Mathematics Achievement The Role of Homework and Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Volume 22 Number 2 Winter 2011 pp.
310339
Mathematics
Achievement:
The Role of Homework
and Self-Efficacy
Beliefs
Anastasia Kitsantas
Jehanzeb Cheema
Herbert W. Ware
George Mason University
According to Cooper, homework involves tasks assigned to students by schoolteachers that are meant to be carried out during 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 noninstructional 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 selfefficacy 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 ones 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, mathematics self-efficacy, and time spent on homework impacted mathemat-
achievement gaps diminished with the increase in availability of homework 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 findings suggest that educators should attempt to provide the resources for
students to complete their homework and structure homework assignments 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, 310339.
summary
ics achievement across gender and ethnicity. The findings showed that
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, Kller, 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 elementary 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 academic 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 posi312
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 speculated 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 highachieving students. Specifically, the results showed that as teachers assigned more homework in their classes, the achievement
gap between high- and low-achieving students became less evident. 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 achievement relationships between and within ethnic groups by immigrant 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 researchers (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 minority 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 student academic achievement and self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics, particularly among different race groups. Homework support
resources are defined as the different available resources that students 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-regulatory processes with the latter variable playing an especially important 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 helpers educational level
(Xu & Corno, 2003, 2006).
Research findings with regard to race and gender differences 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 mathematics self-efficacy beliefs even when they performed at similar or
higher levels than boys (Pajares, 1996). Researchers also examined 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
314
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 variety 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 important to examine how such predictors of motivation and achievement 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 mathematics 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 science literacy skills of 15-year-olds in the U.S. This survey was
administered by the NCES. Of the three subjects, reading, mathematics, and science, only one subject is surveyed in depth on
a rotational basis each year while the other two are given relatively less attention. In 2003, the primary subject was mathematics (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
315
States. The sample comprised of 5,456 students from 274 participating 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 continuous 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 students 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) provided 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%).
316
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 random 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 technical 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 = 0.98. For each student, the
mean plausible value was used as a measure of mathematics
achievement.
Mathematics self-efficacy. This scale included eight questions that measured a students 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 14, 1 (very confident), 2 (confident), 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
317
reliability of this scale was ( = 0.86). Item means ranged from

1.45 to 2.21, item variances ranged from 0.50 to 0.78, and corrected item-total correlations ranged from .54 to .66.
Relative time spent on mathematics homework. This variable 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 differ 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 mathematics 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 characteristics. 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 dictionaries. 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
318
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 = 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 matter 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 2030-minute long background 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-
319
cacy, and interaction effects were added sequentially in blocks.

Statistical analyses were performed after taking into consideration 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 regression model. In order to evaluate the robustness of the multiple
regression results, a repeated measures WLS MANOVA was fitted 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 verify that model assumptions were not violated. In order to check
for heteroscedasticity, studentized deleted residuals were plotted 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 predictors 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
320
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbachs

Alphas, and Correlations for Mathematics
Achievement and Its Predictors
r
SD
--
--
1. Average
mathematics
achievement
484.19 89.14
2. Mathematics
self-efficacy
0.00 1.00
3. Relative
time spent on
mathematics
homework
0.20
4. Homework
support resources
0.85 0.20
0.17
.86 0.54*
--
-0.17*
- -0.10*
--
.70 0.32* 0.23* -0.06*
Note. N = 5,200.
Cronbachs 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 mathematics. 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 variables. 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
321
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 applying 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,
322
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 mathematics achievement between males and females after controlling
323
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 students, 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 determine 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% (R 2 = .08, p < .001) of the total
variation in mathematics achievement. Thus, the two homeworkrelated predictors accounted for an additional 8% of the total
variation in mathematics achievement over and above that predicted 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 achievement that could be explained by mathematics self-efficacy over
and above that explained by race, gender, and the homeworkrelated predictors. This model accounted for approximately
44% (R 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 homeworkrelated 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 ( = 0.01, p =
324
Table 2
Regression Analysis Summary for Predicting

Mathematics Achievement
Model 1
Predictors
SE B
Model 2
t
SE B
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
mathematics
homework
time
-0.12 0.01 -0.12 -9.83 .001
Homework
support
0.26 0.01 0.25 20.16 .001
R2
0.166
207.41 .001 0.243
261.11 .001
Model 3
Predictors
SE B
Model 4
t
SE B
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
support
0.15 0.01 0.15 13.74 .001 0.14 0.02 0.14 8.44 .001
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
Black
-0.21 0.03 -0.07 -6.14 .001
Mathematics
self-efficacy x
Hispanic
-0.09 0.03 -0.04 -2.98 .003
Mathematics
self-efficacy x
Asian
0.02 0.06 0.00 0.27 .786
325
Table 2, continued
Mathematics
self-efficacy
x Multiple/
other
-0.05 0.05 -0.01 -1.10 .272
Relative
mathematics
homework
time x Black
0.04 0.03 0.02 1.50 .133
Relative
mathematics
homework
time x
Hispanic
-0.07 0.03 -0.03 -2.53 .011
Relative
mathematics
homework
time x Asian
0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.02 .984
Relative
mathematics
homework
time x
Multiple/
other
-0.07 0.05 -0.02 -1.47 .141
Homework
support x
Black
0.01 0.03 0.01 0.36 .722
Homework
support x
Hispanic
0.03 0.03 0.02 1.25 .210
Homework
support x
Asian
-0.06 0.07 -0.01 -0.79 .432
Homework
support x
Multiple/
other
0.16 0.05 0.03 2.99 .003
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 significance is for F test of R2.
Female and White are reference categories for gender and race.
= Standardized slope coefficient.
F value reported for the R2 test.
326
.687). The pattern of significant differences in mean mathematics 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 ( = 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 achievement 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 homework support, race by relative time spent on mathematics homework, and race by mathematics self-efficacy. Regression results
did not reveal any change in the significance pattern for predictors 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 achievement 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-
327
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% (R 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 preliminary 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, 2, for the MANOVA model range
from approximately 0 to .104. These estimates provide an indication 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 mathematics 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 achieve328
Table 3
MANOVA Analysis Summary for Predicting

Mathematics Achievement
MANOVA
Source
SS
df
MS
p2
Gender
0.20
0.20 0.08 .780 0.00
Race
972.62
243.16 94.52 .001 .068
Homework support
200.27
200.27 77.86 .001 .015
Relative mathematics homework

93.02
time
93.02 36.14 .001 .007
Mathematics self-efficacy
1551.38
1551.38 603.01 .001 .104
Race x Homework support
25.10
6.28 2.44 .045 .002
Race x Relative mathematics

homework time
26.83
6.71 2.61 .034 .002
Race x Mathematics
self-efficacy
95.41
23.85 9.27 .001 .007
Error
13323.94 5179 2.57

Marginal Mean Comparisons for Gender and Race
Estimates
Factor
MD
474.29 1.84
Female Male
0.52 1.88
Male
473.76 1.80
White Black
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
Hispanic 463.19 2.38
White
Multiple/other
22.18 4.44
5.00 .001
Asian
Black Hispanic -34.83 3.44 -10.12 .001 (-44.50, -25.17) -0.42
493.14 5.40
Multiple/
481.63 4.26
other
SE
Difference (D)
Gender Female
Race
Pairwise Comparisons
SE
0.28 .780
95% CI
(-3.16, 4.21)
75.46 2.77 27.23 .001 (67.67, 83.24) 0.94
(9.72, 34.64)
0.27
Black Asian
-64.79 5.95 -10.89 .001 (-81.49, -48.09) -0.83
Black
Multiple/other
-53.28 4.93 -10.80 .001 (-67.13, -39.42) -0.66
Hispanic Asian -29.96 5.90 -5.07 .001 (-46.54, -13.37) -0.34

Hispanic
Multiple/other
-18.44 4.88 -3.78 .002 (-32.16, -4.73) -0.21
Asian
Multiple/other
11.51 6.88
1.67 .945 (-7.82, 30.84) 0.13
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 contrast used as denominator for Cohens d.
329
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 general, increased proportions of homework time spent on mathematics 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 achievement 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 mathematics 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 individuals
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
330
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
teachers 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 assignments below their true potential.
Mathematics Self-Efficacy
For Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, the achievement gap with
Whites was reduced when mathematics self-efficacy was introduced 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 questions used to assess mathematics self-efficacy in this survey seem
very specific, they are within the realm of the mathematics exposure 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 efficacious 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 persuasion 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 childs performance
331
in mathematics suggested that parents and teachers were more

likely to attribute girls performance to hard work while expressing 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 mathematics actually decreased mathematics achievement. Although
this was a surprising finding, a lack of understanding of a subject 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 mathematics 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 representative 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 significant implications for practice. First, the results revealed that
for teachers, parents, siblings, and tutors who provide homework
332
assistance to 15-year-oldswhether 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 efficacious 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 classroom and homework assignment settings that facilitate a progression from the easy to the more difficult while increasing student
beliefs in their mathematics efficacy with solution demands ranging from those requiring simple recall to those demanding analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. Within the classroom, the teacher
might structure the homework in such a way that there is differentiation 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 verifying 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 application of the technique can serve to increase the students belief
333
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 mathematics 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 homework, 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 mathematics homework, it is not unreasonable to offer those opportunitieseither 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
334
geometry activities) constitutes a beginning. Finally, emphasizing

mastery over extensive time spent on homework and acknowledging 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 vicarious 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, students 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
335
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 different 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 schools 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, 16331667.
Balli, S., Wedman, J., & Demo, D. (1997). Family involvement with
middle-grades homework: Effects of differential prompting.
Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 3148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Bembenutty, H. (2009). Self-regulation of homework completion.
Psychology Journal, 6, 138153.
Bembenutty, H. (2011). The last word: An interview with Harris
CooperResearch, policies, tips, and current perspectives on
homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 342351.
Bembenutty, H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003, April). The relation of
motivational beliefs and self-regulatory processes to homework completion and academic achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL.
336
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, 271285.
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 backgrounds. Urban Education, 42, 349372.
Carpenter, D., & Ramirez, A. (2008). More than one gap: Dropout
rate gaps between and among Black, Hispanic, and White students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 3264.
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, 7083.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J., & Patall, E. (2006). Does homework
improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987
2003. Review of Educational Research, 76, 162.
Corno, L., & Xu, J. (2004). Homework as the job of childhood. Theory
Into Practice, 43, 227233.
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, 187211.
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. (2009). College students homework
and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory
beliefs. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 97110.
Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, H., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams,
T., . . . Jocelyn, L. (2004). International outcomes of learning in
mathematics literacy and problem solvingPISA 2003 results from
the U.S. perspective. Washington, DC: NCES.
Mislevy, R. (1991). Randomization-based inference about latent variable from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56, 177196.
Mislevy, R., Beaton, A., Kaplan, B., & Sheehan, K. (1992). Estimating
population characteristics form sparse matrix samples of item
responses. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 133161.
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.
337
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21,
325344.
Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 2735.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general
mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 20, 426443.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3350.
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, 257268.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. (2005). Self-efficacy development in
adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs
during adolescence (pp. 7196). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Trautwein, U., Kller, O., Schmitz, B., & Baumert, J. (2002). Do
homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis in 7th-grade mathematics. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
27, 2650.
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,
275314.
Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory
efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 31, 125141.
Wu, M. (2005). The role of plausible values in large-scale surveys.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 114128.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2003). Family help and homework management
reported by middle school students. Elementary School Journal, 103,
503518.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2006). Gender, family help, and homework
management reported by rural middle school students. Journal of
Research in Rural Education, 21, 113.
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
338
learners: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1339). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Students perceived responsibility and completion of homework: The role of self-regulatory
beliefs and processes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30,
397417.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing selfregulated learners; Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
339
About the Authors

Hfer Bembenutty is an assistant professor in educational psychology at Queens College of The City University of New York
in the Department of Secondary and Youth Services, where he
serves as the Department Chair of the Assessment Committee
and coordinates the Brown Bag Seminars. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in educational psychology,
instruction and technology, human development and learning,
classroom management, and multicultural education. Contact
information: Queens College of The City University of New York,
Powdermaker Hall, 150-P, 65-30 Kissena Boulevard, Flushing,
NY 11367-1597; bembenuttyseys@yahoo.com
Janine Bempechat is an associate professor in the Department
of Human Development at Wheelock College. She received
her doctorate in human development and psychology from the
Harvard Graduate School of Education in 1986. Her research
examines family and school influences in the achievement motivation of low-income children and youth. Her research has been
supported by the Spencer Foundation and the W. T. Grant
Foundation. She is co-editor, with David J. Shernoff, of the forthcoming NSSE Yearbook, Engaging Youth in Schools: EmpiricallyBased Models to Guide Future Innovations, to be published in 2013
by Teachers College Press. Contact information: Department of
Human Development, Wheelock College, 200 The Riverway,
Boston, MA 02215; jbempechat@wheelock.edu
Jehanzeb Cheema is a doctoral student in education at George
Mason University. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His areas of interest are HLM, item
response theory, and time series econometrics. He has taught
several introductory and intermediate undergraduate courses in
economics and statistics. At George Mason he is currently affiliated with the College of Education and Human Development and
College of Health and Human Services. Contact information: 11104
Cavalier Ct Apt 3G, Fairfax, VA 22030; jcheema1@gmu.edu
351
About the Authors
Caroline A. Gillis is in the masters program at the Harvard

Graduate School of Education, where she is studying prevention
science and practice. She graduated from Wheelock College with
a bachelors of science in human development. Gillis research
interests are focused on the effects of public school reform
on teachers and students motivation. Contact information:
Longfellow Hall, Room 021-13, Appian Way, Cambridge, MA
02138; cag032@mail.harvard.edu
Susan D. Holloway is a professor of education at University of
California, Berkeley. She earned a Ph.D. from the School of
Education at Stanford in 1983. Her research focuses on schooling
and family processes in the context of class and culture. Her most
recent book, published in 2010 by Cambridge University Press,
is Women and Family in Contemporary Japan. Contact information:
School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, Tolman
Hall 4309, Berkeley, CA 94720; s_hollo@berkeley.edu
Eunsook Hong is professor of educational psychology at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She received her Ph.D. in
educational psychology and technology from the University of
Southern California. Her areas of research interest include creativity, giftedness, self-regulation, and homework. Her books
include Preventing Talent Loss and Homework: Motivation and
Learning Preferences. She has been serving as an editorial board
member for journals in education, creativity, and giftedness.
Contact information: Department of Educational Psychology,
Box 453003, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3003;
eunsook.hong@unlv.nevada.edu
Anastasia Kitsantas is a professor and program coordinator of
the educational psychology program in the College of Education
and Human Development at George Mason University. Her
research interests focus on the development of self-regulated
learning, learner motivational beliefs, self-efficacy, and peak performance in academic, athletic, and health-related domains. She
is the author or coauthor of more than 80 publications, many of
352
which are directed toward the training of individuals to become

self-regulated learners. She has worked on several funded projects and is the recipient of a George Mason University Teaching
Excellence Award. Contact information: College of Education and
Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
22030; akitsant@gmu.edu
Jin Li is an associate professor of education and human development at Brown University. Originally from China, she received
her doctorate in human development and psychology from
Harvard University. Her research examines cultural learning
models and how such culturally based models shape childrens
learning beliefs and achievement. She has studied Chinese and
Taiwanese children, as well as Chinese American and European
American children. Currently, Li is conducting a large longitudinal study on how Chinese immigrant and European American
preschool children develop learning beliefs and how they are
socialized at home. Contact information: Box 1938, Education
Department, Brown University, 340 Brook Street, Providence,
RI 02912; Jin_Li@Brown.edu
Shelby M. Neier is in the masters program at Tufts University
in the Department of Child Development, where she is studying children with special needs. She graduated from Wheelock
College with a bachelors of science where she had a major in
human development with a focus in psychology and a major in
interdisciplinary math and science, as well as a minor in elementary education. Her research interests are focused on achievement
motivation and children with special needs. Contact information:
Tufts University, 105 College Ave, Medford, MA 02155; shelby.
neier@gmail.com
Yun Peng earned her bachelors of science in educational technology at South China Normal University in China and graduated
from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) with a masters degree in educational psychology. She is currently a doctoral student in educational psychology at UNLV. Her research
353
Herbert W. Ware is associated with George Mason University.

He has a Ph.D. in measurement and statistics and is a former
mathematics teacher, research coordinator, and school principal
with the Arlington, VA, public school system. As an elementary
school principal in a school with high percentages of low-income
and Latino students, he worked with the staff and parents to
introduce a program fostering home-school cooperation and to
introduce the school systems differentiated instruction approach
to teaching the gifted. His primary research interests lie in the
analysis of large data sets for factors affecting student achievement. Contact information: 2416 Newton St., Vienna, VA 22181;
Hwware@aol.com
Barry J. Zimmerman is a distinguished professor of educational
psychology at the Graduate School and University Center of The
City University of New York. He served as President of Division
15 of the American Psychological Association (Educational
Psychology). He has received the Senior Scientist Award of
American Psychological Association Division 16 (School
Psychology) and the Sylvia Scribner Award of the American
Educational Research Association for exemplary research in
learning and instruction. He has received grants from the U.S.
Department of Education and the Institute for Educational
Science to carry out instructional interventions to enhance academic self-regulation by at-risk students. He has also conducted
research on families self-regulation of childrens asthma funded
by grants from the U.S. Institutes of Health. He received the
New York City Department of Health Award for preventive care
of childhood asthma and was elected Chair of the Behavioral
Science Assembly of the American Thoracic Association and
a council member of the American Lung Association. Contact
information: Graduate School and University Center, The City
University of New York, New York, NY 10016; bzimmerman@
gc.cuny.edu
355
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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.

Copyright 2011 Prufrock Press, P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714

Homework and Mathematics Achievement

that the use of homework expands the achievement differences

Homework and Academic Achievement

Journal of Advanced Academics

Kitsantas, Cheema, and Ware

tively impact mathematics achievement, the amount of homework

Volume 22 Number 2 Winter 2011

Homework and Mathematics Achievement

ment than the fathers engagement. Limited research however

Mathematics Self-Efficacy, Homework, and

Journal of Advanced Academics

Kitsantas, Cheema, and Ware

middle school students self-efficacy beliefs, whereas all sources

Purpose of the Study

Homework and Mathematics Achievement

Journal of Advanced Academics

Kitsantas, Cheema, and Ware

Volume 22 Number 2 Winter 2011

Homework and Mathematics Achievement

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

Journal of Advanced Academics

Kitsantas, Cheema, and Ware

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

Data Collection Approach

Data Analytical Approach

Volume 22 Number 2 Winter 2011

Homework and Mathematics Achievement

cacy, and interaction effects were added sequentially in blocks.

Journal of Advanced Academics

Kitsantas, Cheema, and Ware

Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbachs

.70 0.32* 0.23* -0.06*

These variables were standardized before inclusion in the regression models.

Homework and Mathematics Achievement

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

Journal of Advanced Academics

Kitsantas, Cheema, and Ware

significant differences in mean homework support resources were

Volume 22 Number 2 Winter 2011

Homework and Mathematics Achievement

for race with mean mathematics achievement of males exceeding

Journal of Advanced Academics

Kitsantas, Cheema, and Ware

Regression Analysis Summary for Predicting

-0.12 0.01 -0.12 -9.83 .001

0.26 0.01 0.25 20.16 .001

207.41 .001 0.243

-0.21 0.03 -0.07 -6.14 .001

-0.09 0.03 -0.04 -2.98 .003

0.02 0.06 0.00 0.27 .786

Volume 22 Number 2 Winter 2011

Homework and Mathematics Achievement

-0.05 0.05 -0.01 -1.10 .272

0.04 0.03 0.02 1.50 .133

-0.07 0.03 -0.03 -2.53 .011

0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.02 .984

-0.07 0.05 -0.02 -1.47 .141

0.01 0.03 0.01 0.36 .722

0.03 0.03 0.02 1.25 .210

-0.06 0.07 -0.01 -0.79 .432

0.16 0.05 0.03 2.99 .003