ), although it was also known that the relationship was not strictly linear (Cooper and Valentine, 2001 ), and that its strength depended on the student's age- stronger in post-compulsory secondary education than in compulsory education and almost zero in primary education (Cooper et al., 2012 ). With the turn of the century, hierarchical-linear models ran counter to this idea by showing that homework was a multilevel situation and the effect of homework on outcomes depended on classroom factors (e.g., frequency or amount of assigned homework) more than on an individual's attitude (Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ). Research with a multilevel approach indicated that individual variations in time spent had little effect on academic results (Farrow et al., 1999 ; De Jong et al., 2000 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2013 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2014 ; Núñez et al., 2014 ; Servicio de Evaluación Educativa del Principado de Asturias, 2016 ) and that when statistically significant results were found, the effect was negative (Trautwein, 2007 ; Trautwein et al., 2009b ; Lubbers et al., 2010 ; Chang et al., 2014 ). The reasons for this null or negative relationship lie in the fact that those variables which are positively associated with homework time are antagonistic when predicting academic performance. For example, some students may not need to spend much time on homework because they learn quickly and have good cognitive skills and previous knowledge (Trautwein, 2007 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ), or maybe because they are not very persistent in their work and do not finish homework tasks (Flunger et al., 2015 ). Similarly, students may spend more time on homework because they have difficulties learning and concentrating, low expectations and motivation or because they need more direct help (Trautwein et al., 2006 ), or maybe because they put in a lot of effort and take a lot of care with their work (Flunger et al., 2015 ). Something similar happens with sociological variables such as gender: Girls spend more time on homework (Gershenson and Holt, 2015 ) but, compared to boys, in standardized tests they have better results in reading and worse results in Science and Mathematics (OECD, 2013a ).

On the other hand, thanks to multilevel studies, systematic effects on performance have been found when homework time is considered at the class or school level. De Jong et al. ( 2000 ) found that the number of assigned homework tasks in a year was positively and significantly related to results in mathematics. Equally, the volume or amount of homework (mean homework time for the group) and the frequency of homework assignment have positive effects on achievement. The data suggests that when frequency and volume are considered together, the former has more impact on results than the latter (Trautwein et al., 2002 ; Trautwein, 2007 ). In fact, it has been estimated that in classrooms where homework is always assigned there are gains in mathematics and science of 20% of a standard deviation over those classrooms which sometimes assign homework (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ). Significant results have also been found in research which considered only homework volume at the classroom or school level. Dettmers et al. ( 2009 ) concluded that the school-level effect of homework is positive in the majority of participating countries in PISA 2003, and the OECD ( 2013b ), with data from PISA 2012, confirms that schools in which students have more weekly homework demonstrate better results once certain school and student-background variables are discounted. To put it briefly, homework has a multilevel nature (Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ) in which the variables have different significance and effects according to the level of analysis, in this case a positive effect at class level, and a negative or null effect in most cases at the level of the individual. Furthermore, the fact that the clearest effects are seen at the classroom and school level highlights the role of homework policy in schools and teaching, over and above the time individual students spend on homework.

From this complex context, this current study aims to explore the relationships between the strategies schools use to assign homework and the consequences that has on students' academic performance and on the students' own homework strategies. There are two specific objectives, firstly, to systematically analyze the differential effect of time spent on homework on educational performance, both at school and individual level. We hypothesize a positive effect for homework time at school level, and a negative effect at the individual level. Secondly, the influence of homework quantity assigned by schools on the distribution of time spent by students on homework will be investigated. This will test the previously unexplored hypothesis that an increase in the amount of homework assigned by each school will create an increase in differences, both in time spent on homework by the students, and in academic results. Confirming this hypothesis would mean that an excessive amount of homework assigned by schools would penalize those students who for various reasons (pace of work, gaps in learning, difficulties concentrating, overexertion) need to spend more time completing their homework than their peers. In order to resolve this apparent paradox we will calculate the optimum volume of homework that schools should assign in order to benefit the largest number of students without contributing to an increase in differences, that is, without harming educational equity.

Participants

The population was defined as those students in year 8 of compulsory education in the academic year 2009/10 in Spain. In order to provide a representative sample, a stratified random sampling was carried out from the 19 autonomous regions in Spain. The sample was selected from each stratum according to a two-stage cluster design (OECD, 2009 , 2011 , 2014a ; Ministerio de Educación, 2011 ). In the first stage, the primary units of the sample were the schools, which were selected with a probability proportional to the number of students in the 8th grade. The more 8th grade students in a given school, the higher the likelihood of the school being selected. In the second stage, 35 students were selected from each school through simple, systematic sampling. A detailed, step-by-step description of the sampling procedure may be found in OECD ( 2011 ). The subsequent sample numbered 29,153 students from 933 schools. Some students were excluded due to lack of information (absences on the test day), or for having special educational needs. The baseline sample was finally made up of 26,543 students. The mean student age was 14.4 with a standard deviation of 0.75, rank of age from 13 to 16. Some 66.2% attended a state school; 49.7% were girls; 87.8% were Spanish nationals; 73.5% were in the school year appropriate to their age, the remaining 26.5% were at least 1 year behind in terms of their age.

Test application, marking, and data recording were contracted out via public tendering, and were carried out by qualified personnel unconnected to the schools. The evaluation, was performed on two consecutive days, each day having two 50 min sessions separated by a break. At the end of the second day the students completed a context questionnaire which included questions related to homework. The evaluation was carried out in compliance with current ethical standards in Spain. Families of the students selected to participate in the evaluation were informed about the study by the school administrations, and were able to choose whether those students would participate in the study or not.

Instruments

Tests of academic performance.

The performance test battery consisted of 342 items evaluating four subjects: Spanish (106 items), mathematics (73 items), science (78), and citizenship (85). The items, completed on paper, were in various formats and were subject to binary scoring, except 21 items which were coded on a polytomous scale, between 0 and 2 points (Ministerio de Educación, 2011 ). As a single student is not capable of answering the complete item pool in the time given, the items were distributed across various booklets following a matrix design (Fernández-Alonso and Muñiz, 2011 ). The mean Cronbach α for the booklets ranged from 0.72 (mathematics) to 0.89 (Spanish). Student scores were calculated adjusting the bank of items to Rasch's IRT model using the ConQuest 2.0 program (Wu et al., 2007 ) and were expressed in a scale with mean and standard deviation of 500 and 100 points respectively. The student's scores were divided into five categories, estimated using the plausible values method. In large scale assessments this method is better at recovering the true population parameters (e.g., mean, standard deviation) than estimates of scores using methods of maximum likelihood or expected a-posteriori estimations (Mislevy et al., 1992 ; OECD, 2009 ; von Davier et al., 2009 ).

Homework variables

A questionnaire was made up of a mix of items which allowed the calculation of the indicators used for the description of homework variables. Daily minutes spent on homework was calculated from a multiple choice question with the following options: (a) Generally I don't have homework; (b) 1 h or less; (c) Between 1 and 2 h; (d) Between 2 and 3 h; (e) More than 3 h. The options were recoded as follows: (a) = 0 min.; (b) = 45 min.; (c) = 90 min.; (d) = 150 min.; (e) = 210 min. According to Trautwein and Köller ( 2003 ) the average homework time of the students in a school could be regarded as a good proxy for the amount of homework assigned by the teacher. So the mean of this variable for each school was used as an estimator of Amount or volume of homework assigned .

Control variables

Four variables were included to describe sociological factors about the students, three were binary: Gender (1 = female ); Nationality (1 = Spanish; 0 = other ); School type (1 = state school; 0 = private ). The fourth variable was Socioeconomic and cultural index (SECI), which is constructed with information about family qualifications and professions, along with the availability of various material and cultural resources at home. It is expressed in standardized points, N(0,1) . Three variables were used to gather educational history: Appropriate School Year (1 = being in the school year appropriate to their age ; 0 = repeated a school year) . The other two adjustment variables were Academic Expectations and Motivation which were included for two reasons: they are both closely connected to academic achievement (Suárez-Álvarez et al., 2014 ). Their position as adjustment factors is justified because, in an ex-post facto descriptive design such as this, both expectations and motivation may be thought of as background variables that the student brings with them on the day of the test. Academic expectations for finishing education was measured with a multiple-choice item where the score corresponds to the years spent in education in order to reach that level of qualification: compulsory secondary education (10 points); further secondary education (12 points); non-university higher education (14 points); University qualification (16 points). Motivation was constructed from the answers to six four-point Likert items, where 1 means strongly disagree with the sentence and 4 means strongly agree. Students scoring highly in this variable are agreeing with statements such as “at school I learn useful and interesting things.” A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed using a Maximum Likelihood robust estimation method (MLMV) and the items fit an essentially unidimensional scale: CFI = 0.954; TLI = 0.915; SRMR = 0.037; RMSEA = 0.087 (90% CI = 0.084–0.091).

As this was an official evaluation, the tests used were created by experts in the various fields, contracted by the Spanish Ministry of Education in collaboration with the regional education authorities.

Data analyses

Firstly the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations between the variables were calculated. Then, using the HLM 6.03 program (Raudenbush et al., 2004 ), two three-level hierarchical-linear models (student, school, autonomous community) were produced for each subject being evaluated: a null model (without predictor variables) and a random intercept model in which adjustment variables and homework variables were introduced at the same time. Given that HLM does not return standardized coefficients, all of the variables were standardized around the general mean, which allows the interpretation of the results as classical standardized regression analysis coefficients. Levels 2 and 3 variables were constructed from means of standardized level 1 variables and were not re-standardized. Level 1 variables were introduced without centering except for four cases: study time, motivation, expectation, and socioeconomic and cultural level which were centered on the school mean to control composition effects (Xu and Wu, 2013 ) and estimate the effect of differences in homework time among the students within the same school. The range of missing variable cases was very small, between 1 and 3%. Recovery was carried out using the procedure described in Fernández-Alonso et al. ( 2012 ).

The results are presented in two ways: the tables show standardized coefficients while in the figures the data are presented in a real scale, taking advantage of the fact that a scale with a 100 point standard deviation allows the expression of the effect of the variables and the differences between groups as percentage increases in standardized points.

Table ​ Table1 1 shows the descriptive statistics and the matrix of correlations between the study variables. As can be seen in the table, the relationship between the variables turned out to be in the expected direction, with the closest correlations between the different academic performance scores and socioeconomic level, appropriate school year, and student expectations. The nationality variable gave the highest asymmetry and kurtosis, which was to be expected as the majority of the sample are Spanish.

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation matrix between the variables .

Table ​ Table2 2 shows the distribution of variance in the null model. In the four subjects taken together, 85% of the variance was found at the student level, 10% was variance between schools, and 5% variance between regions. Although the 10% of variance between schools could seem modest, underlying that there were large differences. For example, in Spanish the 95% plausible value range for the school means ranged between 577 and 439 points, practically 1.5 standard deviations, which shows that schools have a significant impact on student results.

Distribution of the variance in the null model .

Table ​ Table3 3 gives the standardized coefficients of the independent variables of the four multilevel models, as well as the percentage of variance explained by each level.

Multilevel models for prediction of achievement in four subjects .

β, Standardized weight; SE, Standard Error; SECI, Socioeconomic and cultural index; AC, Autonomous Communities .

The results indicated that the adjustment variables behaved satisfactorily, with enough control to analyze the net effects of the homework variables. This was backed up by two results, firstly, the two variables with highest standardized coefficients were those related to educational history: academic expectations at the time of the test, and being in the school year corresponding to age. Motivation demonstrated a smaller effect but one which was significant in all cases. Secondly, the adjustment variables explained the majority of the variance in the results. The percentages of total explained variance in Table ​ Table2 2 were calculated with all variables. However, if the strategy had been to introduce the adjustment variables first and then add in the homework variables, the explanatory gain in the second model would have been about 2% in each subject.

The amount of homework turned out to be positively and significantly associated with the results in the four subjects. In a 100 point scale of standard deviation, controlling for other variables, it was estimated that for each 10 min added to the daily volume of homework, schools would achieve between 4.1 and 4.8 points more in each subject, with the exception of mathematics where the increase would be around 2.5 points. In other words, an increase of between 15 and 29 points in the school mean is predicted for each additional hour of homework volume of the school as a whole. This school level gain, however, would only occur if the students spent exactly the same time on homework as their school mean. As the regression coefficient of student homework time is negative and the variable is centered on the level of the school, the model predicts deterioration in results for those students who spend more time than their class mean on homework, and an improvement for those who finish their homework more quickly than the mean of their classmates.

Furthermore, the results demonstrated a positive association between the amount of homework assigned in a school and the differences in time needed by the students to complete their homework. Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows the relationship between volume of homework (expressed as mean daily minutes of homework by school) and the differences in time spent by students (expressed as the standard deviation from the mean school daily minutes). The correlation between the variables was 0.69 and the regression gradient indicates that schools which assigned 60 min of homework per day had a standard deviation in time spent by students on homework of approximately 25 min, whereas in those schools assigning 120 min of homework, the standard deviation was twice as long, and was over 50 min. So schools which assigned more homework also tended to demonstrate greater differences in the time students need to spend on that homework.

Relationship between school homework volume and differences in time needed by students to complete homework .

Figure ​ Figure2 2 shows the effect on results in mathematics of the combination of homework time, homework amount, and the variance of homework time associated with the amount of homework assigned in two types of schools: in type 1 schools the amount of homework assigned is 1 h, and in type 2 schools the amount of homework 2 h. The result in mathematics was used as a dependent variable because, as previously noted, it was the subject where the effect was smallest and as such is the most conservative prediction. With other subjects the results might be even clearer.

Prediction of results for quick and slow students according to school homework size .

Looking at the first standard deviation of student homework time shown in the first graph, it was estimated that in type 1 schools, which assign 1 h of daily homework, a quick student (one who finishes their homework before 85% of their classmates) would spend a little over half an hour (35 min), whereas the slower student, who spends more time than 85% of classmates, would need almost an hour and a half of work each day (85 min). In type 2 schools, where the homework amount is 2 h a day, the differences increase from just over an hour (65 min for a quick student) to almost 3 h (175 min for a slow student). Figure ​ Figure2 2 shows how the differences in performance would vary within a school between the more and lesser able students according to amount of homework assigned. In type 1 schools, with 1 h of homework per day, the difference in achievement between quick and slow students would be around 5% of a standard deviation, while in schools assigning 2 h per day the difference would be 12%. On the other hand, the slow student in a type 2 school would score 6 points more than the quick student in a type 1 school. However, to achieve this, the slow student in a type 2 school would need to spend five times as much time on homework in a week (20.4 weekly hours rather than 4.1). It seems like a lot of work for such a small gain.

Discussion and conclusions

The data in this study reaffirm the multilevel nature of homework (Trautwein and Köller, 2003 ) and support this study's first hypothesis: the amount of homework (mean daily minutes the student spends on homework) is positively associated with academic results, whereas the time students spent on homework considered individually is negatively associated with academic results. These findings are in line with previous research, which indicate that school-level variables, such as amount of homework assigned, have more explanatory power than individual variables such as time spent (De Jong et al., 2000 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Scheerens et al., 2013 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ). In this case it was found that for each additional hour of homework assigned by a school, a gain of 25% of a standard deviation is expected in all subjects except mathematics, where the gain is around 15%. On the basis of this evidence, common sense would dictate the conclusion that frequent and abundant homework assignment may be one way to improve school efficiency.

However, as noted previously, the relationship between homework and achievement is paradoxical- appearances are deceptive and first conclusions are not always confirmed. Analysis demonstrates another two complementary pieces of data which, read together, raise questions about the previous conclusion. In the first place, time spent on homework at the individual level was found to have a negative effect on achievement, which confirms the findings of other multilevel-approach research (Trautwein, 2007 ; Trautwein et al., 2009b ; Chang et al., 2014 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, it was found that an increase in assigned homework volume is associated with an increase in the differences in time students need to complete it. Taken together, the conclusion is that, schools with more homework tend to exhibit more variation in student achievement. These results seem to confirm our second hypothesis, as a positive covariation was found between the amount of homework in a school (the mean homework time by school) and the increase in differences within the school, both in student homework time and in the academic results themselves. The data seem to be in line with those who argue that homework is a source of inequity because it affects those less academically-advantaged students and students with greater limitations in their home environments (Kohn, 2006 ; Rømming, 2011 ; OECD, 2013b ).

This new data has clear implications for educational action and school homework policies, especially in compulsory education. If quality compulsory education is that which offers the best results for the largest number (Barber and Mourshed, 2007 ; Mourshed et al., 2010 ), then assigning an excessive volume of homework at those school levels could accentuate differences, affecting students who are slower, have more gaps in their knowledge, or are less privileged, and can make them feel overwhelmed by the amount of homework assigned to them (Martinez, 2011 ; OECD, 2014b ; Suárez et al., 2016 ). The data show that in a school with 60 min of assigned homework, a quick student will need just 4 h a week to finish their homework, whereas a slow student will spend 10 h a week, 2.5 times longer, with the additional aggravation of scoring one twentieth of a standard deviation below their quicker classmates. And in a school assigning 120 min of homework per day, a quick student will need 7.5 h per week whereas a slow student will have to triple this time (20 h per week) to achieve a result one eighth worse, that is, more time for a relatively worse result.

It might be argued that the differences are not very large, as between 1 and 2 h of assigned homework, the level of inequality increases 7% on a standardized scale. But this percentage increase has been estimated after statistically, or artificially, accounting for sociological and psychological student factors and other variables at school and region level. The adjustment variables influence both achievement and time spent on homework, so it is likely that in a real classroom situation the differences estimated here might be even larger. This is especially important in comprehensive education systems, like the Spanish (Eurydice, 2015 ), in which the classroom groups are extremely heterogeneous, with a variety of students in the same class in terms of ability, interest, and motivation, in which the aforementioned variables may operate more strongly.

The results of this research must be interpreted bearing in mind a number of limitations. The most significant limitation in the research design is the lack of a measure of previous achievement, whether an ad hoc test (Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2013 ) or school grades (Núñez et al., 2014 ), which would allow adjustment of the data. In an attempt to alleviate this, our research has placed special emphasis on the construction of variables which would work to exclude academic history from the model. The use of the repetition of school year variable was unavoidable because Spain has one of the highest levels of repetition in the European Union (Eurydice, 2011 ) and repeating students achieve worse academic results (Ministerio de Educación, 2011 ). Similarly, the expectation and motivation variables were included in the group of adjustment factors assuming that in this research they could be considered background variables. In this way, once the background factors are discounted, the homework variables explain 2% of the total variance, which is similar to estimations from other multilevel studies (De Jong et al., 2000 ; Trautwein, 2007 ; Dettmers et al., 2009 ; Fernández-Alonso et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, the statistical models used to analyze the data are correlational, and as such, one can only speak of an association between variables and not of directionality or causality in the analysis. As Trautwein and Lüdtke ( 2009 ) noted, the word “effect” must be understood as “predictive effect.” In other words, it is possible to say that the amount of homework is connected to performance; however, it is not possible to say in which direction the association runs. Another aspect to be borne in mind is that the homework time measures are generic -not segregated by subject- when it its understood that time spent and homework behavior are not consistent across all subjects (Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007 ). Nonetheless, when the dependent variable is academic results it has been found that the relationship between homework time and achievement is relatively stable across all subjects (Lubbers et al., 2010 ; Chang et al., 2014 ) which leads us to believe that the results given here would have changed very little even if the homework-related variables had been separated by subject.

Future lines of research should be aimed toward the creation of comprehensive models which incorporate a holistic vision of homework. It must be recognized that not all of the time spent on homework by a student is time well spent (Valle et al., 2015 ). In addition, research has demonstrated the importance of other variables related to student behavior such as rate of completion, the homework environment, organization, and task management, autonomy, parenting styles, effort, and the use of study techniques (Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005 ; Xu, 2008 , 2013 ; Kitsantas and Zimmerman, 2009 ; Kitsantas et al., 2011 ; Ramdass and Zimmerman, 2011 ; Bembenutty and White, 2013 ; Xu and Wu, 2013 ; Xu et al., 2014 ; Rosário et al., 2015a ; Osorio and González-Cámara, 2016 ; Valle et al., 2016 ), as well as the role of expectation, value given to the task, and personality traits (Lubbers et al., 2010 ; Goetz et al., 2012 ; Pedrosa et al., 2016 ). Along the same lines, research has also indicated other important variables related to teacher homework policies, such as reasons for assignment, control and feedback, assignment characteristics, and the adaptation of tasks to the students' level of learning (Trautwein et al., 2009a ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Patall et al., 2010 ; Buijs and Admiraal, 2013 ; Murillo and Martínez-Garrido, 2013 ; Rosário et al., 2015b ). All of these should be considered in a comprehensive model of homework.

In short, the data seem to indicate that in year 8 of compulsory education, 60–70 min of homework a day is a recommendation that, slightly more optimistically than Cooper's ( 2001 ) “10 min rule,” gives a reasonable gain for the whole school, without exaggerating differences or harming students with greater learning difficulties or who work more slowly, and is in line with other available evidence (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2015 ). These results have significant implications when it comes to setting educational policy in schools, sending a clear message to head teachers, teachers and those responsible for education. The results of this research show that assigning large volumes of homework increases inequality between students in pursuit of minimal gains in achievement for those who least need it. Therefore, in terms of school efficiency, and with the aim of improving equity in schools it is recommended that educational policies be established which optimize all students' achievement.

Ethics statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the University of Oviedo with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the University of Oviedo.

Author contributions

RF and JM have designed the research; RF and JS have analyzed the data; MA and JM have interpreted the data; RF, MA, and JS have drafted the paper; JM has revised it critically; all authors have provided final approval of the version to be published and have ensured the accuracy and integrity of the work.

This research was funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad del Gobierno de España. References: PSI2014-56114-P, BES2012-053488. We would like to express our utmost gratitude to the Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deporte del Gobierno de España and to the Consejería de Educación y Cultura del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias, without whose collaboration this research would not have been possible.

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.

• Barber B. (1986). Homework does not belong on the agenda for educational reform . Educ. Leadersh. 43 , 55–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber M., Mourshed M. (2007). How the World's Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. McKinsey and Company . Available online at: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016).
• Bembenutty H., White M. C. (2013). Academic performance and satisfaction with homework completion among college students . Learn. Individ. Differ. 24 , 83–88. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buijs M., Admiraal W. (2013). Homework assignments to enhance student engagement in secondary education . Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28 , 767–779. 10.1007/s10212-012-0139-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang C. B., Wall D., Tare M., Golonka E., Vatz K. (2014). Relations of attitudes toward homework and time spent on homework to course outcomes: the case of foreign language learning . J. Educ. Psychol. 106 , 1049–1065. 10.1037/a0036497 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework . Educ. Leadersh. 47 , 85–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H. (2001). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for Administrators, Teachers, and Parents . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ 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 ]
• Cooper H., Steenbergen-Hu S., Dent A. L. (2012). Homework , in APA Educational Psychology Handbook , Vol. 3 : Application to Learning and Teaching , eds Harris K. R., Graham S., Urdan T. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 475–495. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Valentine J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework . Educ. Psychol. 36 , 143–153. 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corno L. (1996). Homework is a complicated thing . Educ. Res. 25 , 27–30. 10.3102/0013189X025008027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Jong R., Westerhof K. J., Creemers B. P. M. (2000). Homework and student math achievement in junior high schools . Educ. Res. Eval. 6 , 130–157. 10.1076/1380-3611(200006)6:2;1-E;F130 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dettmers S., Trautwein U., Lüdtke M., Kunter M., Baumert J. (2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics . J. Educ. Psychol. 102 , 467–482. 10.1037/a0018453 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 ]
• Epstein J. L., Van Voorhis F. L. (2001). More than minutes: teachers' roles in designing homework . Educ. Psychol. 36 , 181–193. 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eurydice (2015). The Structure of the European Education Systems 2015/16: Schematic Diagrams. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union . Available online at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Publications:The_Structure_of_the_European_Education_Systems_2015/16:_Schematic_Diagrams (Accessed January 25, 2016).
• Eurydice (2011). Grade Retention during Compulsory Education in Europe: Regulations and Statistics . Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan H., Xu J., Cai Z., He J., Fan X. (2017). Homework and students' achievement in math and science: a 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015 . Educ. Res. Rev. 20 , 35–54. 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrow S., Tymms P., Henderson B. (1999). Homework and attainment in primary schools . Br. Educ. Res. J. 25 , 323–341. 10.1080/0141192990250304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Alonso R., Muñiz J. (2011). Diseños de cuadernillos para la evaluación de competencias b1sicas . Aula Abierta 39 , 3–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Alonso R., Suárez-Álvarez J., Muñiz J. (2012). Imputación de datos perdidos en las evaluaciones diagnósticas educativas. [Imputation methods for missing data in educational diagnostic evaluation]. Psicothema 24 , 167–175. [ PubMed ] [ 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 student]. Rev. Psicol. Educ. 9 , 15–30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Alonso R., Suárez-Álvarez J., Muñiz J. (2015). Adolescents' homework performance in mathematics and science: personal factors and teaching practices . J. Educ. Psychol. 107 , 1075–1085. 10.1037/edu0000032 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Alonso R., Suárez-Álvarez J., Muñiz J. (2016). Homework and performance in mathematics: the role of the teacher, the family and the student's background . Rev. Psicod. 21 , 5–23. 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.13939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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 . Lear. Instr. 39 , 97–106. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gershenson S., Holt S. B. (2015). Gender gaps in high school students' homework time . Educ. Res. 44 , 432–441. 10.3102/0013189X15616123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goetz T., Nett U. E., Martiny S. E., Hall N. C., Pekrun R., Dettmers S., et al. (2012). Students' emotions during homework: structures, self-concept antecedents, and achievement outcomes . Learn. Individ. Differ. 22 , 225–234. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein A. (1960). Does homework help? A review of research . Elementary Sch. J. 60 , 212–224. 10.1086/459804 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitsantas A., Cheema J., Ware H. (2011). The role of homework support resources, time spent on homework, and self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics achievement . J. Adv. Acad. 22 , 312–341. 10.1177/1932202X1102200206 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitsantas A., Zimmerman B. J. (2009). College students homework and academic achievement: the mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs . Metacognition Learn. 4 , 1556–1623. 10.1007/s11409-008-9028-y [ CrossRef ] [ 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 ]
• Lubbers M. J., Van Der Werf M. P. C., Kuyper H., Hendriks A. A. J. (2010). Does homework behavior mediate the relation between personality and academic performance? Learn. Individ. Differ. 20 , 203–208. 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez S. (2011). An examination of Latino students' homework routines . J. Latinos Educ. 10 , 354–368. 10.1080/15348431.2011.605688 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mislevy R. J., Beaton A. E., Kaplan B., Sheehan K. M. (1992). Estimating population characteristics from sparse matrix samples of item responses . J. Educ. Meas. 29 , 133–161. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1992.tb00371.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ministerio de Educación (2011). Evaluación General de Diagnóstico 2010. Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Informe de Resultados . Madrid: Instituto de Evaluación; Available online at: http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ievaluacion/informe-egd-2010.pdf?documentId=0901e72b80d5ad3e (Accessed January 25, 2016). [ Google Scholar ]
• Mourshed M., Chijioke C., Barber M. (2010). How the World's Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better. McKinsey and Company . Available online at: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/How-the-Worlds-Most-Improved-School-Systems-Keep-Getting-Better_Download-version_Final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016).
• Murillo F. J., Martínez-Garrido C. (2013). Homework influence on academic performance. A study of iberoamerican students of primary education . J. Psychodidactics 18 , 157–171. 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.6156 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Rosário P., Tuero E., Valle A. (2014). Student, teacher, and school context variables predicting academic achievement in biology: analysis from a multilevel perspective . J. Psychodidactics 19 , 145–171. 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.7127 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2009). PISA Data Analysis Manual: SPSS, 2nd Edn . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2011). School Sampling Preparation Manual. PISA 2012 Main Survey. Paris: OECD Publishing; Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA2012MS-SamplingGuidelines-.pdf (Accessed January 6, 2017). [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2013a). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I) . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2013b). PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2014a). PISA 2012 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing; Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2016). [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2014b). Does Homework Perpetuate Inequities in Education? PISA in Focus . Paris: OECD Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osorio A., González-Cámara M. (2016). Testing the alleged superiority of the indulgent parenting style among Spanish adolescents . Psicothema 28 , 414–420. 10.7334/psicothema2015.314 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paschal R. A., Weinstein T., Walberg H. J. (1984). The effects of homework on learning: a quantitative synthesis . J. Educ. Res. 78 , 97–104. 10.1080/00220671.1984.10885581 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patall E. A., Cooper H., Wynn S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of providing choices in the classroom . J. Educ. Psychol. 102 , 896–915. 10.1037/a0019545 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedrosa I., Suárez-Álvarez J., García-Cueto E., Muñiz J. (2016). A computerized adaptive test for enterprising personality assessment in youth . Psicothema 28 , 471–478. 10.7334/psicothema2016.68 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramdass D., Zimmerman B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: the important role of homework . J. Adv. Acad. 22 , 194–218. 10.1177/1932202X1102200202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raudenbush S. W., Bryk A. S., Cheong Y. F., Congdon R. T. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling . Chicago: Scientific Software International. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rømming M. (2011). Who benefits from homework assignments? Econ. Educ. Rev. 30 , 55–64. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Cunha J., Nunes T., Mourão R., et al. (2015a). Does homework design matter? The role of homework's purpose in student mathematics achievement . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 43 , 10–24. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosário P., Núñez J. C., Vallejo G., Cunha J., Nunes T., Suárez N., et al.. (2015b). 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 ]
• Servicio de Evaluación Educativa del Principado de Asturias (2016). La relación entre el tiempo de deberes y los resultados académicos [The Relationship between Homework Time and Academic Performance]. Informes de Evaluación, 1 . Oviedo: Consejería de Educación y Cultura del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheerens J., Hendriks M., Luyten H., Sleegers P., Cees G. (2013). Productive Time in Education. A Review of the Effectiveness of Teaching Time at School, Homework and Extended Time Outside School Hours. Enschede: University of Twente . Available online at: http://doc.utwente.nl/86371/ (Accessed January 25, 2016).
• Suárez-Álvarez J., Fernández-Alonso R., Muñiz J. (2014). Self-concept, motivation, expectations and socioeconomic level as predictors of academic performance in mathematics . Learn. Indiv. Diff. 30 , 118–123. 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.019 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suárez N., Regueiro B., Epstein J. L., Piñeiro I., Díaz S. M., Valle A. (2016). Homework involvement and academic achievement of native and immigrant students . Front. Psychol. 7 :1517. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01517 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U. (2007). The homework–achievement relation reconsidered: differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort . Learn. Instr. 17 , 372–388. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Köller O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement: still much of a mystery . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 15 , 115–145. 10.1023/A:1023460414243 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Köller O., Schmitz B., Baumert J. (2002). Do homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis in 7th grade mathematics . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27 , 26–50. 10.1006/ceps.2001.1084 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O., Schnyder I., Niggli A. (2006). 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., Lüdtke O. (2007). Students' self-reported effort and time on homework in six school subjects: between-student differences and within-student variation . J. Educ. Psychol. 99 , 432–444. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.432 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Lüdtke O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: the role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track . Learn. Instr. 19 , 243–258. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Niggli A., Schnyder I., Lüdtke O. (2009a). Between-teacher differences in homework assignments and the development of students' homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement . J. Educ. Psychol. 101 , 176–189. 10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trautwein U., Schnyder I., Niggli A., Neumann M., Lüdtke O. (2009b). Chameleon effects in homework research: the homework–achievement association depends on the measures 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., Pan I., Regueiro B., Suárez N., Tuero E., Nunes A. R. (2015). Predicting approach to homework in primary school students . Psicothema 27 , 334–340. 10.7334/psicothema2015.118 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valle A., Regueiro B., Núñez J. C., Rodríguez S., Piñero I., Rosário P. (2016). Academic goals, student homework engagement, and academic achievement in elementary school . Front. Psychol. 7 :463. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00463 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• von Davier M., Gonzalez E., Mislevy R. J. (2009). What are Plausible Values and Why are They Useful?. IERI Monograph Series. Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments. Available online at: http://www.ierinstitute.org/fileadmin/Documents/IERI_Monograph/IERI_Monograph_Volume_02.pdf (Accessed January 15, 2017).
• Walberg H. J., Paschal R. A., Weinstein T. (1985). Homework's powerful effects on learning . Educ. Leadersh. 42 , 76–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walberg H. J., Paschal R. A., Weinstein T. (1986). Walberg and colleagues reply: effective schools use homework effectively . Educ. Leadersh. 43 , 58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu M. L., Adams R. J., Wilson M. R., Haldane S. A. (2007). ACER ConQuest 2.0: Generalised Item Response Modelling Software . Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2008). Models of secondary school students' interest in homework: a multilevel analysis . Am. Educ. Res. J. 45 , 1180–1205. 10.3102/0002831208323276 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J. (2013). Why do students have difficulties completing homework? The need for homework management . J. Educ. Train. Stud. 1 , 98–105. 10.11114/jets.v1i1.78 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J., Wu H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior: homework management at the secondary school level . J. Educ. Res. 106 , 1–13. 10.1080/00220671.2012.658457 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu J., Yuan R., Xu B., Xu M. (2014). Modeling students' time management in math homework . Learn. Individ. Differ. 34 , 33–42. 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.011 [ 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 ]

Important Addresses

Harvard College

University Hall Cambridge, MA 02138

Harvard College Admissions Office and Griffin Financial Aid Office

86 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138

Social Links

If you are located in the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway (the “European Economic Area”), please click here for additional information about ways that certain Harvard University Schools, Centers, units and controlled entities, including this one, may collect, use, and share information about you.

• Application Tips
• Navigating Campus
• Preparing for College
• How to Complete the FAFSA
• What to Expect After You Apply
• View All Guides
• Parents & Families
• School Counselors
• Información en Español
• Undergraduate Viewbook
• View All Resources

Search and Useful Links

Search the site, search suggestions, alert: harvard yard closed to the public.

Please note, Harvard Yard gates are currently closed. Entry will only be permitted to those with a Harvard ID via Johnston, Thayer, Widener, Sever and Solomon (Lamont) Gates. Guests are not allowed.

Last Updated: April 25, 2:24pm

Open Alert: Harvard Yard Closed to the Public

"homework" in college.

Since coming to Harvard, I don’t recall even once hearing the word “homework”—which is a pretty strange thing considering the role it played for the first 12 years of my education (spoiler alert: this doesn’t mean that we don’t have assignments and work to do).

However, the type of work that’s assigned in college is different from what I was used to in high school, so I’m here to break it down for you.

Problem Sets

Problem sets, or “psets”, are typically packets of questions that are assigned and due on a regular basis. Most of my pset classes have been math and science courses, although they don’t necessarily have to be. I think the biggest difference between psets in college compared to similar assignments in high school is that they can be really challenging, and many courses expect and encourage students to work together on them—I made some of my best friends while struggling through organic chemistry psets lasts year!

Sometimes you even get stickers.

Rather than lots of shorter assignments, many classes opt for a few essays spaced throughout the semester. Humanities classes (English, history, etc.) are typically essay classes, although many science classes also have you practice scientific writing through grant proposal or review-style papers. If you’re not super comfortable writing academic papers coming into college, not to worry! All freshmen take a writing course (Expos) during the first year to make sure that everyone is on the same foot. There’s a ton of individual feedback, so it can be really beneficial no matter what your level of writing is coming in.

Discussion Posts

Particularly if it’s an essay class, you might be assigned additional questions to respond to on an online forum for the course. It’s a nice way to keep people on track with the reading, and the responses are often used to start discussion in section.

*Most larger courses have weekly “sections” with 12-15 students and a teaching fellow leading discussion—it’s an opportunity to review the material and go more in-depth with the readings.

Reading (sometimes a lot of reading)

One of the bigger adjustments for some students is learning how to get through hundreds of pages of reading per week. Granted, this depends on what type of classes you’re taking—it is possible to tailor your schedule to an amount of reading that’s appropriate for you. I’ve found that my humanities classes have a much higher volume of reading, but that my science courses have denser reading—sometimes a seven page primary lit paper from a science journal takes me the same amount of time to read as forty pages in a novel. If you are struggling to get through all of your assigned reading, or just want to use your time more efficiently, the Bureau of Study Counsel offers “speed reading” courses during the year which are said to be really helpful!

I was found very diligently reading my book.

I have to say, I’ve had some pretty cool project assignments in college. In my multivariable calc class, our final project was to use Mathematica (a math tool) to come up with equations that would form a 3D object, so I made and printed a 3D minion. In a genetics class, we spent the semester analyzing our own DNA in lab, looking for markers that might indicate lactose intolerance, ancestral history, etc. (I wasn’t lactose intolerant, thankfully.) One of my friends is in a Folklore and Mythology class on quilt making, and her final project is to make a quilt. Pretty cool, huh?

My minion!!

Ah yes, not one to forget. On the plus side, there tend to be fewer exams in college than in high school—for classes that do have exams, you would likely only have 1-2 midterms and a final. Studying is often more effective in a group, so it’s another chance to meet people in your class!

Whew! While this is not a complete list, hopefully it gives a sense of the type of work you might be asked to do here. You can choose a schedule of classes that’s a good fit for you—while some people really like taking four essay classes or four pset classes at once, for example, I always try to strike a balance halfway in between. Particularly if you’re taking classes that you’re really interested in, the work doesn’t even seem so bad. :)

Halie Class of Alumni

Student Voices

Dear homesick international student at harvard college.

David Class of '25

The Age of Anxiety: How My Gen Ed Class Has Defined My Junior Spring

Raymond Class of '25

2024 The Academic Comeback - Advice I Wish I Was Given as a First-Year

Samia Afrose Class of '25

How technology is shaping learning in higher education

About the authors.

This article is a collaborative effort by Claudio Brasca, Charag Krishnan , Varun Marya , Katie Owen, Joshua Sirois, and Shyla Ziade, representing views from McKinsey’s Education Practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift to remote learning overnight for most higher-education students, starting in the spring of 2020. To complement video lectures and engage students in the virtual classroom, educators adopted technologies that enabled more interactivity and hybrid models of online and in-person activities. These tools changed learning, teaching, and assessment in ways that may persist after the pandemic. Investors have taken note. Edtech start-ups raised record amounts of venture capital in 2020 and 2021, and market valuations for bigger players soared.

A study conducted by McKinsey in 2021 found that to engage most effectively with students, higher-education institutions can focus on eight dimensions  of the learning experience. In this article, we describe the findings of a study of the learning technologies that can enable aspects of several of those eight dimensions (see sidebar “Eight dimensions of the online learning experience”).

Eight dimensions of the online learning experience

Leading online higher-education institutions focus on eight key dimensions of the learning experience across three overarching principles.

Seamless journey

Clear education road map: “My online program provides a road map to achieve my life goals and helps me structure my day to day to achieve steady progress.”

Seamless connections: “I have one-click access to classes and learning resources in the virtual learning platform through my laptop or my phone.”

Engaging teaching approach

Range of learning formats: “My program offers a menu of engaging courses with both self-guided and real-time classes, and lots of interaction with instructors and peers.”

Captivating experiences: “I learn from the best professors and experts. My classes are high quality, with up-to-date content.”

Adaptive learning: “I access a personalized platform that helps me practice exercises and exams and gives immediate feedback without having to wait for the course teacher.”

Real-world skills application: “My online program helps me get hands-on practice using exciting virtual tools to solve real-world problems.”

Caring network

Timely support: “I am not alone in my learning journey and have adequate 24/7 support for academic and nonacademic issues.”

Strong community: “I feel part of an academic community and I’m able to make friends online.”

In November 2021, McKinsey surveyed 600 faculty members and 800 students from public and private nonprofit colleges and universities in the United States, including minority-serving institutions, about the use and impact of eight different classroom learning technologies (Exhibit 1). (For more on the learning technologies analyzed in this research, see sidebar “Descriptions of the eight learning technologies.”) To supplement the survey, we interviewed industry experts and higher-education professionals who make decisions about classroom technology use. We discovered which learning tools and approaches have seen the highest uptake, how students and educators view them, the barriers to higher adoption, how institutions have successfully adopted innovative technologies, and the notable impacts on learning (for details about our methodology, see sidebar “About the research”).

Double-digit growth in adoption and positive perceptions

Descriptions of the eight learning technologies.

• Classroom interactions: These are software platforms that allow students to ask questions, make comments, respond to polls, and attend breakout discussions in real time, among other features. They are downloadable and accessible from phones, computers, and tablets, relevant to all subject areas, and useful for remote and in-person learning.
• Classroom exercises: These platforms gamify learning with fun, low-stakes competitions, pose problems to solve during online classes, allow students to challenge peers to quizzes, and promote engagement with badges and awards. They are relevant to all subject areas.
• Connectivity and community building: A broad range of informal, opt-in tools, these allow students to engage with one another and instructors and participate in the learning community. They also include apps that give students 24/7 asynchronous access to lectures, expanded course materials, and notes with enhanced search and retrieval functionality.
• Group work: These tools let students collaborate in and out of class via breakout/study rooms, group preparation for exams and quizzes, and streamlined file sharing.
• Augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR): Interactive simulations immerse learners in course content, such as advanced lab simulations for hard sciences, medical simulations for nursing, and virtual exhibit tours for the liberal arts. AR can be offered with proprietary software on most mobile or laptop devices. VR requires special headsets, proprietary software, and adequate classroom space for simultaneous use.
• AI adaptive course delivery: Cloud-based, AI-powered software adapts course content to a student’s knowledge level and abilities. These are fully customizable by instructors and available in many subject areas, including business, humanities, and sciences.
• Machine learning–powered teaching assistants: Also known as chatbot programs, machine learning–powered teaching assistants answer student questions and explain course content outside of class. These can auto-create, deliver, and grade assignments and exams, saving instructors’ time; they are downloadable from mobile app stores and can be accessed on personal devices.
• Student progress monitoring: These tools let instructors monitor academic progress, content mastery, and engagement. Custom alerts and reports identify at-risk learners and help instructors tailor the content or their teaching style for greater effectiveness. This capability is often included with subscriptions to adaptive learning platforms.

Survey respondents reported a 19 percent average increase in overall use of these learning technologies since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Technologies that enable connectivity and community building, such as social media–inspired discussion platforms and virtual study groups, saw the biggest uptick in use—49 percent—followed by group work tools, which grew by 29 percent (Exhibit 2). These technologies likely fill the void left by the lack of in-person experiences more effectively than individual-focused learning tools such as augmented reality and virtual reality (AR/VR). Classroom interaction technologies such as real-time chatting, polling, and breakout room discussions were the most widely used tools before the pandemic and remain so; 67 percent of survey respondents said they currently use these tools in the classroom.

About the research

In November 2021, McKinsey surveyed 634 faculty members and 818 students from public, private, and minority-serving colleges and universities over a ten-day period. The survey included only students and faculty who had some remote- or online-learning experience with any of the eight featured technologies. Respondents were 63 percent female, 35 percent male, and 2 percent other gender identities; 69 percent White, 18 percent Black or African American, 8 percent Asian, and 4 percent other ethnicities; and represented every US region. The survey asked respondents about their:

• experiences with technology in the classroom pre-COVID-19;
• experiences with technology in the classroom since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
• desire for future learning experiences in relation to technology.

The shift to more interactive and diverse learning models will likely continue. One industry expert told us, “The pandemic pushed the need for a new learning experience online. It recentered institutions to think about how they’ll teach moving forward and has brought synchronous and hybrid learning into focus.” Consequently, many US colleges and universities are actively investing to scale up their online and hybrid program offerings .

Differences in adoption by type of institution observed in the research

• Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities made the most use of classroom interactions and group work tools (55 percent) and the least use of tools for monitoring student progress (15 percent).
• Private institutions used classroom interaction technologies (84 percent) more than public institutions (63 percent).
• Public institutions, often associated with larger student populations and course sizes, employed group work and connectivity and community-building tools more often than private institutions.
• The use of AI teaching-assistant technologies increased significantly more at public institutions (30 percent) than at private institutions (9 percent), though overall usage remained comparatively higher at private institutions.
• The use of tools for monitoring student progress increased by 14 percent at private institutions, versus no growth at public institutions.

Some technologies lag behind in adoption. Tools enabling student progress monitoring, AR/VR, machine learning–powered teaching assistants (TAs), AI adaptive course delivery, and classroom exercises are currently used by less than half of survey respondents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that technologies such as AR/VR require a substantial investment in equipment and may be difficult to use at scale in classes with high enrollment. Our survey also revealed utilization disparities based on size. Small public institutions use machine learning–powered TAs, AR/VR, and technologies for monitoring student progress at double or more the rates of medium and large public institutions, perhaps because smaller, specialized schools can make more targeted and cost-effective investments. We also found that medium and large public institutions made greater use of connectivity and community-building tools than small public institutions (57 to 59 percent compared with 45 percent, respectively). Although the uptake of AI-powered tools was slower, higher-education experts we interviewed predict their use will increase; they allow faculty to tailor courses to each student’s progress, reduce their workload, and improve student engagement at scale (see sidebar “Differences in adoption by type of institution observed in the research”).

While many colleges and universities are interested in using more technologies to support student learning, the top three barriers indicated are lack of awareness, inadequate deployment capabilities, and cost (Exhibit 3).

Students want entertaining and efficient tools

More than 60 percent of students said that all the classroom learning technologies they’ve used since COVID-19 began had improved their learning and grades (Exhibit 4). However, two technologies earned higher marks than the rest for boosting academic performance: 80 percent of students cited classroom exercises, and 71 percent cited machine learning–powered teaching assistants.

Although AR/VR is not yet widely used, 37 percent of students said they are “most excited” about its potential in the classroom. While 88 percent of students believe AR/VR will make learning more entertaining, just 5 percent said they think it will improve their ability to learn or master content (Exhibit 5). Industry experts confirmed that while there is significant enthusiasm for AR/VR, its ability to improve learning outcomes is uncertain. Some data look promising. For example, in a recent pilot study, 1 “Immersive biology in the Alien Zoo: A Dreamscape Learn software product,” Dreamscape Learn, accessed October 2021. students who used a VR tool to complete coursework for an introductory biology class improved their subject mastery by an average of two letter grades.

Faculty embrace new tools but would benefit from more technical support and training

Faculty gave learning tools even higher marks than students did, for ease of use, engagement, access to course resources, and instructor connectivity. They also expressed greater excitement than students did for the future use of technologies. For example, while more than 30 percent of students expressed excitement for AR/VR and classroom interactions, more than 60 percent of faculty were excited about those, as well as machine learning–powered teaching assistants and AI adaptive technology.

Eighty-one percent or more of faculty said they feel the eight learning technology tools are a good investment of time and effort relative to the value they provide (Exhibit 6). Expert interviews suggest that employing learning technologies can be a strain on faculty members, but those we surveyed said this strain is worthwhile.

While faculty surveyed were enthusiastic about new technologies, experts we interviewed stressed some underlying challenges. For example, digital-literacy gaps have been more pronounced since the pandemic because it forced the near-universal adoption of some technology solutions, deepening a divide that was unnoticed when adoption was sporadic. More tech-savvy instructors are comfortable with interaction-engagement-focused solutions, while staff who are less familiar with these tools prefer content display and delivery-focused technologies.

According to experts we interviewed, learning new tools and features can bring on general fatigue. An associate vice president of e-learning at one university told us that faculty there found designing and executing a pilot study of VR for a computer science class difficult. “It’s a completely new way of instruction. . . . I imagine that the faculty using it now will not use it again in the spring.” Technical support and training help. A chief academic officer of e-learning who oversaw the introduction of virtual simulations for nursing and radiography students said that faculty holdouts were permitted to opt out but not to delay the program. “We structured it in a ‘we’re doing this together’ way. People who didn’t want to do it left, but we got a lot of support from vendors and training, which made it easy to implement simulations.”

Reimagining higher education in the United States

Takeaways from our research.

Despite the growing pains of digitizing the classroom learning experience, faculty and students believe there is a lot more they can gain. Faculty members are optimistic about the benefits, and students expect learning to stay entertaining and efficient. While adoption levels saw double-digit growth during the pandemic, many classrooms have yet to experience all the technologies. For institutions considering the investment, or those that have already started, there are several takeaways to keep in mind.

• It’s important for administration leaders, IT, and faculty to agree on what they want to accomplish by using a particular learning technology. Case studies and expert interviews suggest institutions that seek alignment from all their stakeholders before implementing new technologies are more successful. Is the primary objective student engagement and motivation? Better academic performance? Faculty satisfaction and retention? Once objectives are set, IT staff and faculty can collaborate more effectively in choosing the best technology and initiating programs.
• Factor in student access to technology before deployment. As education technology use grows, the digital divide for students puts access to education at risk. While all the institution types we surveyed use learning technologies in the classroom, they do so to varying degrees. For example, 55 percent of respondents from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities use classroom interaction tools. This is lower than public institutions’ overall utilization rate of 64 percent and private institutions’ utilization rate of 84 percent. Similarly, 15 percent of respondents from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities use tools for monitoring student progress, while the overall utilization rate for both public and private institutions is 25 percent.
• High-quality support eases adoption for students and faculty. Institutions that have successfully deployed new learning technologies provided technical support and training for students and guidance for faculty on how to adapt their course content and delivery. For example, institutions could include self-service resources, standardize tools for adoption, or provide stipend opportunities for faculty who attend technical training courses. One chief academic officer told us, “The adoption of platforms at the individual faculty level can be very difficult. Ease of use is still very dependent upon your IT support representative and how they will go to bat to support you.”
• Agree on impact metrics and start measuring in advance of deployment. Higher-education institutions often don’t have the means to measure the impact of their investment in learning technologies, yet it’s essential for maximizing returns. Attributing student outcomes to a specific technology can be complex due to the number of variables involved in academic performance. However, prior to investing in learning technologies, the institution and its faculty members can align on a core set of metrics to quantify and measure their impact. One approach is to measure a broad set of success indicators, such as tool usage, user satisfaction, letter grades, and DFW rates (the percentage of students who receive a D, F, or Withdraw) each term. The success indicators can then be correlated by modality—online versus hybrid versus in-class—to determine the impact of specific tools. Some universities have offered faculty grants of up to $20,000 for running pilot programs that assess whether tools are achieving high-priority objectives. “If implemented properly, at the right place, and with the right buy-in, education technology solutions are absolutely valuable and have a clear ROI,” a senior vice president of academic affairs and chief technology officer told us.

In an earlier article , we looked at the broader changes in higher education that have been prompted by the pandemic. But perhaps none has advanced as quickly as the adoption of digital learning tools. Faculty and students see substantial benefits, and adoption rates are a long way from saturation, so we can expect uptake to continue. Institutions that want to know how they stand in learning tech adoption can measure their rates and benchmark them against the averages in this article and use those comparisons to help them decide where they want to catch up or get ahead.

Claudio Brasca is a partner in McKinsey’s Bay Area office, where Varun Marya is a senior partner; Charag Krishnan is a partner in the New Jersey office; Katie Owen is an associate partner in the St. Louis office, where Joshua Sirois is a consultant; and Shyla Ziade is a consultant in the Denver office.

The authors wish to thank Paul Kim, chief technology officer and associate dean at Stanford School of Education, and Ryan Golden for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Setting a new bar for online higher education

How to transform higher-education institutions for the long term

Scaling online education: Five lessons for colleges

Request More Info

Fill out the form below and a member of our team will reach out right away!

" * " indicates required fields

Is Homework Necessary? Education Inequity and Its Impact on Students

The Problem with Homework: It Highlights Inequalities

How much homework is too much homework, when does homework actually help, negative effects of homework for students, how teachers can help.

Schools are getting rid of homework from Essex, Mass., to Los Angeles, Calif. Although the no-homework trend may sound alarming, especially to parents dreaming of their child’s acceptance to Harvard, Stanford or Yale, there is mounting evidence that eliminating homework in grade school may actually have great benefits , especially with regard to educational equity.

In fact, while the push to eliminate homework may come as a surprise to many adults, the debate is not new . Parents and educators have been talking about this subject for the last century, so that the educational pendulum continues to swing back and forth between the need for homework and the need to eliminate homework.

One of the most pressing talking points around homework is how it disproportionately affects students from less affluent families. The American Psychological Association (APA) explained:

“Kids from wealthier homes are more likely to have resources such as computers, internet connections, dedicated areas to do schoolwork and parents who tend to be more educated and more available to help them with tricky assignments. Kids from disadvantaged homes are more likely to work at afterschool jobs, or to be home without supervision in the evenings while their parents work multiple jobs.”

[RELATED] How to Advance Your Career: A Guide for Educators >> 

While students growing up in more affluent areas are likely playing sports, participating in other recreational activities after school, or receiving additional tutoring, children in disadvantaged areas are more likely headed to work after school, taking care of siblings while their parents work or dealing with an unstable home life. Adding homework into the mix is one more thing to deal with — and if the student is struggling, the task of completing homework can be too much to consider at the end of an already long school day.

While all students may groan at the mention of homework, it may be more than just a nuisance for poor and disadvantaged children, instead becoming another burden to carry and contend with.

Beyond the logistical issues, homework can negatively impact physical health and stress — and once again this may be a more significant problem among economically disadvantaged youth who typically already have a higher stress level than peers from more financially stable families .

Yet, today, it is not just the disadvantaged who suffer from the stressors that homework inflicts. A 2014 CNN article, “Is Homework Making Your Child Sick?” , covered the issue of extreme pressure placed on children of the affluent. The article looked at the results of a study surveying more than 4,300 students from 10 high-performing public and private high schools in upper-middle-class California communities.

“Their findings were troubling: Research showed that excessive homework is associated with high stress levels, physical health problems and lack of balance in children’s lives; 56% of the students in the study cited homework as a primary stressor in their lives,” according to the CNN story. “That children growing up in poverty are at-risk for a number of ailments is both intuitive and well-supported by research. More difficult to believe is the growing consensus that children on the other end of the spectrum, children raised in affluence, may also be at risk.”

When it comes to health and stress it is clear that excessive homework, for children at both ends of the spectrum, can be damaging. Which begs the question, how much homework is too much?

The National Education Association and the National Parent Teacher Association recommend that students spend 10 minutes per grade level per night on homework . That means that first graders should spend 10 minutes on homework, second graders 20 minutes and so on. But a study published by The American Journal of Family Therapy found that students are getting much more than that.

While 10 minutes per day doesn’t sound like much, that quickly adds up to an hour per night by sixth grade. The National Center for Education Statistics found that high school students get an average of 6.8 hours of homework per week, a figure that is much too high according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is also to be noted that this figure does not take into consideration the needs of underprivileged student populations.

In a study conducted by the OECD it was found that “after around four hours of homework per week, the additional time invested in homework has a negligible impact on performance .” That means that by asking our children to put in an hour or more per day of dedicated homework time, we are not only not helping them, but — according to the aforementioned studies — we are hurting them, both physically and emotionally.

What’s more is that homework is, as the name implies, to be completed at home, after a full day of learning that is typically six to seven hours long with breaks and lunch included. However, a study by the APA on how people develop expertise found that elite musicians, scientists and athletes do their most productive work for about only four hours per day. Similarly, companies like Tower Paddle Boards are experimenting with a five-hour workday, under the assumption that people are not able to be truly productive for much longer than that. CEO Stephan Aarstol told CNBC that he believes most Americans only get about two to three hours of work done in an eight-hour day.

In the scope of world history, homework is a fairly new construct in the U.S. Students of all ages have been receiving work to complete at home for centuries, but it was educational reformer Horace Mann who first brought the concept to America from Prussia. 

Since then, homework’s popularity has ebbed and flowed in the court of public opinion. In the 1930s, it was considered child labor (as, ironically, it compromised children’s ability to do chores at home). Then, in the 1950s, implementing mandatory homework was hailed as a way to ensure America’s youth were always one step ahead of Soviet children during the Cold War. Homework was formally mandated as a tool for boosting educational quality in 1986 by the U.S. Department of Education, and has remained in common practice ever since.  

School work assigned and completed outside of school hours is not without its benefits. Numerous studies have shown that regular homework has a hand in improving student performance and connecting students to their learning. When reviewing these studies, take them with a grain of salt; there are strong arguments for both sides, and only you will know which solution is best for your students or school. 

Homework improves student achievement.

• Source: The High School Journal, “ When is Homework Worth the Time?: Evaluating the Association between Homework and Achievement in High School Science and Math ,” 2012. 
• Source: IZA.org, “ Does High School Homework Increase Academic Achievement? ,” 2014. **Note: Study sample comprised only high school boys. 

Homework helps reinforce classroom learning.

• Source: “ Debunk This: People Remember 10 Percent of What They Read ,” 2015.

Homework helps students develop good study habits and life skills.

• Sources: The Repository @ St. Cloud State, “ Types of Homework and Their Effect on Student Achievement ,” 2017; Journal of Advanced Academics, “ Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework ,” 2011.
• Source: Journal of Advanced Academics, “ Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework ,” 2011.

Homework allows parents to be involved with their children’s learning.

• Parents can see what their children are learning and working on in school every day. 
• Parents can participate in their children’s learning by guiding them through homework assignments and reinforcing positive study and research habits.
• Homework observation and participation can help parents understand their children’s academic strengths and weaknesses, and even identify possible learning difficulties.
• Source: Phys.org, “ Sociologist Upends Notions about Parental Help with Homework ,” 2018.

While some amount of homework may help students connect to their learning and enhance their in-class performance, too much homework can have damaging effects. 

Students with too much homework have elevated stress levels. 

• Source: USA Today, “ Is It Time to Get Rid of Homework? Mental Health Experts Weigh In ,” 2021.
• Source: Stanford University, “ Stanford Research Shows Pitfalls of Homework ,” 2014.

Students with too much homework may be tempted to cheat. 

• Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, “ High-Tech Cheating Abounds, and Professors Bear Some Blame ,” 2010.
• Source: The American Journal of Family Therapy, “ Homework and Family Stress: With Consideration of Parents’ Self Confidence, Educational Level, and Cultural Background ,” 2015.

Homework highlights digital inequity. 

• Sources: NEAToday.org, “ The Homework Gap: The ‘Cruelest Part of the Digital Divide’ ,” 2016; CNET.com, “ The Digital Divide Has Left Millions of School Kids Behind ,” 2021.
• Source: Investopedia, “ Digital Divide ,” 2022; International Journal of Education and Social Science, “ Getting the Homework Done: Social Class and Parents’ Relationship to Homework ,” 2015.
• Source: World Economic Forum, “ COVID-19 exposed the digital divide. Here’s how we can close it ,” 2021.

Homework does not help younger students.

• Source: Review of Educational Research, “ Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Researcher, 1987-2003 ,” 2006.

To help students find the right balance and succeed, teachers and educators must start the homework conversation, both internally at their school and with parents. But in order to successfully advocate on behalf of students, teachers must be well educated on the subject, fully understanding the research and the outcomes that can be achieved by eliminating or reducing the homework burden. There is a plethora of research and writing on the subject for those interested in self-study.

For teachers looking for a more in-depth approach or for educators with a keen interest in educational equity, formal education may be the best route. If this latter option sounds appealing, there are now many reputable schools offering online master of education degree programs to help educators balance the demands of work and family life while furthering their education in the quest to help others.

YOU’RE INVITED! Watch Free Webinar on USD’s Online MEd Program >>

Be Sure To Share This Article

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Top 11 Reasons to get Your Master of Education Degree

Free 22-page Book

• Master of Education

Related Posts

• Short report
• Open access
• Published: 27 December 2018

An outlook on self-assessment of homework assignments in higher mathematics education

• Sarah Beumann 1 &
• Sven-Ake Wegner 2  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  5 , Article number:  55 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

5569 Accesses

6 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

We discuss first experiences with a new variant of self-assessment in higher mathematics education. In our setting, the students of the course have to mark a part of their homework assignments themselves and they receive the corresponding credit without that any later changes are carried out by the teacher. In this way, we seek to correct the imbalance between student-centered learning arrangements and assessment concepts that keep the privilege to grade (or mark) completely with the teacher.

We present results in the form of student feedback from a course on functional analysis for third- and fourth-year students. Moreover, we analyze marking results from two courses on real analysis. Here, we compare tasks marked by the teacher and tasks marked by the students.

Conclusions

Our experiments indicate that students can benefit from self-assessment tasks. The success depends, however, on many different factors. Promising for self-assessment seem to be small learning groups and tasks in which a priori weaker students can catch up with stronger students by increasing their practising time.

• Self-assessment

In recent years, the possibilities to access mathematical knowledge have increased significantly due to the digitalization of classical media like textbooks, exercises, or model solutions and due to concepts such as blogs, internet forums, and online-available video-taped lectures. Modern teaching methods aim to facilitate the latter to improve students’ learning success. They achieve this by using student-centered learning arrangements such as problem-based learning, research-based learning, or other methods that give the students more freedom, but also assign more responsibility to them for their own learning outcome. However, when it comes to an assessment, often classical instruments, like graded homework assignments, weekly quizzes, or closed-book exams, prevail. The philosophy behind this paper is the idea of improving the imbalance between learning arrangements and assessment by sharing, to some extent, the teachers’ privilege to grade (or to mark) with the students. Our concrete aim is to strengthen the students’ sense of being responsible for their own learning process by sharing with them the control. This in turn encourages the students to employ the advantages of digitalization to increase their own learning success. In particular, they no longer feel the need to hide the sources of their ideas from the teacher, but can themselves evaluate their personal gain in knowledge, skills, and competencies that they have extracted from these sources. The latter is a very important aspect of modern student-centered education.

The idea of sharing the control over the learning process with the students is neither new nor a concept that can easily be realized in the classroom. Indeed, Klenovski’s ( 1995 , p. 161) quotation from a 1994 interview with a college teacher has lost nothing of its relevance:

“Students have to learn that it’s their course, their learning and they have to take some control…it’s hard for some students because they want you to take control.”

However, from the mid-1990s on, different realizations of the idea have been surveyed in many areas of education such as chemistry ( Davey 2015 ; Klenowski 1995 ), mathematics and statistics ( De Corte et al. 1999 ; Olina and Sullivan 2004 ; Ross et al. 2001 ; 2002 ; Zuza et al. 2004 ; Stallings and Tascoine 1996 ), music ( Hewitt 2011 ), and narrative writing ( Ross et al. 1999 ) and with students of different ages and school types such as elementary school ( Zuza et al. 2004 ), middle school ( Hewitt 2011 ; Ross et al. 1999 ), and high school and college ( Stallings and Tascoine 1996 ), to list only a sample. Some of these surveys mention a positive impact on the students’ achievement ( Fernandes and Fontana 1994 ; Ross et al. 2002 ; Zuza et al. 2004 ; Stiggins and Chappuis 2005 ); some mention no impact ( Hewitt 2011 ; Ross et al. 2001 ); some point out that self-assessment is not always precise ( Basnet et al. 2012 ; Davey 2015 ). A positive influence on meta-competencies like self-efficacy ( Ross et al. 2002 ), self-confidence ( Olina and Sullivan 2004 ), active learning and motivation ( Fernandes and Fontana 1994 ), and critical thinking and the ability to reflect on own work ( Cooper 2006 ) is mentioned. In ( De Corte et al. 1999 ) it is pointed out that appropriate beliefs about mathematics and mathematical learning are an important precondition.

In the papers cited above, rather different approaches are outlined about how to share control with the students in a concrete classroom situation. In this paper, we follow mostly the ideas of Klenovski ( 1995 ) who used the two notions of self-evaluation and self-assessment . Indeed, Klenovski ( 1995 , p. 155–160) identifies “three key dimensions of the student self-evaluation process […]: the use of criteria by students to self-evaluate their own learning […]; the interactive dialogue […] between student and teacher, during the analysis of the student’s self-evaluation; [and] the ascription of a grade by the students for their own work.” Klenovski ( 1995 , p. 147) states that “self-evaluation […] is broader than self-assessment in that the student is engaged in more than just deciding what grade he or she should get.” It appears to us that in the classroom situations surveyed by Klenovski the students did not have the final authority about the grade, but that the teacher could intervene ( Klenowski 1995, second interview on p. 159 ), or an intervention by peer-learners was possible ( Klenowski 1995, interview on p. 158 ). In our experiments, it is essential that the students ascribe their own grades (or marks) without the intervention of a second party. For this reason, we stick below to the word self-assessment although, of course, the use of criteria and a dialogue about assessment are important in our setting as well. Our incentive behind this concept of self-assessment—which differs from our knowledge of all concepts discussed so far in the literature—is the following:

Self-assessment allows us to give meta-tasks to the students that cannot be marked by the teacher. Examples could be to repeat some topic from the last year’s course or to practise a method “until the students master it.”

Self-assessment allows us to give extra tasks to the students, and to grant credit for working on these tasks, without the school having to pay staff that carries out the marking.

Self-assessment helps to illustrate that checking the validity of a proof is not a formal and fail-safe procedure but requires careful work and may depend on personal taste. This is for example the case when it comes to the amount of details that are given and the strategy that is pursued. In this sense, self-assessment generates appropriate beliefs about mathematics.

Self-assessment transfers to the students, for a moment, the full responsibility for their grading (or marking) and thus fosters the development of the earlier mentioned meta-competencies—like self-efficacy, self-confidence, and motivation—compared to situations in which students participate in the evaluation but the final grading (or marking) is done by the teacher.

Self-assessment encourages the students not just to maximize the teacher-assigned grade but to learn mathematics on a level of deep understanding.

Let us give two examples of authentic classroom situations that illustrate our incentive behind this article. In situation 1, a student kept asking for help with an exercise until the teacher solved the whole task for the student. As the solution is now of course correct, the teacher assigned, after it was handed in, the maximum number of marks. The student’s learning progress might however be poor as mathematics is not about applying internalized techniques to well-known problems, but about finding new techniques to solve unknown problems—which students only learn by solving problems on their own. In situation 2, the student hands in a solution copied from a book or from the internet. From the solution, the teacher can see that it was copied without any understanding, e.g., as it follows a naming convention different from the lecture, or as the notation is completely different from that on the problem sheet. As the math is however correct, the teacher feels that he cannot deduct much from the full score. The student’s learning progress is, however, more or less zero. Our initial idea was that giving the power and duty of marking to the students in such situations could result in a change of their beliefs. It could help the students to reconsider their strategies and become aware of their own responsibility—for their learning progress and for the mathematical work that they produce.

Let us mention that our basic idea of giving more control to the students in order to improve the learning process is also the leitmotif in Klenovski’s paper ( Klenowski 1995 ). His findings ( Klenowski 1995, p. 161f ) support the latter statement but also point out that pedagogical change is needed and implementations of the concept have to be further studied. The first results explained below confirm that our new concept of intervention-free self-assessment can be applied successfully in higher mathematics education. On the other hand, they also identify drawbacks and obstructions. This paper is intended as a small preview and an invitation to other university teachers to contribute with their ideas and experience to the development of self-assessment in mathematics.

A pilot study—first results on self-assessment

In this section, we outline first experiences with our concept of self-assessment by presenting students’ feedback and the marks of two homework assignments. We compare the results of parts that were assessed by the teacher with parts that were assessed by the students (Figs.  1 and 2 and Tables  1 and 2 ). We present and discuss some selected feedback that gives insight into the students’ beliefs about their role in the learning and assessment process.

Teacher’s assessment: 0 students were awarded n ∈ [0,8] marks, 7 students were awarded n ∈ (8,12], etc

Self-assessment: 8 students awarded themselves n ∈ [0,1] marks, 0 students awarded themselves n ∈ (1,2], etc

Homework assignments in higher mathematics

The first experience of the authors with self-assessment was the spontaneous idea to assign the review of topics that had been covered in a previous course as a homework assignment. In order to underline that we wanted this to be understood as a serious task we decided to put it in the following form as one of four tasks on the weekly exercise sheet.

(5 marks) Review the construction of the Lebesgue integral, the dominated convergence theorem and the monotone convergence theorem. Maybe it is helpful to browse the appendix of the book ( Werner 2007 ) by D. Werner.

This task was given in the middle of a 14-week course on the foundations of functional analysis taught in 2012 with approximately 20 students in their third and fourth years. Each exercise sheet contained four tasks for which solutions had to be handed in and that were usually marked by the teacher. On this particular sheet, only three tasks required a solution. For the forth one, Exercise 1, the students were required to self-assess their achievement and to indicate the score on the submission. When we handed out the sheet, the students appeared very surprised and suspicious because they were not used to exercises of this type. Many of them did not award themselves the full amount of five marks. Indeed, they assumed that we would carry out some kind of “double checking,” like an oral examination during the recitation, if they assign themselves a high score. After the semester, we received the following feedback by one of the students.

“The exercise to recall the introduction (definition and main properties) of the Lebesgue integral and to give yourself marks on the basis of your comprehension is meaningful and helpful as well. First, one recalls the content carefully which leads to a deep understanding, and second the already rehearsed content anchors in memory. Since one gives marks on the basis of comprehension, you repeat the content carefully to ‘obtain’ a good score. Indeed, in order to avoid an embarrassing situation where the tutor checks that the number of marks is inappropriate, you think twice of how many marks are eligible.”

We mention that Exercise 1, as stated above, was the only self-assessed assignment in this course. The five marks correspond to approximately 2% of the total score of 260 marks that the students could achieve on the 13 exercise sheets.

Our second experience with self-assessment was the following. During a 14-week course on real analysis, taught in 2013 for first-year students, we gave the following two exercises. Both were given as additional exercises and were credited with 20 marks. The total of regular marks was 480. The self-assessment homework thus counted as approximately 4% extra credit.

(10 marks) Become confident with handling sequences and with computing their limits, e.g., by working on the exercises from the additional worksheet on the course’s website.

The additional worksheet contained 46 sequences for which the limits had to be computed. The second exercise refers to the following theorem that establishes some basic rules for computations with convergent series.

Let \((a_{k})_{k\geqslant 0}\) , \((b_{k})_{k\geqslant 0}\subseteq \mathbb {R}\) and \(\lambda \in \mathbb {R}\) be given.

provided that the two series on the left are convergent.

Assume that there exists \(k_{0}\geqslant 0\) such that a k = b k holds for all \(k\geqslant k_{0}\) . Then, the series over all a k ’s converges if and only if the series over all b k ’s converges.

Let the series over the a k ’s be convergent and let \((j_{k})_{k\geqslant 0}\) with j k ↗ ∞ and j 0 =−1 be given. Then, the following series

is also convergent. The converse is false.

During the lectures, we presented Theorem 1 without its proof. The exercise was then as follows.

(10 marks) Make sure that you are able to prove the rules for computations with convergent series given in Theorem 1, e.g., by giving all or a suitable selection of the proofs yourself.

As in Exercise 1, we asked the students to award themselves the corresponding marks and to indicate the score on their submissions. They did neither get a model solution or a marking scheme. This reflects one of the main incentives for self-assessment mentioned in the beginning: Leaving the proofs completely to the students will grow their ability to evaluate if a mathematical argument is correct or not by themselves .

We mentioned that Exercise 2 appeared as an additional task on one of the homework sheets. On this sheet, four exercises were graded by the teacher and one exercise was subject to self-assessment. The following table shows the averages of the teacher-assessed part and the averages of the self-assessed part (Table  1 ). It is eye-catching that in this case the average of the teacher assessment is approximately 53% whereas the average of the self-assessment is approximately 75%.

The distribution of the teacher-assessed tasks (Fig.  1 ) looks Gaussian-like if one ignores the 13% of students that obtained less than or equal to 10 out of 40 marks. In this course, 50% of the marks on the sheets were sufficient to be admitted to the final exam. The grade for the course depended only on this exam. In view of this, the latter seems reasonable and expectable.

The distribution of the student-assessed tasks (Fig.  2 ) looks completely different and has a higher average. We prefer to be careful with drawing conclusions, since we compare exercises on different topics and with different levels of difficulty. It is, however, again eye-catching that 53% of the students awarded themselves the full 10 marks, whereas 18% awarded themselves zero marks.

It seems very interesting and important to us that among those eight students that assigned themselves zero marks, only one received 10 of 40 marks from the teacher. The other seven received between 17 and 26 out of 40 and thus scored around the average value. Among the 24 students that gave themselves the full 10 marks, we find five out of those six students that received less than or equal to 10 marks in the teacher-assessed part. This suggests that weak students in particular did not assess themselves very honestly. For a further development of self-assessment techniques, this effect has to be taken into account. More experiments are needed to see if the latter is a general trend or if the students in the long term will assess themselves in a reasonable fashion.

The third experiment on self-assessment was part of a 12-week course on real analysis for first-year students taught in 2018. We mention that we had a very small group of only seven students and thus an atmosphere in which the students know each other well and talk much about math, homework, exams, etc. The assessment consisted of a final exam and one longer homework assignment in the middle of the course. Both components contributed 50% to the final grade. The homework assignment consisted of 10 questions. It covered elementary logic, sets, mappings, and mathematical induction. One of the 10 questions was the following.

(10 marks) Become confident with using truth tables by verifying a suitable sample the following statements:

A ∧ T ⇔ A , A ∨ F ⇔ A

A ∨ T ⇔ T, A ∧ F ⇔ F

A ∨ A ⇔ A , A ∧ A ⇔ A

¬(¬ A ) ⇔ A

A ∨ B ⇔ B ∨ A , A ∧ B ⇔ B ∧ A

A ∨ ( B ∨ C ) ⇔ ( A ∨ B ) ∨ C

A ∧ ( B ∧ C ) ⇔ ( A ∧ B ) ∧ C

A ∨ ( B ∧ C ) ⇔ ( A ∨ B ) ∧ ( A ∨ C )

A ∧ ( B ∨ C ) ⇔ ( A ∧ B ) ∨ ( A ∧ C )

¬( A ∧ B ) ⇔ ¬ A ∨ ¬ B

¬( A ∨ B ) ⇔ ¬ A ∧ ¬ B

( A ⇒ B ) ⇔ (¬ A ∨ B )

A ∨ ¬ A , ¬( A ∧ ¬ A )

[( A ⇒ B ) ∧ ¬ B ] ⇒ ¬ A

[( A ⇒ B ) ∧ ( B ⇒ C )] ⇒ ( A ⇒ C )

( A ∧ B ) ⇒ A , ( A ∧ B ) ⇒ B

A ⇒ ( A ∨ B ), B ⇒ ( A ∨ B )

( A ⇔ B ) ⇔ [( A ⇒ B ) ∧ ( B ⇒ A )]

( A ⇒ B ) ⇔ (¬ B ⇒ ¬ A )

[( A ∨ B ) ∧ ¬ A ] ⇒ B

[(¬ A ∧ B ) ⇒ F ] ⇒ ( A ⇒ B )

[( A ⇒ B ) ∧ A ] ⇒ B

Indicate the number of marks on your submission. Don’t hand in any truth table!

Exercise 4 contributed 5% to the final mark. The design was similar to Exercise 2 , where we gave 46 sequences to practise the computation of limits. However, we point out that the computation of these limits in most cases involved a certain trick, like applying an estimate, or combining two previous limits in a suitable way. In contrast to this, Exercise 4 was much more straightforward and can be completed—once the principle is understood—by a rather “mechanical procedure.”

In Table  2 , we compare again the grading results of the self-assessed part with the teacher-assessed part. In our small group of seven students, the average of the tasks assessed by the teacher was with 63% lower than the 79% of the self-assessed part. This was also the case with Exercise 2. The correlation between the marks that the students gave themselves and the marks that the teacher gave to them was 0.77 in the current experiment. In the previous experiment, the correlation was only 0.05. One might conclude from this that the students’ evaluation of their own abilities in this case was closer to the teacher’s evaluation of the latter. However, we would like to be cautious here in view of the small group size and the different types of questions in Exercise 2 and Exercise 4. On the other hand, we are indeed convinced that this last experiment with self-assessment was more successful than the previous one. We recognized that some of the students put much effort into Exercise 4 and indeed did all 31 truth tables. By doing this, they gained not only the desired proficiency with the method. At the same time, they gained confidence in their own abilities and handed in their solutions with the good feeling that they really deserve the 10/10 marks that they ascribed to themselves. With a classical design (one or two of the statements listed in Exercise 4 to be handed in and to be marked by the teacher), we could not have achieved this.

Students’ impressions about responsibility

The last experience that we want to discuss here did not involve self-assessment in the sense of our first section. It was, however, similar in the sense that the responsibility to work on homework assignments was completely due to the students. In contrast to the situations explained above, the marking was waived completely. In a third-year course with approximately 10 students and in a second-year course with approximately 50 students, we strongly recommended intensive work on the weekly assignments. We emphasized that the final exam will be very similar to the tasks in these assignments. In the small course, we asked the students to present their solutions during the exercise sessions. In the large course, the solutions were presented by the teacher and later uploaded to the website of the course, as there were too many participants for individual presentations. The grade for both courses was given on the basis of the final exam. During the term, we received much negative feedback. Indeed, most of the other teachers employed homework assessment, quizzes, midterm exams, and strict attendance requirements to control the students’ engagement. In view of the exam outcome, one can say that our concept completely failed in this context. In the middle of the course, we already recognized that only less than one quarter of the students downloaded the exercise sheets before the lesson. The whole situation is very well summarized by the following feedback comment.

“100% final is … strange … it has good and bad sides. Bad thing is that the students sometimes ‘forget’ about this course for the whole semester, which affects their final preparation.”

From this, one can deduce that the students were indeed aware that they did not assume responsibility for their own learning progress. However, it was us who did not manage to initiate a change of their learning behavior in this course. On the other hand, we received the following positive comment.

“Learning the subject WITHOUT WORRYING that you fail quiz or midterm and don’t have chance to pass the course. Learning with our own pace. Mock exams and homeworks help much. It seems risky and stressful at the end. But I think having too much midterms and quizzes gives constant stress which makes hard student life for low-pace studiers.”

This comment suggests that a paradigm shift might have been possible, but would had required a different methodology. Self-assessment—that we unfortunately did not use in this case—could have improved the situation.

Discussion and outlook

Self-assessment in the sense of this article can be used successfully in higher mathematics education. The feedback from our third-year course on functional analysis indicated that students assessed themselves honestly or even too cautiously. In the first experiment with first year students, the data indicates that on average students overrated themselves within the self-assessed tasks and that in particular the very weak students did this excessively. Of course it is also possible that the teacher underrated certain students in the non self-assessed tasks. Indeed, it is a key problem of assessment that the latter is always subjective and individual. In view of the low weight (≤ 5 % ) of the self-assessment tasks, we consider the overrating as a tolerable side-effect. The setting of a small group and a task such as Exercise 4—in which everybody can achieve the full score by hard work—turned out to be very suitable for self-assessment. This setting in particular seems to grow the weaker students’ confidence in their own abilities. We point out that our concept differs substantially from previous implementations of self-evaluation due to the fact that students actually mark their own work without interventions of peers or the teacher. In particular, the first and the last feedback comment that we received suggest that this amplifies the belief that an effective learning process has to be designed by teachers and students together.

Our first explorative results also identify drawbacks and obstructions. The second last comment illustrates that it can be very difficult to achieve that students develop a sense of responsibility. In certain environments, it might even be impossible. Our experiments highlight that we cannot expect a priori that students will grade themselves honestly. Therefore, sophisticated implementations need to be designed in the future. In order to improve our concept, we aim to get an in-depth look into the self-evaluation process itself. It would be desirable to obtain more information on how the students actually ascribe the marks. However, collecting the students’ solutions and assessing their assessment—even if only for research purposes—might already influence the self-assessment. It seems to us that there is no easy or standard way to implement self-assessment.

To conclude, we like to mention once more that this small preview is intended as an invitation to other university teachers to contribute with their ideas and experience to the topic of self-assessment in mathematics. Larger experiments, which will follow the lines sketched above, are under preparation.

Abbreviations

Sample size

Standard deviation

Basnet, B., Basson, M., Hobohm, C., Cochrane, S. (2012). Student’s self-assessment of assignments—is it worth it? In: Mann, L., & Daniel, S. (Eds.) In Proceedings of the 2012 AAEE Conference , Melbourne, Victoria.

Cooper, D. (2006). Collaborating with students in the assessment process. Orbit , 36 (2), 20–22.

Google Scholar  

Davey, K.R. (2015). Student self-assessment: results from a research study in a level IV elective course in an accredited Bachelor of Chemical Engineering. Education for Chemical Engineers , 10 , 20–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Eynde, P. (1999). Self-regulation—a characteristic and a goal of mathematics education. In: Boekaerts, M., Zeidner, M., Pintrich P.R. (Eds.) In Handbook of self-regulation . Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Fernandes, M., & Fontana, D. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in portuguese primary school pupils British. Journal of Educational Psychology , 64 , 407–417.

Hewitt, M.P. (2011). The impact of self-evaluation instruction on student self-evaluation, music performance, and self-evaluation accuracy. Journal of Research in Music Education , 59 (1), 6–20.

Klenowski, V. (1995). Student self evaluation processes in student centred teaching and learning contexts of Australia and England. Assessment in Education , 2 , 145–163.

Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H.J. (2004). Student self-evaluation, teacher evaluation, and learner performance. Educational Technology Research and Development , 52 (3), 5–22.

Ross, J.A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., Rolheiser, C. (2001). Effects of self-evaluation training on mathematics achievement. Seattle, WA: Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Conference.

Ross, J.A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., Rolheiser, C. (2002). Student self-evaluation in grade 5–6 mathematics effects on problem-solving achievement. Educational Assessment , 8 (1), 43–59.

Ross, J.A., Rolheiser, C., Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of self-evaluation training on narrative writing. Assessing Writing , 6 (1), 107–132.

Stallings, V., & Tascoine, C. (1996). Student self-assessment and self-evaluation. The Mathematics Teacher , 89 (7), 548–554.

Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice , 44 (1), 11–18.

Werner, D. (2007). Funktionalanalysis . Berlin: Springer.

Zuza, M., Brookhart, S.M., Andolina, M., Furman, R. (2004). Minute math: an action research study of student self-assessment. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 57 (2), 213–227.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the referees for many helpful and constructive comments that helped to improve this paper significantly. Moreover, the authors would like to thank B. Farkas (Wuppertal) who taught the course from which we took Exercises 2 and 3 and who supported the authors with several valuable comments during the preparation of this article. Finally, the authors would like to thank K. Jones (Teesside) for many useful advices that helped to improve this article significantly.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Availability of data and materials

Please contact the authors for data requests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Wuppertal, Gaußstraße 20, Wuppertal, 42119, Germany

Sarah Beumann

School of Science, Engineering & Design, Teesside University, Southfield Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BX, UK

Sven-Ake Wegner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed equally and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven-Ake Wegner .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This research was approved by the Ethics Board of the University of Wuppertal under the reference number MS/BB 171011 Wegner.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Beumann, S., Wegner, SA. An outlook on self-assessment of homework assignments in higher mathematics education. IJ STEM Ed 5 , 55 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0146-z

Download citation

Received : 14 June 2018

Accepted : 06 November 2018

Published : 27 December 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0146-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Self-evaluation
• Self-regulation
• Mathematics education
• Tertiary education

Gardner Fellowship on Higher Education

The gardner fellows represent a diverse community of early career researchers in higher education within the university of california system. .

CSHE sponsors this one-year fellowship, named after UC President Emeritus David P. Gardner, for doctoral students who represent multiple academic disciplines and write dissertations on one or more issues in higher education. This broad range of seminar participants creates a unique community of early career higher education researchers within the University of California system.

This is a $3,000 fellowship for doctoral students. 

Once selected, Gardner Fellows will be affiliated with CSHE for an academic year, during which they are expected to attend Gardner Seminars remotely every other week for two hours. There will be at least 14 Seminars during the academic year. For each session, Fellows engage with prominent educational scholars and administrative leaders from the University of California system, the nation and the world. Gardner Fellows are also expected to present their own dissertation research and to provide constructive feedback to their colleagues. Upon completion of the seminar, they will receive a $3,000 stipend.

This fellowship also provides an in-person professional development workshop at Berkeley campus during the academic year.

The Gardner Fellows have the opportunity to: ● Learn from scholars about their current research; ● Gain exposure to a range of disciplines that are related to higher education; ● Broaden their understanding of different research tools and methodologies; ● Present and develop their own dissertation work; ● Explore potential career paths; and ● Create a community of early career higher education researchers

Applications for 2024-2025 will be accepted between May 1 - June 15, 2024.

UC registered doctoral students from all disciplines are eligible to apply. Applicants should emphasize how their research focuses on one or more issues in higher education. Successful applications usually have a clear description of research questions, theoretical frameworks, and methodologies.

Priority will be given to PhD candidates who are at the advanced stage in their graduate programs. 

Doctoral students from underrepresented backgrounds and campuses are especially encouraged to apply. International students are also encouraged to apply. 

Application materials should include:

• Cover letter
• Application Form
• Dissertation Summary (1,200 words max)
• Letter of endorsement from dissertation advisor 

Please note that the enrollment is kept to 11 graduate students.

Questions? Please fill out this form to attend an info session with previous Gardner Fellows. 

Please email  [email protected] (link sends e-mail)  for more information.

Testimonials

"being a gardner fellow was a wonderful experience for so many reasons. i learned so much from the other fellows, and i enjoyed hearing about the plethora of research being done within higher education. i'm so grateful for the gardner seminar and have nothing but positive things to say" --elizabeth anne martin (ucla, 2022-23 gardner fellow), "the gardner seminar was an instrumental part of my ph.d. development because it allowed me to present my work to a wide-range audience and receive feedback from numerous uc students and faculty. it was wonderful to connect with people outside of my field and see my research through their perspectives. the feedback i received helped strengthen my skills as a scholar." --valeria dominguez (uc riverside, 2022-23 gardner fellow), "as an early career scholar, i had the opportunity to engage with prominent higher education leaders and learn from some of the brightest early career scholars in the uc system. presenting my on-going work to these folks allowed me to grow as a researcher and scholar." --ivan valdovinos (ucsd, 2023-24 gardner fellow).

New California bill pushes for schools to give less homework

S AN FRANCISCO (KRON) — How much homework is too much homework? A new California bill introduced in the State Assembly asserts that giving elementary school students hefty amounts of homework does not result in higher academic achievement.

Assemblywoman Pilar Schiavo presented the the Healthy Homework Act, AB 2999, in the Assembly Education Committee on Wednesday. The legislation is aimed at developing updated homework guidelines across California school districts. It would mandate school boards to establish homework policies that support and consider impacts to students’ mental and physical health.

Assemblywoman Schiavo said, “As a single parent, I know how stressful homework time can be for our kids and the entire family. The Healthy Homework Act is about ensuring that our homework policies are healthy for our kids, address the needs of the whole child, and also support family time, time to explore other extra-curricular interests, and give students and families time to connect and recover from the day.”

The assemblywoman’s office said research studies found:

• For elementary school pupils, there was no correlation between the amount of time spent on homework and achievement. Students who completed more homework were no more likely than their peers to earn higher grades and scores in school.
• For middle and high school students, research found an increase in academic performance when middle schoolers did up to one hour of homework, and high schoolers did up to two hours daily. These effects began to fade as students did more than two hours of work, and more time spent on homework did not necessarily equate to higher academic achievement.

Research findings in AB 2999 state, “The quality of homework assignments is more important than the quantity of work assigned, and that when pupils find homework interesting, relevant, and valuable, they are more likely to complete it.”

AB 2999 encourages school districts to enact policies that are developmentally appropriate based on grade level, and consider if homework should be optional or not graded in order to reduce pressure.

Schiavo said, “We know homework is a top three stressor in kids’ overall lives. We are in the middle of a student mental health crisis. It’s critical we incorporate homework practices into this discussion to relieve student stress, especially with something we could profoundly impact almost overnight.”

Schiavo announced the bill during a news conference held outside the Capitol Building with teachers on Wednesday. Teacher Casey Cuny, who was named 2023 California Teacher of The Year, said, “This bill will create the space for districts and teachers to have intentional conversations about best practices for homework.”

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KRON4.

The New York Sun

Biden’s student debt cancellation will cost more than all federal spending on higher education in history.

Recent student loan forgiveness plans will cost an estimated $870 billion to $1.4 trillion, a watchdog group says.

President Biden’s student loan debt cancellation will cost more than the federal government has spent on higher education in the entire country’s history, a stunning report says.

Including Mr. Biden’s latest loan forgiveness plans, the student debt cancellation policies will cost $870 billion to $1.4 trillion, a fiscal watchdog group, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, estimates. The soaring costs are mostly a result of Mr. Biden’s executive actions, the group notes, which he is pursuing despite an earlier attempt being blocked by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Biden first announced his latest plan during a speech in Wisconsin earlier this month, and he was promptly met with lawsuits from a slew of Republican states. 

In a proposal the Education Secretary says will create an “America that lives up to its highest ideals,” the Biden administration recently unveiled details of its plan to cancel the debt of more than 25 million borrowers, forgive debts of millions of borrowers who entered repayment more than two decades ago, and eliminate debt for students who attended schools that  “failed to provide sufficient value,” as the Sun reported .

The Education Department is also working on a plan to authorize loan forgiveness for borrowers who are at a “high risk of future default” or those facing financial hardships such as medical expenses. 

Those new proposals will cost $250 to $750 billion, the watchdog group estimates, on top of the $620 billion in debt cancellation already implemented. 

The total $870 billion to $1.4 trillion cost estimate is more than “all historic spending on higher education prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report notes, as federal spending from 1962 to 2019 was $744 billion.

The loan forgiveness plans will also cost more than all projected education appropriations over the next decade and more than the total cost of tripling the current Pell grant program. The loan forgiveness also is more expensive than “the federal cost of offering universal pre-K and universal affordable child care.”

Most of the policies have “not only been costly, but also inflationary, poorly targeted, counter to the mission of lowering college costs, and not financially justified,” the report notes. “Instead of continuing down this road, lawmakers should work together on reforms that actually fix the student loan program and address the cost and quality of higher education.”

Ms. Hroncich is from Pittsburgh and a graduate of Hillsdale College. Her work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Federalist, and The Daily Signal.

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

Sign in or   create a free account

Opinion The leakage of universities’ prestige amid protests is most welcome

Do not emulate the Chicago politician who said he would not “cast asparagus” at opponents. Do cast aspersions at “elite” (just a synonym for “expensive”) institutions of what is still called, despite an ocean of contrary evidence, higher (than what?) education.

Parents paying $89,000 for a child’s year at Columbia University might be nonplussed about the university’s explanation of its recourse to remote learning: “Safety is our highest priority.” Clearly education is not.

Otherwise, the university, instead of flinching from firm measures to make the campus conducive to learning, would have expelled all students participating in the antisemitic encampment that panicked Columbia into prioritizing “safety.” Imagine how stern the institutional responses would be, nationwide, if the antisemitic and anti-American disruptors of education were violating really important norms by, say, using inappropriate pronouns.

Given academia’s nearly monochrome culture, most universities have many infantile adults. These are faculty members who have glided from kindergarten through postdoctoral fellowships (these often support surplus PhDs, who are being manufactured faster than the academic job market can absorb them). To such professors, the 99.9 percent of the world adjacent to campuses is as foreign as Mongolia.

Still, suppose you want to hire a recent college graduate for your business. Suppose one of your applicants attended Harvard while it was becoming an incubator of antisemitic agitations. And suppose the other applicant attended a large public university. The public-university graduate is at least marginally less apt to be enthusiastic about Hamas , which aspires to complete the Holocaust .

Or suppose you seek a young doctor to join your medical practice. You might reasonably hesitate before hiring someone from UCLA’s medical school. There a recent pro-Hamas guest lecturer in a mandatory course on “ Structural Racism and Health Equity ” led students in a “Free Palestine” chant, directed them to get on their knees and touch the floor in a “prayer” to “mama earth,” and warned the future doctors against the “crapitalist lie” of “private property.”

The leakage of prestige from politicized universities is overdue and wholesome. Those schools that once were preeminent and now are punchlines might soon have a bruising rendezvous with real politics, which, unlike the sandbox radicalism of campus playgrounds, can be serious.

Government policies have encouraged the growth of universities’ endowments and funded their research, because institutions of higher education have hitherto been considered valuable contributors to the nation’s welfare. These policies can be changed if policymakers reassess the merits of an education sector that is hospitable to vicious extremism and adversarial toward U.S. national values. Wealthy private universities, echoing progressive clamors for more aggressive taxing of the rich, should not be surprised or scandalized if government heeds the clamors by turning its covetous gaze toward their endowments.

Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute has an explanation of the self-satisfied adolescents engaged in histrionic campus politics: Their clenched fists indicate that they have too much time on their hands. Hess notes that a recent survey of four-year college students found that 64 percent claim to put “a lot of effort” into school work. But fewer than a third of these toilers in the academic salt mines say they devote even two hours a day to studying.

In 1961, full-time students studied an average of about 40 hours per week ; by 2003, the figure was 27 hours. It is likely fewer two decades later. Time-use data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that, from 2003 to 2014, full-time college students devoted an average of 2.8 hours a day to classroom instruction, homework and other educational activities.

Unsurprisingly, the decline of studiousness has coincided with rampant grade inflation. At Yale in the 2022-2023 academic year, only prodigies of underachievement managed to miss the bounty: Almost 80 percent of grades were A’s or A-minuses.

The decline in students’ academic efforts has also coincided with the rise of their performative politics. “Activism” — an interestingly contentless category — can fill the vacuums in the lives of bored students who are unchallenged by unexacting academic standards and who have been indoctrinated by teachers to think highly of themselves as political moralists.

Back at Columbia (which, when it was King’s College , gave the nation Alexander Hamilton), a revolutionary evicted from university housing is suffering for his idealism. The 27-year-old student in the School of Social Work says he now must find off-campus housing that will accommodate his emotional support rabbit.

• Opinion | Is another Trump coup case really necessary? Yes. Arizona matters. April 28, 2024 Opinion | Is another Trump coup case really necessary? Yes. Arizona matters. April 28, 2024
• Opinion | Is the sun slowly setting on U.S. power? That depends on us. April 26, 2024 Opinion | Is the sun slowly setting on U.S. power? That depends on us. April 26, 2024
• Opinion | At Columbia, excuse the students, but not the faculty April 26, 2024 Opinion | At Columbia, excuse the students, but not the faculty April 26, 2024