Discrepancies between students' and teachers' perceptions of homework
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2-2011
Publication Title
Journal of Advanced Academics
Volume
22
Issue
2
First page number:
280
Last page number:
308
Abstract
For homework to help students improve school achievement and develop responsibility and autonomy in academic endeavors in and out of school, the development of teachers' understanding of students' views about homework and their homework behaviors is critical. Whether the subject of the homework is mathematics, reading, or a second language, teachers' and students' understandings regarding the types of problems that students experience during homework may differ. Discrepancies between students' and teachers' ratings of students' homework behaviors were examined in two subject domains—mathematics and English. Moderating effects of gender on student-teacher ratings were also examined. Participants were 268 tenth graders from a school in China and their math and English teachers. Overall, students' self-ratings of homework behaviors were more negative than teachers' ratings. Male students self-rated or were rated by teachers more unfavorably than their female peers on most measures of homework problems. Discrepancies between students and teachers and across gender were more evident in English than math homework. Although teachers viewed female students as having fewer homework problems than males, when only male students were examined, teachers' and male students' ratings were similar on some measures. The importance of understanding students' homework behaviors was underscored before teachers provided homework interventions. To lessen discrepancies and improve awareness of students' homework behaviors, teachers need to grade and provide feedback on students' homework.
Disciplines
Education | Educational Psychology | Psychology
Language
English
Repository Citation
Hong, E.,
Wan, M.,
Peng, Y.
(2011).
Discrepancies between students' and teachers' perceptions of homework.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2),
280-308.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200205