Mathematics Achievement: The Role of Homework and Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 ✤ pp.
310–339
Mathematics
Achievement:
The Role of Homework
and Self-Efficacy
Beliefs
Anastasia Kitsantas
a
Jehanzeb Cheema
Herbert W. Ware
George Mason University
According to Cooper, homework involves tasks assigned to stu-

dents by schoolteachers that are meant to be carried out dur-
ing noninstructional time (Bembenutty, 2011). Homework is
assigned for a variety of reasons such as to supplement learning
activities and to practice concepts (Cooper, Robinson, & Patall,
2006). Given that learners conduct homework during noninstruc-
tional time with little direction from the instructor and a less
constricted timeline to complete it, researchers view homework
as a tool to help students develop self-regulatory skills and self-
efficacy to pursue academic tasks (Bembenutty, 2009; Kitsantas
& Zimmerman, 2009; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 1996).
Zimmerman (1998) defined self-regulation as “self-generated
thoughts, feelings, and actions for attaining academic goals”
(p. 73). Self-efficacy refers to one’s beliefs in his or her ability to
perform at a designated level (Bandura, 1997). However, past
research has challenged the benefits of homework with the view
310
Copyright © 2011 Prufrock Press, P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714
The present study used the U.S. portion of the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) to examine how homework resources, math-
ematics self-efficacy, and time spent on homework impacted mathemat-
summary
ics achievement across gender and ethnicity. The findings showed that
achievement gaps diminished with the increase in availability of home-
work resources and the increase in mathematics self-efficacy. Increased
proportions of homework time spent on mathematics homework were
associated with a decrease in mathematics achievement. These find-
ings suggest that educators should attempt to provide the resources for
students to complete their homework and structure homework assign-
ments accordingly. Interestingly, the findings also suggest that educators
need to focus on enhancing self-efficacy with respect to mathematics
for all students.
Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J., & Ware, H. W. (2011). Mathematics achievement: The role of
homework and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 310–339.
Homework and Mathematics Achievement
that the use of homework expands the achievement differences

between high and low socioeconomic status (SES) students, where
students from higher SES backgrounds have more resources and
their parents are better prepared to assist them than students
from lower SES backgrounds (Balli, Wedman, & Demo, 1997).
Using the U.S. portion of the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA), the objective of the current study
was to further examine how homework based on the number
of hours spent outside the classroom and homework support
resources such as having a quiet place to study and books are
related to students’ self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics
across race and gender.
Homework and Academic Achievement

Past studies examined the relationship between academic
achievement and homework using variables such as the amount
of homework assigned, time spent on homework, and the amount
of homework actually completed (Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, &
Greathouse, 1998; Trautwein, Köller, Schmitz, & Baumert,
2002; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005). Generally, research using
these variables remained inconclusive because most studies found
that homework is not related with academic achievement in ele-
mentary school. However, for the high school student population,
some studies did show positive correlations between homework
and achievement (Cooper, 2009). For example, Cooper et al.
(1998) found that the most potent factor affecting achievement
was the amount of homework the student actually completed as
opposed to the amount of homework that was assigned. Although
this pattern was consistent across most students, the proportion
of homework completed was found to especially impact the aca-
demic achievement of upper elementary and high school students
as opposed to younger elementary school students.
Furthermore, Trautwein et al. (2002) analyzed a series of
surveys administered to 1,976 middle school students and found
that although the frequency of mathematics homework did posi-
312 Journal of Advanced Academics

Kitsantas, Cheema, and Ware
tively impact mathematics achievement, the amount of homework

and the length of time it took to complete the homework had no
effect on achievement. This finding suggests that students who
are regularly assigned mathematics homework in their classes
gain more understanding in mathematics. However, homework
assignments that require an extended amount of time to complete
have no impact on mathematics achievement. The authors specu-
lated that when students are given large amounts of homework,
their motivation toward the topic declines. Additional analyses
revealed that homework is more beneficial to the achievement
of low-achieving students than to the achievement of high-
achieving students. Specifically, the results showed that as teach-
ers assigned more homework in their classes, the achievement
gap between high- and low-achieving students became less evi-
dent. Other researchers (e.g., Keith, Diamond-Hallam, & Fine,
2004) examined the longitudinal effects of completing homework
either in school or out of school using the National Education
Longitudinal Study (NELS) dataset. Keith et al.’s (2004) results
revealed that time spent completing homework in school had a
relatively large effect on student achievement whereas time spent
completing homework outside of school had an insignificant
effect on such achievement.
Numerous studies have also documented homework achieve-
ment relationships between and within ethnic groups by immi-
grant status, SES, and gender (Aldous, 2006; Carpenter &
Ramirez, 2008; Trautwein et al., 2002). The findings show that
time spent on homework differed between and within ethnic
groups (e.g., Hispanic, Black, and White) and that it affected
academic retention patterns (Carpenter & Ramirez, 2008). In
fact, time spent on homework predicted dropout for Hispanic
and White students, but not for Black students. Other research-
ers (Plunkett, Behnke, Sands, & Choi, 2009) also examined how
parental engagement in academic studies differed in terms of
gender and ethnic background in a sample of immigrant minor-
ity adolescents. Their results showed that across ethnicity and
gender, student perceptions of their mothers’ engagement in their
academic school work had a stronger impact on their achieve-
Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 313

ment than the fathers’ engagement. Limited research however

has examined how homework support resources influence stu-
dent academic achievement and self-efficacy beliefs in mathemat-
ics, particularly among different race groups. Homework support
resources are defined as the different available resources that stu-
dents can use while doing homework (e.g., having a desk and/or
books).
Mathematics Self-Efficacy, Homework, and

Achievement Across Race and Gender
Past research has associated completion of homework with
student reports of high self-efficacy beliefs and use of self-regula-
tory processes with the latter variable playing an especially impor-
tant role in academic achievement (Bembenutty & Zimmerman,
2003; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2009). Specifically, research
findings show that academic self-efficacy beliefs are positively
related to homework completion (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990)
with girls reporting higher self-efficacy in timely homework
completion than boys (Pajares, 2001). Findings also show that
homework helps children develop responsibility (Corno & Xu,
2004) and family homework help is associated with the use of
management strategies regardless of the helper’s educational level
(Xu & Corno, 2003, 2006).
Research findings with regard to race and gender differ-
ences in self-efficacy in mathematics are ambiguous (Schunk
& Meece, 2005). Generally, White students exhibited higher
self-efficacy for mathematics than African American students
(Pajares & Kranzler, 1995), and girls reported lower mathemat-
ics self-efficacy beliefs even when they performed at similar or
higher levels than boys (Pajares, 1996). Researchers also exam-
ined how students form their efficacy beliefs based on information
they receive from sources such as mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasions, and emotional and physiological
states. For example, Usher and Pajares (2006) found that only
mastery and persuasion experiences predicted African American

middle school students’ self-efficacy beliefs, whereas all sources

of self-efficacy contributed to White students’ self-efficacy beliefs.
Students’ level of self-efficacy beliefs may also depend on a vari-
ety of other contextual factors such as social capital (Schunk &
Meece, 2005). Specifically, the more social capital that families
have, the more able they are to provide substantive resources to
support student learning and motivation. Therefore, it is impor-
tant to examine how such predictors of motivation and achieve-
ment differ as a function of race.
Purpose of the Study

The present study attempted to identify the extent to
which mathematics self-efficacy beliefs, time spent on math-
ematics homework, and homework support resources predicted
high school student mathematics achievement. This study
also attempted to explore the role of race and gender in these
relationships.
Method
Data Source
The data come from the 2003 Program for International

Student Assessment (PISA) student and school questionnaires
(National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2003). The
PISA assessed reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and sci-
ence literacy skills of 15-year-olds in the U.S. This survey was
administered by the NCES. Of the three subjects, reading, math-
ematics, and science, only one subject is surveyed in depth on
a rotational basis each year while the other two are given rela-
tively less attention. In 2003, the primary subject was mathemat-
ics (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
[OECD], 2005). The target population for this study was the
entire 15-year-old high school student population of the United

States. The sample comprised of 5,456 students from 274 par-

ticipating schools chosen through multi-stage stratified random
sampling (OECD, 2005).
Participants
After listwise deletion, the U.S. sample size was reduced to

3,776 students and 221 schools. However, a preliminary missing
value analysis indicated that these values were missing at random.
Therefore, missing values were imputed using all possible con-
tinuous and categorical predictors. Missing values on categorical
predictors such as gender and race were not imputed. Because
missing values are missing at random and not missing completely
at random, the maximum likelihood imputation method utilizing
the expectation-maximization algorithm was employed.
The final sample size for analysis was 5,200 students (boys,
n = 2,603; girls, n = 2,597) and the ethnic breakdown was 3,097
Caucasian, 799 African American, 883 Hispanic, 169 Asian, and
252 of mixed or other ethnicity. Student ages (M = 15.83, SD
= 0.29) ranged from 15.25 to 16.33 years. Because the PISA
student survey was designed to assess mathematics literacy of
15-year-old students, the reported final sample size reflects stu-
dents from grades 9 (n = 1,618), 10 (n = 3,249), and 11 (n = 333)
only. A very small number of students were found in grade 7 (n
= 8) and grade 8 (n = 91) and as a result were not included in our
analyses.
Of the 5,200 students in our sample, 98.4% (n = 5,115) pro-
vided information on their place of birth (USA = 91.1%; other
= 7.3%); 97.2% (n = 5,053) reported the language they spoke
at home (English = 88.4%; other = 8.8%); 99.2% (n = 5,160)
reported their family structure (single parent family = 29.2%;
nuclear family = 54.9%; mixed family = 10.6%; other = 4.6%);
and 98.0% (n = 5,098) reported their parental education level
(less than high school = 5.5%; high school = 45.6%; more than
high school = 46.9%).

Measures
Mathematics achievement. This variable was based on 85

test items and was reported on a continuous scale as a set of five
plausible values for each student. The plausible values were ran-
dom elements from the set of scores that could be attributed to
each student and their variation helped capture the measurement
error at the individual student level (Wu, 2005). A detailed tech-
nical discussion of plausible values can be found in Mislevy (1991)
and Mislevy, Beaton, Kaplan, and Sheehan (1992). A sample item
included,
In a pizza restaurant, you can get a basic pizza with two

toppings: cheese and tomato. You can also make up your
own pizza with extra toppings. You can choose from four
different extra toppings: olives, ham, mushrooms and
salami. Ross wants to order a pizza with two different
extra toppings. How many different combinations can
Ross choose from?
Each response was coded as either correct or incorrect with no

partial credit awarded (OECD, 2005). For the U.S. sample, on
a scale of 0 to 1,000, the plausible values for mathematics had
a mean of 483 (for OECD, M = 500). The reliability estimate
for the five plausible values was α = 0.98. For each student, the
mean plausible value was used as a measure of mathematics
achievement.
Mathematics self-efficacy. This scale included eight ques-
tions that measured a student’s confidence in performing various
mathematical calculations ranging from solving elementary linear
equations in one variable to calculating a percentage. A sample
question included, “How confident do you feel about having to do
the following calculation(s)? Solving an equation like 3x + 5 = 17.”
The response scale range was from 1–4, 1 (very confident), 2 (confi-
dent), 3 (not very confident), and 4 (not at all confident). Responses
were reverse coded and scaled in such a way that higher scores
are indicative of higher levels of this variable (OECD, 2005). The

reliability of this scale was (α = 0.86). Item means ranged from

1.45 to 2.21, item variances ranged from 0.50 to 0.78, and cor-
rected item-total correlations ranged from .54 to .66.
Relative time spent on mathematics homework. This vari-
able represented the ratio of actual number of self-reported hours
spent by a student solely on mathematics homework to actual
number of hours spent on all homework. Prior research suggests
that the effect of absolute time spent on homework may dif-
fer across grade level (Cooper, 2009). Using the ratio instead of
solely its numerator is more meaningful because it allows some
standardization across students belonging to different schools
and grades. For instance, the use of the number of hours spent
on mathematics homework would not let us properly compare
two students who spend an equal amount of time on mathemat-
ics homework but their percentage times differ. The rationale is
similar to using the relative amount of school funding (number of
dollars spent per student within a school) rather than the absolute
figure (total number of dollars for the school). Relative time spent
on mathematics homework ranged from 0 to 1 (M = .20, SD =
.17) where 1 indicates that the student had allocated all of the
homework time to mathematics and 0 indicates that the student
did not spend any time on mathematics homework.
Homework support resources. This variable was based on
eight questions and measured homework-related SES character-
istics. The homework resources variable included: a desk to study
at, a room of their own for the student, a quiet place to study, a
computer for use with school work, a link to the Internet, their
own calculator, books to help with their homework, and diction-
aries. Each question required respondents to report whether or
not they had a specific item or service at home. For instance, one
question asked whether the student had “a quiet place to study”
at home. Another inquired whether the student had “a desk for
study” at home. The response choice was either “Yes” or “No.” Item
means ranged from 1.07 to 1.47, item variances ranged from 0.06
to 0.25, and corrected item-total correlations ranged from .25 to
.49. Homework support resources represented the proportion of
homework support available to a student and ranged from 0 to

1. Thus, the eight items related to this measure were a random

sample from the population of all possible items that support
homework activities at home. A student who answered “Yes” to
all eight questions had a value of 1 and a student who answered
“No” to all questions had a value of 0. The reliability of this scale
was α = 0.70.
The measures presented in this section were based on survey
items, which were validated by subject matter experts who took
into consideration the cultural and educational contexts in which
these items were expected to be used. The work of subject mat-
ter experts was supported by a pilot study and a field trial that
included a large number of test items and was designed to assess
both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of item responses.
Only those items that survived scrutiny of the experts and the
field trial were retained and became the basis for measures used
in this study.
Data Collection Approach
The PISA questionnaire standards required recruiting up to

35 students at random within each school from a list of all students
born in 1987. They were first given a 20–30-minute long back-
ground questionnaire and then a timed 2-hour paper-and-pencil
test including both multiple choice and constructed response
items on mathematics, science, and reading. Approximately two
thirds of the questions were related to mathematics. In the U.S.,
all materials were written and administered in English. Students
that were unable to read or speak the language of the test were
excluded from the sample (Lemke et al., 2004).
Data Analytical Approach
Descriptive statistics were reported for all variables. Four

weighted least squares (WLS) multiple linear regression models
were fitted. Dummy variables were created for both race and
gender. The base model included only demographic variables,
race and gender, to which homework-related predictors, self-effi-

cacy, and interaction effects were added sequentially in blocks.

Statistical analyses were performed after taking into consider-
ation the appropriate sampling weights. All continuous variables,
including mathematics achievement, were standardized to have a
mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 before inclusion in a regres-
sion model. In order to evaluate the robustness of the multiple
regression results, a repeated measures WLS MANOVA was fit-
ted with the five plausible values specified as dependent variables.
Results from the multiple regression and MANOVA procedures
were then compared for consistency.
The residuals from each fitted model were analyzed to ver-
ify that model assumptions were not violated. In order to check
for heteroscedasticity, studentized deleted residuals were plot-
ted against standardized predicted values, and in order to detect
departures from normality, the histogram and probability plot
of residuals were analyzed. No evidence of a severe violation of
either the homoscedasticity or normality assumption was found.
Multicollinearity diagnostics included computation of variance
inflation factors (VIF) for the four models, which ranged between
1.00 and 2.45 lying well below the VIF ≥ 10 rule-of-thumb
threshold for severe multicollinearity. Condition index for the
four models ranged between 3.00 and 3.58, which is well below
the corresponding rule-of-thumb cut-off values of 15 and 30 for
moderate and severe multicollinearity.
Results
Descriptive and Correlational Findings
Summary statistics for mathematics achievement and its pre-

dictors are presented in Table 1. Descriptive statistics showed
that on average students spent about a fifth of their homework
time on mathematics homework (M = 0.20, SD = 0.17). In terms
of relative time spent on mathematics homework, 5.3% reported
spending no time, 69.0% reported spending more than 0% but
less than or equal to 20%, 17.1% reported spending more than

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s
Alphas, and Correlations for Mathematics
Achievement and Its Predictors
r
M SD α †
1 2 3
1. Average
mathematics 484.19 89.14 -- --
achievement‡
2. Mathematics
0.00 1.00 .86 0.54* --
self-efficacy
3. Relative
time spent on
0.20 0.17 -- -0.17* -0.10* --
mathematics
homework‡
4. Homework
0.85 0.20 .70 0.32* 0.23* -0.06*
support resources‡
Note. N = 5,200.
†
Cronbach’s alpha is not applicable for mathematics achievement, which is based on
plausible values, and relative time spent on mathematics homework, which is a ratio.
‡
These variables were standardized before inclusion in the regression models.
*Correlation is significant at the .001 level (2-tailed).
20% but less than or equal to 40%, 2.3% reported spending more
than 40% but less than or equal to 60%, 5.1% reported spending
more than 60% but less than or equal to 80%, and 1.2% reported
spending more than 80% of their total homework time on math-
ematics. In terms of total hours spent on mathematics homework
per week (M = 3.69, SD = 2.31), 5.3% of the students reported not
spending any time on mathematics homework, 80.7% reported
spending more than 0 but less than or equal to 5 hours, 13.3%
reported spending more than 5 but less than or equal to 10 hours,
and 0.7% reported spending more than 10 hours.
Some significant correlations also emerged among the vari-
ables. For example, mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics
achievement were highly correlated (r = .54, p < .001). Homework
support resources had a moderately positive correlation with
achievement (r = .32, p < .001) and with mathematics self-efficacy
(r = .23, p < .001), but negatively associated with relative amount

of time spent on mathematics homework (r = –.06, p < .001).

Finally, although the relationship between relative time spent on
mathematics homework and mathematics self-efficacy was weak,
it was statistically significant (r = –.10, p < .001).
The results of WLS ANOVA on the relative amount of time
spent on mathematics homework by gender showed a significant
difference between males (M = 0.20, SD = 0.17) and females (M
= 0.21, SD = 0.18), F(1, 5198) = 5.50, p = .019, with females on
average spending approximately 5% more time on mathematics
homework as compared to males. A similar analysis of relative
amount of time spent on mathematics homework by race revealed
a significant race effect, F(4, 5198) = 14.99, p < .001. After apply-
ing the Tukey post hoc adjustment, mean relative mathematics
homework time significantly differed between Blacks (M = 0.23,
SD = 0.19) and Whites (M = 0.19, SD = 0.16), t = 6.33, p < .001,
with Black students on average spending approximately 21% more
time on mathematics homework than their White counterparts.
A significant difference was also found between Hispanics (M =
0.22, SD = 0.19) and Whites, t = 5.52, p < .001, with Hispanic
students on average spending approximately 16% more time on
mathematics homework than their White counterparts.
For the second homework variable, homework support
resources, only about 0.7% of the students reported having no
access to any of the critical homework support items or services
at home, 1.9% reported access to more than 0% but less than
or equal to 25% of support items, 5.8% reported access to more
than 25% but less than or equal to 50% of support items, 22.1%
reported access to more than 50% but less than or equal to 75%
of support items, and 69.5% reported access to more than 75% of
such items. When analyzed across gender categories, a significant
mean difference was detected on homework support resources
between males (M = 0.84, SD = 0.20) and females (M = 0.86, SD
= 0.19), F(1, 5198) = 12.80, p < .001, with the mean homework
support for females being slightly (2.4%) but significantly higher
than that for males. When analyzed across race, significant mean
differences in homework support resources emerged, F(4, 5195)
= 77.67, p < .001. After applying the Tukey post hoc adjustment,

significant differences in mean homework support resources were

found between Blacks (M = 0.80, SD = 0.23) and Whites (M =
0.88, SD = 0.17), t = 11.41, p < .001; Hispanics (M = 0.78, SD =
0.24) and Whites, t = 15.28, p < .001; multiple/other races (M =
0.85, SD = 0.18) and Whites, t = 3.33, p = .008; Asians (M = 0.89,
SD = 0.17) and Blacks, t = 5.71, p < .001; multiple/other races
and Blacks, t = 3.46, p = .005; Asians and Hispanics, t = 7.31,
p < .001; and multiple/other races and Hispanics, t = 5.31, p <
.001. Results of these comparisons can be summarized as follows:
On average, White students had 10% more homework support
resources available than Black students, 13% more homework
support than Hispanic students, and 4% more homework support
than students who identified themselves as belonging to multiple/
other races. On average, Asian students had about 11% more
homework support than Black students and 14% more homework
support than Hispanic students. Finally, the mean homework
support level of multiple/other race students was approximately
6% higher than that of Black students and 9% higher than that
of Hispanic students.
Although several of the differences in mean mathematics
homework time and homework support resources are small when
gender and race categories are considered independently, such
differences were controlled for in the analyses that follow. Full
factorial two-way WLS ANOVA models were also estimated for
both the amount of time spent on mathematics homework and
homework support resources. However, no change in the pattern
of significant effects was revealed. The gender by race interaction
was not significant for either variable. These two-way ANOVA
models were reestimated without the interaction term. However,
again no change in the pattern of significant effects was observed.
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis
Model 1. The first multiple regression equation predicted

mathematics achievement from gender and race. Results showed
a difference of 0.10 standard deviations (p < .001) in mean math-
ematics achievement between males and females after controlling

for race with mean mathematics achievement of males exceeding

that of females. Controlling for gender, the mean mathematics
achievement of White students was 1.03 standard deviations (p <
.001) higher than that of Black students, 0.75 standard deviations
(p < .001) higher than that of Hispanic students, 0.28 standard
deviations (p < .001) higher than that of multiple/other race stu-
dents, and not significantly different from that of Asian students
(p = .487). Gender and race cumulatively accounted for about 17%
of the total variation in mathematics achievement (see Table 2).
Model 2. The base model was augmented by adding two
homework-related predictors of mathematics achievement: the
relative amount of time spent on mathematics homework and
homework support resources. This model attempted to deter-
mine the proportion of variation in mathematics achievement
that could be explained by the two homework-related predictors
over and above that explained by race and gender. The model
accounted for approximately 24% (ΔR 2 = .08, p < .001) of the total
variation in mathematics achievement. Thus, the two homework-
related predictors accounted for an additional 8% of the total
variation in mathematics achievement over and above that pre-
dicted by race and gender.
Model 3. In the third model, mathematics self-efficacy was
added as a predictor of mathematics achievement in addition to
gender, race, relative time spent on mathematics homework, and
homework support. The primary function of this model was to
determine the proportion of variation in mathematics achieve-
ment that could be explained by mathematics self-efficacy over
and above that explained by race, gender, and the homework-
related predictors. This model accounted for approximately
44% (ΔR 2 = .20, p < .001) of the total variation in mathematics
achievement. Thus, mathematics self-efficacy accounted for an
additional 20% of the total variation in mathematics achievement
over and above that predicted by race, gender, and homework-
related variables. Estimation results showed that the significant
difference in mean mathematics achievement between males
and females observed in the previous two models disappeared
with the introduction of mathematics self-efficacy (β = 0.01, p =

Table 2
Regression Analysis Summary for Predicting
Mathematics Achievement
Model 1 Model 2
Predictors B SE B β† t‡ P B SE B β† t‡ P
Black -1.03 0.04 -0.36 -27.61 .001 -0.88 0.04 -0.31 -24.51 .001
Hispanic -0.75 0.04 -0.28 -21.20 .001 -0.58 0.04 -0.22 -16.81 .001
Asian -0.05 0.07 -0.01 -0.70 .487 -0.05 0.07 -0.01 -0.71 .477
Multiple/other -0.28 0.06 -0.06 -4.67 .001 -0.21 0.06 -0.05 -3.63 .001
Gender 0.10 0.03 0.05 3.98 .001 0.12 0.03 0.06 4.76 .001
Relative -0.12 0.01 -0.12 -9.83 .001
mathematics
homework
time
Homework 0.26 0.01 0.25 20.16 .001
support
R2 0.166 207.41 .001 0.243 261.11 .001
Model 3 Model 4
Predictors B SE B β† t‡ P B SE B β† t‡ P
Black -0.82 0.03 -0.29 -26.41 .001 -0.85 0.03 -0.30 -27.10 .001
Hispanic -0.50 0.03 -0.19 -16.76 .001 -0.50 0.03 -0.18 -16.24 .001
Asian -0.15 0.06 -0.03 -2.60 .009 -0.16 0.06 -0.03 -2.53 .011
Multiple/other -0.25 0.05 -0.05 -5.04 .001 -0.24 0.05 -0.05 -4.81 .001
Gender 0.01 0.02 ≈0.00 0.40 .687 0.01 0.02 ≈0.00 0.38 .703
Relative -0.08 0.01 -0.08 -7.89 .001 -0.07 0.02 -0.07 -4.87 .001
mathematics
homework
time
Homework 0.15 0.01 0.15 13.74 .001 0.14 0.02 0.14 8.44 .001
support
Mathematics 0.47 0.01 0.46 42.67 .001 0.51 0.01 0.50 37.28 .001
self-efficacy
Mathematics
self-efficacy x -0.21 0.03 -0.07 -6.14 .001
Black
Mathematics
self-efficacy x -0.09 0.03 -0.04 -2.98 .003
Hispanic
Mathematics
self-efficacy x 0.02 0.06 ≈0.00 0.27 .786
Asian

Table 2, continued
Mathematics
self-efficacy
-0.05 0.05 -0.01 -1.10 .272
x Multiple/
other
Relative
mathematics
0.04 0.03 0.02 1.50 .133
homework
time x Black
Relative
mathematics
homework -0.07 0.03 -0.03 -2.53 .011
time x
Hispanic
Relative
mathematics
≈0.00 0.06 ≈0.00 -0.02 .984
homework
time x Asian
Relative
mathematics
homework
time x
Multiple/
other -0.07 0.05 -0.02 -1.47 .141
Homework
support x 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.36 .722
Black
Homework
support x 0.03 0.03 0.02 1.25 .210
Hispanic
Homework
support x -0.06 0.07 -0.01 -0.79 .432
Asian
Homework
support x
0.16 0.05 0.03 2.99 .003
Multiple/
other
R2 0.439 1820.85 .001 0.447 5.87 .001
Note. N = 5,200.
R2 = proportion of explained variance; in the last row for each model, reported signifi-
cance is for F test of Δ R2.
Female and White are reference categories for gender and race.
†β = Standardized slope coefficient.
‡
F value reported for the Δ R2 test.

.687). The pattern of significant differences in mean mathemat-

ics achievement between different racial groups remained largely
the same with the introduction of mathematics self-efficacy as a
predictor. The only exception was the White-Asian gap that was
now significant (β = –0.15, p = .009). For a one standard deviation
increase in each of the individual predictors with all remaining
predictors held constant, the increase in mathematics achieve-
ment was –0.08 standard deviations (p < .001) for relative time
spent on mathematics homework, 0.15 standard deviations (p <
.001) for homework support, and 0.47 standard deviations for
mathematics self-efficacy (p < .001).
Model 4. In order to analyze interaction effects, a final model
was fitted that contained the following interactions: race by home-
work support, race by relative time spent on mathematics home-
work, and race by mathematics self-efficacy. Regression results
did not reveal any change in the significance pattern for predic-
tors that were included in Model 3 with estimates of regression
coefficients being very similar to those obtained for Model 3. The
analysis of two by two interactions involving homework-related
variables, self-efficacy, and race revealed a number of significant
effects. First, it was observed that the effect of homework support
on mathematics achievement was significantly different between
White and multiple/other race students. A one standard deviation
increase in homework support caused the mathematics achieve-
ment of White students to increase by 0.14 standard deviations
(p < .001), and that of multiple/other race students to increase by
0.30 standard deviations (p = .003). Second, the effect of relative
mathematics homework time on mathematics achievement was
significantly different between White and Hispanic students. A
one standard deviation increase in relative amount of time spent
on mathematics homework caused the mathematics achievement
of White students to decrease by 0.07 standard deviations (p <
.001), and that of Hispanic students to decrease by 0.14 standard
deviations (p = .011). Third, the effect of mathematics self-efficacy
on mathematics achievement was significantly different between
White and Black students, and between White and Hispanic
students. A one standard deviation increase in mathematics self-

efficacy raised mathematics achievement of White students by

0.51 standard deviations (p < .001), that of Black students by
0.30 standard deviations (p < .001), and that of Hispanic students
by 0.42 standard deviations (p < .001). Model 4 accounted for
approximately 45% (ΔR 2 = 0.01, p < .001) of the total variation in
mathematics achievement. Although the inclusion of interactions
adds little to the proportion of explained variance in mathematics
achievement, such addition is nevertheless significant and reveals
important differences in the effects of continuous predictors on
mathematics achievement across race categories.
Results of MANOVA Analysis
A full factorial repeated measures WLS MANOVA model

was fitted with all possible two-way interactions for factors and
covariates. Nonsignificant interactions obtained in this prelimi-
nary model were dropped and the model reestimated. The final
MANOVA results are summarized in Table 3. By comparing
the pattern of significance of the MANOVA model with that of
the multiple regression Model 4, it becomes clear that the two
approaches generate very similar results. The only predictor that is
not significant in the MANOVA Model is gender (p = .780). The
partial effect size estimates, η2, for the MANOVA model range
from approximately 0 to .104. These estimates provide an indi-
cation of the variance in dependent variable uniquely accounted
for by each predictor. For instance, the partial effect size of .068
for race suggests that about 6.8% of the variation in mathematics
achievement was due to racial differences among students.
Discussion
This study sought to determine the role of homework support
resources, self-efficacy, and proportion of time spent on math-
ematics homework in improving the mathematics achievement of
15-year-olds as measured in PISA 2003. A secondary interest was
in how homework resources may be useful in closing the achieve-

Table 3
MANOVA Analysis Summary for Predicting
Mathematics Achievement
MANOVA
Source SS† df MS F p ηp2
Gender 0.20 1 0.20 0.08 .780 ≈0.00
Race 972.62 4 243.16 94.52 .001 .068
Homework support 200.27 1 200.27 77.86 .001 .015
Relative mathematics homework
93.02 1 93.02 36.14 .001 .007
time
Mathematics self-efficacy 1551.38 1 1551.38 603.01 .001 .104
Race x Homework support 25.10 4 6.28 2.44 .045 .002
Race x Relative mathematics
26.83 4 6.71 2.61 .034 .002
homework time
Race x Mathematics
95.41 4 23.85 9.27 .001 .007
self-efficacy
Error 13323.94 5179 2.57
Marginal Mean Comparisons for Gender and Race

Estimates Pairwise Comparisons
Factor M SE Difference (D) MD SE t p 95% CI d‡
Gender Female 474.29 1.84 Female – Male 0.52 1.88 0.28 .780 (-3.16, 4.21)
Male 473.76 1.80 White – Black 75.46 2.77 27.23 .001 (67.67, 83.24) 0.94
Race White 503.81 1.23 White – Hispanic 40.62 2.68 15.14 .001 (33.09, 48.16) 0.49
Black 428.35 2.48 White – Asian 10.67 5.54 1.92 .544 (-4.90, 26.23) 0.13
White –
Hispanic 463.19 2.38 22.18 4.44 5.00 .001 (9.72, 34.64) 0.27
Multiple/other
Asian 493.14 5.40 Black – Hispanic -34.83 3.44 -10.12 .001 (-44.50, -25.17) -0.42
Multiple/
481.63 4.26 Black – Asian -64.79 5.95 -10.89 .001 (-81.49, -48.09) -0.83
other
Black –
-53.28 4.93 -10.80 .001 (-67.13, -39.42) -0.66
Multiple/other
Hispanic – Asian -29.96 5.90 -5.07 .001 (-46.54, -13.37) -0.34
Hispanic –
-18.44 4.88 -3.78 .002 (-32.16, -4.73) -0.21
Multiple/other
Asian –
11.51 6.88 1.67 .945 (-7.82, 30.84) 0.13
Multiple/other
Note. N = 5,200. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Female and White
are reference categories for gender and race.
†Type III sum of squares.
‡ Square root of the weighted average of the variances in the groups forming the con-
trast used as denominator for Cohen’s d.

ment gap between minority and White students. Achievement

gaps diminished with the introduction of two variables: (a) the
availability of resources for homework completion and (b) the
development of higher levels of mathematics self-efficacy. In gen-
eral, increased proportions of homework time spent on math-
ematics homework decreased mathematics scores. Specifically,
our multiple regression Model 3 with its rather large contribution
of explained variance (44%), offers guidance to teachers, parents,
siblings, tutors, and mentors who provide homework assistance
to 15-year-olds. For Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, the achieve-
ment gap with Whites shrank when mathematics self-efficacy
was introduced in Model 3, suggesting that educators need to
focus on enhancing self-efficacy with respect to mathematics for
all students.
Homework Support Resources
The greater the proportion of homework support resources

that were available to the students, the higher their mathemat-
ics score. For Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, the achievement
gap with Whites shrank when homework support resources were
introduced to the regression equation. Thus, if one were to use
this model to improve mathematics scores as measured in PISA,
one would seek ways to increase student access to the resources
identified with the variables in this analysis. Given that these
resources constitute a form of social capital (Schunk & Meece,
2005), they also have the potential to enhance an individual’s
self-efficacy beliefs. Although some of these resources seem to be
characteristic only of a home site, increasing the number of these
available at any site where homework support is provided should
be viewed as important.
The availability of these resources or the lack thereof has other
implications. Brock, Lapp, Flood, Fisher, and Han (2007) found
that teachers in urban school systems cognizant of the lack of
resources available to some students prompted teachers to avoid
assigning homework requiring resources that the students did
not have. Alternatively, the teachers would attempt to provide

the resources for students to complete their homework. Viewed

in the context of the impact of homework support resources on
mathematics achievement, this illustrates the importance of the
teacher’s awareness of the resources available to students and the
need to structure homework assignments accordingly. The risk
here is that students with fewer resources could be offered assign-
ments below their true potential.
Mathematics Self-Efficacy
For Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, the achievement gap with

Whites was reduced when mathematics self-efficacy was intro-
duced in Model 3. Our Model 4, in which we examined the
interaction of ethnic group with mathematics efficacy, produced
significant interactions in this regard, but only a slight increase
in explained variance. This seems consistent with the ambiguous
findings of others regarding ethnic-efficacy interactions (Britner
& Pajares, 2001; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). Although the ques-
tions used to assess mathematics self-efficacy in this survey seem
very specific, they are within the realm of the mathematics expo-
sure of American 15-year-olds. The implication is not that these
specific content points should be addressed with the students, but
that the students should be helped to the point that they feel effi-
cacious in handling the mathematics content to which they have
been exposed. Based on empirical findings, different methods
can be used to enhance students’ efficacy beliefs. For example,
Usher and Pajares (2006) showed that mastery experiences and
social persuasion were the most potent predictors of academic
self-efficacy for girls while mastery and vicarious experiences were
the most potent predictors of academic self-efficacy for boys. In
terms of ethnic differences, mastery experiences and physiological
states were the most potent predictors of academic self-efficacy
for White students while mastery experiences and social persua-
sion were the most potent predictors of self-efficacy for African
American students. Additional evidence of gender differences
comes from Usher (2009), where interviews with teachers and
parents of middle school students about their child’s performance

in mathematics suggested that parents and teachers were more

likely to attribute girls’ performance to hard work while express-
ing their surprise that boys could perform at such high levels
regardless of their poor work habits. Usher suspected that the
messages that parents and teachers are giving to their students
may be implicitly impacting and informing their self-efficacy
beliefs. In terms of ethnic differences, Usher found that African
American boys tended to rely more heavily on social persuasion
than White students.
Proportion of Homework Time Devoted to Mathematics
Increased proportions of homework time spent on mathe-

matics actually decreased mathematics achievement. Although
this was a surprising finding, a lack of understanding of a sub-
ject can lead to inefficient and disproportionate effort as well
as diminished motivation. Trautwein et al. (2002) found that
while the frequency of homework positively affected mathemat-
ics achievement, the amount and length of time it took middle
school children to complete homework did not have an effect on
achievement in mathematics. When coupled with the work of
Keith et al. (2004), completing homework at school may have a
greater benefit than leaving it for completion outside of school.
Implications for Practice

The results of the present study were based upon a representa-
tive sample of public school 15-year-olds attending 9th, 10th, and
11th grades in U.S. high schools surveyed relative to mathematics
in 2003. Because no allowance was made for differences among
high schools or for other subjects, results are best interpreted for
the general population of 15-year-olds and not for the population
of a particular high school or for implications for other subject
areas. Nevertheless, the findings of the present study have sig-
nificant implications for practice. First, the results revealed that
for teachers, parents, siblings, and tutors who provide homework

assistance to 15-year-olds—whether it be at home, in a school

lab, at a community center study hall, or at the workplace of
a mentor, it is important to provide the site with as many of
the homework resources as possible, particularly for Black and
Hispanic students. This may include creating a library within the
classroom from which the student might check out a calculator,
necessary books, dictionaries, or drawing instruments. Within
the school, the cost of acquiring these resources might come from
the library, textbook, or equipment funds allocated in the school
budget. Alternatively, partnerships with local businesses could
be potential sources of funding for these items, either within the
school or for sites outside the school. Public recognition of such
partnerships and contributions could serve as an inducement for
participation. The teacher can become the source of the simplest
of the items that the student requires, either from his or her own
resources, from those of the school, or from contributions sought
from school patrons. Creating a quiet study environment and
providing a computer with Internet access for homework help
would be desirable enhancements to the study site.
Second, based on the findings of our study, teachers, parents,
siblings, and tutors should make sure that the students feel effica-
cious in handling the mathematics content to which they have
been exposed by creating mastery experiences where students
can feel successful with their work. The object is to create class-
room and homework assignment settings that facilitate a progres-
sion from the easy to the more difficult while increasing student
beliefs in their mathematics efficacy with solution demands rang-
ing from those requiring simple recall to those demanding analy-
sis, synthesis, or evaluation. Within the classroom, the teacher
might structure the homework in such a way that there is dif-
ferentiation for the skill and understanding levels of the students.
For example, success for the mathematically challenged student
could be generated by assigning for those students, and verify-
ing that success within the class, a cluster of problems sufficient
for them to demonstrate that they can solve the less complex
problems. Adding to that, cluster a problem requiring applica-
tion of the technique can serve to increase the students’ belief

that they can apply the technique. For the more able student,
reducing the number of problems offered requiring the lower
level of understanding and substituting problems requiring more
sophisticated application or analysis serves to challenge the more
capable student. In both instances, the efficacy research related
to mastery experiences suggests that verifying that students can
solve the problems, before sending them off to pursue homework,
likely will reduce the proportion of time spent on homework and
increase mathematics achievement. Of course, these strategies
require that the teacher know which students are challenged and
which ones are more capable.
Third, our findings show that increasing the amount of time
spent on mathematics homework does not lead to higher mathe-
matics achievement scores. That is, students who spend a relatively
high proportion of time on mathematics homework are likely to
have low achievement scores, low self-efficacy beliefs, and low
values on homework support resources. This observation fits the
notion that students who have low mathematics scores and spend
more time on mathematics homework do it precisely because of
low self-efficacy and fewer homework support resources. Having
students complete homework at school may have greater benefits
than having them complete it outside of school. Furthermore,
because mathematics self-efficacy beliefs and homework support
resources are related to the time spent on mathematics home-
work, educators should pay particular attention to addressing the
resources and self-efficacy issues.
Providing homework support to the student at sites outside
the mathematics classroom has implications for training those
who help the student. Although it may be unreasonable to expect
every teacher, parent, mentor, or supervisor of a study site to
attend training sessions related to aiding students with math-
ematics homework, it is not unreasonable to offer those oppor-
tunities—either at the school or at neighborhood work sites.
Familiarizing those individuals with the resources likely to be
helpful for mathematics homework completion is a starting point.
Communicating to them the resources needed for a specific unit
(as simple as a ruler or straightedge, compass, and protractor for

geometry activities) constitutes a beginning. Finally, emphasizing

mastery over extensive time spent on homework and acknowl-
edging the differences in the ways students learn is important.
For example, girls and African Americans learn from mastery
and social experiences and boys learn from mastery and vicari-
ous experiences (Usher & Pajares, 2006). Girls can also learn
from hard work and boys can perform at high levels in spite of
seemingly poor work habits (Usher, 2009). Emphasizing, again,
mastery over time spent on the homework is important. It also is
reasonable to point out that we expect those who help the student
to be facilitators of the homework process. We do not expect
them to be masters of mathematics.
Limitations
This study has both statistical and practical limitations. First,
as with every secondary data set, we were limited to the items
that the participants were asked. Some of the items could have
been better worded to elicit more accurate responses. In addition,
given that we pooled all of the students into one group for a linear
regression, we made no adjustment for a second level of analysis in
which characteristics of their schools were considered. Students
are not only nested within schools but are also nested within
classrooms with the classrooms in turn nested within schools.
Although such a three-level hierarchical design can be potentially
more informative, unfortunately our source data do not provide
any classroom level information. For the PISA 2003 survey, stu-
dents were sampled randomly within each school from a list of
all students who were born in the 1987 calendar year without any
regard to which classroom they came from. Thus, even though a
student can be matched with the correct school, there is no way
to tell which classroom the student originated from within that
school. Furthermore, for the schools included in our sample, the
number of students sampled from an individual school ranged
between 3 and 29 (M = 19.70, SD = 5.47), which means that even
if classroom information were available, there would be cases in

our sample where 3 or fewer cases belonged to a classroom. Such

a small number of cases per school or classroom thus rules out
any effective application of two-level or three-level hierarchical
modeling in our study. Future studies using a multilevel analysis
with an alternative data set, given the availability of such data, in
which the school is the level-2 unit could further inform practice.
From the practical perspective, our inability to characterize
specific school settings limits our ability to prescribe practice
in a specific school. The availability of homework resources can
vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. The proportion of
Black and Hispanic students varies from school to school. We
do not know how mathematics self-efficacy is addressed in dif-
ferent schools. We have no knowledge of the specific homework
practices employed in each school. We lack knowledge, in this
data set, of the forms of homework support provided in each
school neighborhood. The absence of this data, however, offers
fruitful ground for a school’s self-assessment of its mathematics
homework policies and practices.
References
Aldous, J. (2006). Family, ethnicity, and immigrant youths’ educational
achievements. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1633–1667.
Balli, S., Wedman, J., & Demo, D. (1997). Family involvement with
middle-grades homework: Effects of differential prompting.
Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 31–48.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Bembenutty, H. (2009). Self-regulation of homework completion.
Psychology Journal, 6, 138–153.
Bembenutty, H. (2011). The last word: An interview with Harris
Cooper—Research, policies, tips, and current perspectives on
homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 342–351.
Bembenutty, H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003, April). The relation of
motivational beliefs and self-regulatory processes to homework comple-
tion and academic achievement. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL.

Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation,

race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271–285.
Brock, C. H., Lapp, D., Flood, J., Fisher, D., & Han, K. T. (2007).
Does homework matter? An investigation of teacher perceptions
about homework practices for children from non-dominant back-
grounds. Urban Education, 42, 349–372.
Carpenter, D., & Ramirez, A. (2008). More than one gap: Dropout
rate gaps between and among Black, Hispanic, and White stu-
dents. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 32–64.
Cooper, H. M. (2009). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step by
step approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships
among attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned
and completed, and student achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 70–83.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J., & Patall, E. (2006). Does homework
improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–
2003. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1–62.
Corno, L., & Xu, J. (2004). Homework as the job of childhood. Theory
Into Practice, 43, 227–233.
Keith, T., Diamond-Hallam, C., & Fine, J. (2004). Longitudinal
effects of in-school and out-of-school homework on high school
grades. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 187–211.
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. (2009). College students’ homework
and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory
beliefs. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 97–110.
Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, H., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams,
T., . . . Jocelyn, L. (2004). International outcomes of learning in
mathematics literacy and problem solving—PISA 2003 results from
the U.S. perspective. Washington, DC: NCES.
Mislevy, R. (1991). Randomization-based inference about latent vari-
able from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56, 177–196.
Mislevy, R., Beaton, A., Kaplan, B., & Sheehan, K. (1992). Estimating
population characteristics form sparse matrix samples of item
responses. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 133–161.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Program for
International Student Assessment [Data file]. Retrieved from http://
nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/datafiles.asp
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005).
PISA 2003: Technical report. Paris, France: Author.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem solv-

ing of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21,
325–344.
Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motiva-
tion. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 27–35.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general
mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 20, 426–443.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regu-
lated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–50.
Plunkett, S., Behnke, A., Sands, T., & Choi, B. (2009). Adolescents’
reports of parental engagement and academic achievement in
immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 257–268.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. (2005). Self-efficacy development in
adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs
during adolescence (pp. 71–96). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Trautwein, U., Köller, O., Schmitz, B., & Baumert, J. (2002). Do
homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analy-
sis in 7th-grade mathematics. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
27, 26–50.
Usher, E. L. (2009). Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy
in mathematics: A qualitative investigation of student, teacher,
and parent perspectives. American Educational Research Journal, 46,
275–314.
Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory
efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 31, 125–141.
Wu, M. (2005). The role of plausible values in large-scale surveys.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 114–128.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2003). Family help and homework management
reported by middle school students. Elementary School Journal, 103,
503–518.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2006). Gender, family help, and homework
management reported by rural middle school students. Journal of
Research in Rural Education, 21, 1–13.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic
regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D.
H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Developing self-regulated

learners: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 13–39). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Students’ perceived respon-
sibility and completion of homework: The role of self-regulatory
beliefs and processes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30,
397–417.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-
regulated learners; Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Copyright of Journal of Advanced Academics is the property of Prufrock Press and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Mathematics Achievement: The Role of Homework and Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematics Achievement: The Role of Homework and Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 ✤ pp.

According to Cooper, homework involves tasks assigned to stu-

Student Assessment (PISA) to examine how homework resources, math-

ematics self-efficacy, and time spent on homework impacted mathemat-

achievement gaps diminished with the increase in availability of home-

work resources and the increase in mathematics self-efficacy. Increased

proportions of homework time spent on mathematics homework were

associated with a decrease in mathematics achievement. These find-

students to complete their homework and structure homework assign-

ments accordingly. Interestingly, the findings also suggest that educators

need to focus on enhancing self-efficacy with respect to mathematics

for all students.

that the use of homework expands the achievement differences

Homework and Academic Achievement

312 Journal of Advanced Academics

tively impact mathematics achievement, the amount of homework

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 313

ment than the fathers’ engagement. Limited research however

Mathematics Self-Efficacy, Homework, and

314 Journal of Advanced Academics

middle school students’ self-efficacy beliefs, whereas all sources

Purpose of the Study

The data come from the 2003 Program for International

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 315

States. The sample comprised of 5,456 students from 274 par-

After listwise deletion, the U.S. sample size was reduced to

316 Journal of Advanced Academics

Mathematics achievement. This variable was based on 85

In a pizza restaurant, you can get a basic pizza with two

Each response was coded as either correct or incorrect with no

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 317

reliability of this scale was (α = 0.86). Item means ranged from

318 Journal of Advanced Academics

1. Thus, the eight items related to this measure were a random

Data Collection Approach

The PISA questionnaire standards required recruiting up to

Data Analytical Approach

Descriptive statistics were reported for all variables. Four

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 319

cacy, and interaction effects were added sequentially in blocks.

Summary statistics for mathematics achievement and its pre-

320 Journal of Advanced Academics

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 321

of time spent on mathematics homework (r = –.06, p < .001).

322 Journal of Advanced Academics

significant differences in mean homework support resources were

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis

Model 1. The first multiple regression equation predicted

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 323

for race with mean mathematics achievement of males exceeding

324 Journal of Advanced Academics

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 325

326 Journal of Advanced Academics

.687). The pattern of significant differences in mean mathemat-

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 327

efficacy raised mathematics achievement of White students by

Results of MANOVA Analysis

A full factorial repeated measures WLS MANOVA model

328 Journal of Advanced Academics

Marginal Mean Comparisons for Gender and Race

Volume 22 ✤ Number 2 ✤ Winter 2011 329

ment gap between minority and White students. Achievement

Homework Support Resources