Homework and Primary-School Students' Academic Achievement in Latin America

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/264674979
Homework and primary-school students’ academic achievement in Latin

America
Article in International Review of Education · August 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s11159-014-9440-2
CITATIONS READS
9 3,256
2 authors:
F. Javier Murillo Cynthia Martínez-Garrido

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid University of Granada
229 PUBLICATIONS 2,764 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 259 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Asesoramiento a centros educativos para la Justicia Social - Tesis Doctoral View project
¿Qué educación para la ciudadanía necesitamos? View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Cynthia Martínez-Garrido on 13 August 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Homework and primary-school students’
academic achievement in Latin America
F. Javier Murillo & Cynthia Martinez-

Garrido
International Review of Education

Journal of Lifelong Learning
ISSN 0020-8566
Int Rev Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11159-014-9440-2
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO
Institute for Lifelong Learning. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Int Rev Educ
DOI 10.1007/s11159-014-9440-2
Homework and primary-school students’ academic

achievement in Latin America
F. Javier Murillo • Cynthia Martinez-Garrido
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2014
Abstract This paper explores teachers’ habits (1) in terms of setting homework
for their students and (2) in terms of building on homework in the classroom. Based
on data collected in UNESCO’s Second Regional Comparative and Explanatory
Study (SERCE), the sample size of this analysis is about 200,000 Primary Grade 3
and 6 students in 16 Latin American countries. SERCE applied standardised
achievement tests and context questionnaires to these students, their families,
teachers and principals of the schools involved. Choosing four aspects (student,
classroom, school and country) for their multilevel study and focusing on two
subjects (Mathematics and Language), the authors of this paper investigated the
relationship between homework and students’ academic achievement. The results of
their analysis show that the majority of Latin American teachers set homework in all
or almost all classes. Ninety per cent of the teachers estimated that it took their
students between 15 and 30 minutes to complete their homework. Follow-up figures
in terms of checking and correcting homework were somewhat lower, as was the
number of teachers who actually built on homework in teaching sessions. This study
highlights the importance of following up on the contents covered in homework in
the classroom to maximise effective learning.
Keywords Homework School performance Academic achievement Teaching

methodology Elementary education Latin America
Résumé Devoirs et succès scolaires des élèves primaires en Amérique latine – Les
auteurs de l’article examinent les habitudes des enseignants d’une part quant à la
F. J. Murillo C. Martinez-Garrido (&)

Facultad de Formación de Profesorado y Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Desk III-302. Avda. Tomás y Valiente. 3, 28049 Madrid, Spain
e-mail: cynthia.martinez@uam.es
F. J. Murillo
e-mail: javier.murillo@uam.es
123
F. J. Murillo, C. Martinez-Garrido
distribution de devoirs aux élèves, et d’autre part à la reprise du contenu des devoirs
en classe. Provenant des données collectées pour la Deuxième étude régionale
comparative et explicative de l’UNESCO (SERCE), la taille de l’échantillon pour
cette analyse était d’environ 200 000 élèves de 3e et 6e classes primaires réparties
dans 16 pays latino-américains. L’étude SERCE avait administré des tests d’apti-
tudes standardisés et des questionnaires contextuels à ces élèves et à leurs familles
ainsi qu’aux enseignants et directeurs des écoles participantes. Ayant sélectionné
quatre facteurs (élève, classe, établissement et pays) pour leur étude multi-niveaux
et se limitant à deux matières (calcul et langue), les auteurs ont exploré la relation
entre devoirs et réussite scolaire des élèves. Les résultats de leur analyse indiquent
que la majorité des enseignants latino-américains donnent des devoirs dans toutes
les classes ou presque. Quatre-vingt-dix pour cent d’entre eux estiment que les
élèves ont besoin d‘un temps de travail de 15 à 30 minutes pour effectuer ces
devoirs. Les chiffres complémentaires relatifs à la vérification et à la correction des
devoirs sont légèrement plus faibles, de même que le nombre d’enseignants qui
intègrent les résultats des devoirs dans les séquences d’enseignement. Cette étude
souligne l’importance de reprendre en classe le contenu des devoirs afin d’optimiser
l’efficacité de l’apprentissage.
Resumen Este artı́culo explora los hábitos de los docentes al mandar deberes a sus
estudiantes(1) y cómo los docentes utilizan los deberes en el aula. A través de los
datos recogidos por el SERCE (Segundo estudio regional comparativo y explicativo
de la UNESCO), la muestra del estudio se conforma de más de 200.000 estudiantes
de 3 y 6 de Primaria de 16 paı́ses Latinoamericanos. El estudio SERCE aplica
pruebas de rendimiento estandarizadas, cuestionarios de contexto a los estudiantes,
sus familias, los docentes y los directores escolares de las escuelas participantes.
Elaboramos un estudio multinivel para rendimiento en Lengua y Matemáticas de
cuatro niveles de análisis (estudiante, aula, escuela y paı́s). Los resultados de los
análisis muestran que la mayorı́a de los docentes latinoamericanos encargan deberes
en todas o casi todas sus clases. El 90% de los docentes estiman que sus estudiantes
necesitarán entre 15 y 30 minutos para finalizar los deberes encargados. Corregir y
comprobar si los deberes se realizan es una actividad menos realizada por los
docentes, ası́ como incorporar lo trabajado en los deberes como temario del aula.
Este estudio subraya la importancia de corregir los deberes e incorporarlas como
contenidos de las sesiones de clase para maximizar el aprendizaje de los estudiantes.
Introduction
For several decades, there has been a debate about the benefits of setting homework,
the minimum age of students to set homework for, the appropriate kind and quantity
of tasks. Since the mid-19th century, homework has been used as a supplement for
the curriculum. The importance of homework in various political, economic and
socio-educational contexts saw considerable fluctuations during this period (Gordon
1980). Throughout the 20th century, homework was the subject of public interest
and research (Cooper and Valentine 2001, Gill and Schlossman 1996). Worldwide
123
Homework and a academic achievement in Latin America
there were times when homework was common, and other times when it was
frowned upon (Kohn 2006; Kralovec and Buell 2000).
Nowadays, most countries recommend the use of homework. For example, in
1997, the UK government released its White Paper: Excellence in Schools (DfEE
1997), in which the importance of using homework is highlighted. In the United
States, an Act of Congress entitled No child left behind was passed in 2001 (U. S.
DoE 2002); it was based on the recommendations of the National Parent Teacher
Association (PTA). Studies conducted in Latin American countries, e.g. the one by
Fernando Reimers (2000) or our own (Murillo 2007; Murillo and Martinez-Garrido
2013), also demonstrate the positive effect of homework on students’ academic
achievement. All three studies recommended that primary-school students should
increase the time they dedicate to homework by 10 minutes per day.
Our present paper analyses teachers’ habits (1) in terms of setting homework for
their students and (2) in terms of building on homework in the classroom, and tries
to analyse the correlation of these habits with students’ academic achievement.
Literature review
We can define homework as ‘‘the work assigned to students by their teachers

intended to be done in extracurricular hours’’ (Cooper 1989, p. 7). Despite the term
homework, the set tasks can be completed at school (Hallam 2006). The main
feature of homework is that the main responsibility for carrying it out lies with the
student. In the case of younger students, this responsibility is shared with their
family.
For several decades, research on homework focused on the study of its impact on
the improvement of the student’s learning skills. As early as 1927, Henry H. Hagen
found clear relationships comparing the effects of homework on the academic
achievement of 11-and 12-year-old students (Hagen 1927). Research on homework
has increased dramatically since then. For example, between 1960 and 1987,
research on homework resulted in at least a dozen research reviews on the subject,
with a great variety of conclusions.
There are two main reviews of research on homework: The first was developed
by Harris Cooper in 1980. This review analyses 120 empirical studies on the effects
of homework, and on the characteristics of successful tasks (Cooper 1989). The
second is a review by Cooper and two co-authors, Jorgianne Civey Robinson and
Erika A. Patall (Cooper et al. 2006), which summarises the studies carried out in this
area until 2005.
In his first review of 1980, Cooper addressed three types of studies: (1) Those
which analysed the performance of students who did homework compared to those
who did not. His section on this type of study reviewed the results of 20 independent
studies. Fourteen of those studies claimed that homework is a useful tool for
improving academic performance. The main conclusion of this type of study is the
discovery of the impact of homework on students: neutral effects in primary
education, moderate positive effects in lower secondary education, and very clear
effectiveness (69% improvement) in high school. (2) Studies comparing the effect
123
of homework on students who completed their tasks and those who did not. In this
case, the effect of homework varied depending on the students’ level of education.
(3) Studies which analysed the effect of homework on student learning skills in
relation to the amount of time dedicated to completing the homework. In this
section, Cooper reviewed 50 studies. Out of these 50 studies, 43 found a positive
relationship between variables.
Cooper’s next review compared other interesting research which analysed several
studies on the relationship between homework and academic performance (Cooper
et al. 2006). In this work, the authors reviewed 32 studies which addressed the
relationship between these two variables controlling other variables: variable
product (academic performance), the subject, the grade level, and parental help in
doing homework. The results showed 69 correlations between homework and
student performance. Fifty of these correlations established a positive relationship
between the variables. This review also claimed that the effects of homework on
academic performance were positive for high school students, and slightly negative
for primary education grades.
Further studies agreed with Cooper’s reviews, providing evidence of the
existence of a positive influence between homework and the improvement of
students’ academic achievement (Dettmers et al. 2010; Marzano and Pickering
2007; Rønning 2010; Trautwein and Köller 2003a, b).
In the course of their review, Cooper et al. (2006) investigated the effect of the
time variable. They stated that there is an important correlation between the time
dedicated to homework and the student’s academic performance in the classroom.
Ulrich Trautwein et al. (2001) also agreed that students who spend more time doing
their homework do better in the subject concerned than students who dedicate less
time to completing their homework. Moreover, Cooper et al. (1998), as well as
Joyce Epstein (1988) and Laura Muhlenbruck et al. (2000), claimed that students
with less developed learning skills require more time to complete their homework
successfully. In addition, these students need extra time to finish tasks challenging
thinking skills (Garner 1978; Keith et al. 1993). Considering this, the amount of
time a student dedicates to completing homework is not a clear indicator of the
degree of success which might be expected.
Julia Wai-Yin Lam (1996) studied the optimal amount of daily homework
teachers should set for students. Her results showed the relationship between the
amount of time high school students dedicate to the tasks and their academic
success. Students who dedicated between 7 and 12 hours per week to completing
their homework had a noticeable academic improvement over those who dedicated
between 13 and 20 hours per week. According to Lam, the maximum benefits for
academic performance in high school are achieved by dedicating between 1.5 to
2.5 hours per day to the completion of homework.
Several studies (Marzano and Pickering 2007; Rønning 2010; Trautwein and
Köller 2003a) agree that homework is a ‘‘powerful tool’’ for children’s educational
advancement and development. Homework is a cost-effective instrument for solving
some of the most difficult problems of education: academic failure, low motivation
of students, or a bad family–school relationship (Hong et al. 2004; Murillo et al.
2011; Marzano and Pickering 2007; Trautwein and Köller 2003).
123
Based on the data of the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMMS) (Mullis et al. 2005), David Baker et al. (2005) showed that in
countries where teachers set poorly-designed homework for their students, the
average academic performance decreased even if the students completed a lot of
homework. This evidence confirms that the design of homework is one of the main
factors in improving the influence of homework on academic performance. The
teacher’s ability to base homework on students’ individual aptitudes and preferences
is essential. Unfortunately, research on homework shows that many teachers do not
know much about these issues. Teachers usually design the homework according to
their personal preferences instead of prioritising students’ affinities (Campbell 1990;
Mills and Stevens 1998; Pape et al. 2002; Pettigrew and Buell 1989).
A study conducted by Torberg Falch and Marte Rønning (2011) used data from
16 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) which participated in TIMSS 2007. This sample comprised
Grade 3 or 4 classrooms with a common teacher for Science and Maths. The results
warn about an overestimation in the measurement of the effect of homework on
academic performance if the research of homework does not consider teachers’
characteristics. The findings of this research do not differentiate between the
importance of homework and classroom work. Falch and Rønning conclude that it is
possible that the effect of homework may depend on the type of educational
institution the student participants were attending.
In this paper we focus on the homework-setting habits of Latin American
teachers and explore their relationship with students’ academic achievement.
Method
Our research had two main aims:

(1) to describe the habits of teachers regarding the setting and evaluation of
homework in Maths and Language1; and
(2) to determine the impact of homework on students’ academic achievement.
Our key hypotheses are:
H1. There is a correlation between students’ academic achievement and the
frequency with which their teachers set them homework.
H2. There is a strong correlation between the time dedicated to completing
homework and students’ academic achievement.
H3. Students’ academic achievement improves if the teacher checks their
homework in class.
H4. Students’ academic achievement depends on the use of homework in class in
terms of whether the teacher builds on it in subsequent lessons.
1
The subject termed ‘‘Language’’ in our paper refers to reading proficiency in the students’ native
language/language of instruction, i.e. Spanish for some of the Latin American countries and Portuguese
for others.
123
All our hypotheses were tested on students enrolled in Primary Grades 3 and 6 in
Latin America.2 Since all of our hypotheses concern two grades and two curricular
areas (Maths and Language), we validated 16 hypotheses.3 By achievement we
mean students’ overall academic performance without considering the influence of
external factors such as gender, cultural and socioeconomic background, and
students’ mother tongue. To conduct our research, we used the database of
UNESCO’s Second Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study (SERCE),
(LLECE 2008), whose main objective was to describe the way Latin American
students learn Maths and Language. This database contains the results of standard
performance tests applied to more than 200,000 students from 16 countries. The
results for each student in the database were linked to particular information coming
from context questionnaires filled in by the students, their families, teachers, and
principals of the schools involved. Our research used the above-mentioned database
to find out more about the use of homework and its impact on students’ academic
achievement. The quality of the database and the large sample studied ensured the
reliability of the results we obtained from our study.
In order to address the objectives mentioned above, besides descriptive statistics,
our study used multilevel models with four levels of analysis (student, class, school
and country). Since Mexico decided not to collect data from the student’s families,
our second objective does not consider the data from this country.
The variables we used in our study can be organised into three groups:
homework, students’ academic achievement, and control variables:
• Variables related to homework: (1) Homework-setting frequency; (2) Estimated
time required for completing homework; (3) Number of times the teacher checks
the homework; and (4) Number of times the teacher builds on homework in class
to teach new concepts.
• Variables related to students’ academic achievement: (1) Performance in Maths;
and (2) Reading proficiency. These two variables were calculated using Item
Response Theory (IRT), averaging more than 500 responses and keeping the
standard deviation below 50.
• Control variables: (1) Socioeconomic level of each student’s family, obtained
from the standard evaluation of the parents’ profession and the family’s
possessions (in terms of the number of books in the home); (2) Cultural level of
the family, average of the qualifications held by students’ parents; (3) Gender
(dummy variable); (4) Student‘s mother tongue (dummy variable); (5) Number
of years the student spent in pre-primary education; (6) Socioeconomic
background of the school’s catchment area (information obtained from the
principal of the school); and (7) Human Development Index (HDI), standard
2
In Latin America, some children go to kindergarten or preschool. They enter primary school (Primary
Grades 1–6, in some countries 1–7), which is free and compulsory, when they are about six years old.
They proceed to secondary school (Secondary Grades 7–12, in some countries 8–12) when they are about
twelve years old. Table 1 lists the 16 Latin American countries we considered in our research.
3
H1 Grade 3 Maths (H1-3m), H1 Grade 6 Maths (H1-6m), H1 Grade 3 Language (H1-3l), H1 Grade 6
Language (H1-6l), and so on for H2, H3 and H4.
123
variable for each country obtained from the official data published by UNESCO
in 2006.
The population for this study consisted of Primary Grade 3 students (aged 8–9) and
Primary Grade 6 students (aged 11–12) from 16 Latin American countries. Our
study analysed information collected from almost 10 million students for each grade
(see Table 1). The sample we used in our study can be broken down as follows:
(1) Primary Grade 3: 95,053 students studying in 2,969 different schools and
4,271 classrooms in 16 Latin American countries.
(2) Primary Grade 6: 91,223 students from the same schools and 3,903 classrooms
in the same schools.
Our sample for each country was selected through stratified random cluster
sampling. The criteria for stratification were based on: management and geographic
area (urban public [free], urban private [fee-charging], and rural); school size (small
if there was only one class per grade in the school; middle if there were two or three
sections per grade in the school; and large if there were four or more classes per
grade in the school); and the relationship between tuition fees among students of
Grades 3 and 6 (R6/3 C 0.8; 0 \ R6/3 \ 0.8; R6/3 = 0; and fees of 3 = 0). Each
cluster sampled a group of selected schools. The sample of students in each cluster
was composed of all students attending the selected schools in each cluster.
The three kinds of variables described above were collected from the following
sources:
• Information about homework was obtained from a questionnaire filled in by
teachers of Maths and Language who taught Primary Grade 3 and Grade 6
classes.
• Performance variables were obtained from a standard test approved by all the countries
in the database. All countries’ tests were administered using the matrix sampling
strategy. The test considered the common curriculum elements in the region, and
evaluated them from the point of view of life skills. The items of the test were designed
to evaluate the use of codes and rules which form the conceptual fields of each
discipline. The items emphasised the ability to infer meanings from a contextual
situation and being able to solve problems related to the students’ daily life.
• Control variables were obtained through questionnaires completed by students
(gender and native language), their families (cultural and socioeconomic
situation of the family and years of student’s pre-primary education), and school
managers (socioeconomic level of the school’s catchment area).
To investigate teachers’ homework-setting habits, we applied descriptive analysis to
each country. We estimated the final score of the region of Latin America as a
whole by averaging the results of each country.
We evaluated the relationship between effort and academic achievement using
multilevel models (Goldstein 2010; Leeuw and Meijer 2008). The product variables
were calculated using the following procedure: (1) estimating the null model; (2)
using the adjustment variables to calculate the model; and (3) including the
variables related to homework in the adjusted model.
123
Table 1 Sample of schools, teachers and students by country

Country Number of schools Number of teachers Number of students
Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 3 Grade 6
Argentina 167 312 353 6,663 6,696

Brazil 157 252 245 5,711 5,456
Colombia 203 300 207 5,902 6,035
Costa Rica 171 180 150 5,233 4,766
Cuba 206 370 383 5,293 5,910
Chile 165 281 263 6,136 7,025
Ecuador 192 224 215 5,349 5,427
El Salvador 182 256 235 7,474 6,346
Guatemala 231 313 267 7,095 5,560
Mexico 160 219 220 4,753 4,861
Nicaragua 205 289 250 6,885 6,789
Panama 155 294 247 6,476 5,655
Paraguay 209 234 208 5,506 4,839
Peru 165 238 243 4,814 4,701
Dominican Rep. 183 167 114 4,554 4,646
Uruguay 218 342 303 7,209 6,511
Total 2,969 4,271 3,903 95,053 91,223
Source This table is based on LLECE (2008, p. 58)
We estimated 16 multilevel models, one for each hypothesis. All of them were
analogous to the following:
yijkl ¼ b0jkl þ b1jkl NSEijkl þ b2jkl NCulturalijkl þ b3jkl Preschoolijkl þ b4jkl Genderijkl
þ b5jkl LMijkl þ þb6l NSE schoolkl þ b7 IDH countryl þ b8kl TCjkl þ eijkl
b0jkl ¼ b0 þ /0l þ t0kl þ l0jkl
b1jkl ¼ b1 þ /1l þ t1kl þ l1jkl . . .:b5jkl ¼ b5 þ /5l þ t5kl þ l5jkl
b6l ¼ b6 þ /6l
b8kl ¼ b8 þ /8l þ t8kl
With:
h i
e0ijkl Nð0; Xe Þ : Xe ¼ r2e0
h i
l0jkl Nð0; Xl Þ : Xl ¼ r2l0
h i
½t0kl Nð0; Xt Þ : Xt ¼ r2t0
h i
½/0l Nð0; X/ Þ : X/ ¼ r2/0
123
Where:
yijkl are different measures of student performance;
NSEijkl specifies the socioeconomic level of the student’s family;
NCulturalijkl specifies the cultural level of the student’s family;
Preschoolijkl gives the number of years the student spent in pre-primary
education;
Genderijkl specifies whether the student is a boy or girl;
LMijkl specifies the student’s mother tongue: Spanish/Portuguese or other;
NSE_schooljkl specifies the socioeconomic level of the school’s catchment area;
IDH_countryk gives the Human Development Index for each country; and
TCijkl are the variables concerning homework.
Results
Our results report and describe what has been found in Latin American countries.
These findings can be grouped into two independent sections: One is a descriptive
analysis of the uses of homework. The other is a study of the impact of homework
on academic achievement.
Homework in Latin America
Setting homework is a widespread habit among teachers in Latin America. The data
show that over 99 per cent of Primary Grade 3 and 6 teachers set homework at least
once per week in Maths and Language.
More specifically, between 45 and 50 per cent of teachers set homework in most
classes, and about 35 and 38 per cent do it in all. Table 2 shows that Maths teachers
set more homework than Language teachers. Table 3 shows that Grade 3 teachers
set more homework than Grade 6 teachers.
Within this general trend we identified three different models which can be
grouped by countries:
a) Countries where most teachers set homework every day: Cuba, Guatemala,
Nicaragua and Peru.
b) Countries where most teachers set homework in 70–80 per cent of their classes:
Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, and Paraguay.
c) Countries where most teachers set homework in less than 70 per cent of their
classes: Chile.
There are four countries whose trends can be explained with more than one model
depending on the grade and/or curriculum area: Colombia, Ecuador and the
Dominican Republic can be explained with models a) and b) while Uruguay fits in
models b) and c). That a country fits into one model and not into another can only be
explained by considering its cultural background and tradition.
123
Table 2 Frequency of times the teacher set Maths and Language homework for Primary Grade 3
students
Mathematics Language
All Most Some Never All Most Some Never

classes classes classes classes classes classes
Argentina 28.73 46.18 21.82 3.27 25.53 41.13 30.50 2.84

Brazil 27.53 51.42 21.05 0.00 25.61 56.50 17.89 0.00
Colombia 51.74 40.93 7.34 0.00 44.75 44.75 10.51 0.00
Costa Rica 12.21 61.07 26.72 0.00 7.14 61.11 31.75 0.00
Cuba 90.17 9.15 0.68 0.00 87.07 11.90 1.02 0.00
Chile 11.76 38.82 46.47 2.94 13.95 36.63 45.35 4.07
Ecuador 53.54 38.38 8.08 0.00 47.94 39.18 12.89 0.00
El Salvador 35.74 55.96 8.30 0.00 28.88 56.32 14.80 0.00
Guatemala 45.96 43.51 10.53 0.00 42.29 41.22 16.49 0.00
Mexico 28.71 57.92 13.37 0.00 35.58 50.48 13.94 0.00
Nicaragua 69.74 25.46 4.80 0.00 71.59 22.51 5.90 0.00
Panama 30.57 48.30 20.75 0.38 17.23 43.82 38.58 0.37
Paraguay 23.53 55.88 20.59 0.00 16.26 47.15 36.59 0.00
Peru 48.67 38.05 12.83 0.44 48.46 34.80 16.74 0.00
Dominican Rep. 42.42 53.94 3.03 0.61 52.38 39.68 7.14 0.79
Uruguay 14.59 52.58 28.27 4.56 9.15 44.21 42.99 3.66
Country average 38.48 44.85 15.91 0.76 35.86 41.96 21.44 0.73
Total Latin America 34.09 49.26 16.31 0.34 34.20 47.44 18.04 0.31
Source This table/our research is based on LLECE (2008)
Average homework completion time
We conducted a survey among the teachers involved in this study to estimate the
average time the teacher thinks the students are going to require to finish their
homework. The 59.6 per cent (Grade 3) and 46.4 per cent (Grade 6) of Maths teachers
and 61.1 per cent and 56.0 per cent of Language teachers (teaching Grades 3 and 6
respectively) believed that it would take 15–30 minutes (see Figures 1 and 2).
The teachers’ estimates in terms of the time their students would require to complete
their homework depended on the country they were teaching in. For example, teachers
from Chile and Nicaragua thought their students would need less time to finish their
homework. On the other hand, teachers from Peru, El Salvador, or Colombia think their
students will need more time (*30 minutes) to complete their homework.
Correction and evaluation of homework
In the survey, the teachers were asked about their habits on the correction and
evaluation of the homework. Table 4 shows that over 80 per cent of the Maths or
123
Table 3 Frequency of times the teacher sets Maths and Language homework for Primary Grade 6
students

Argentina 20.83 43.52 32.41 3.24 23.56 41.78 32.44 2.22

Brazil 22.39 54.73 20.90 1.99 18.69 52.02 26.26 3.03
Colombia 26.86 57.71 15.43 0.00 17.88 53.07 24.58 4.47
Costa Rica 16.05 50.62 33.33 0.00 19.61 52.94 27.45 0.00
Cuba 90.07 8.56 1.37 0.00 84.21 15.09 0.70 0.00
Chile 6.67 36.67 53.33 3.33 8.45 34.51 54.23 2.82
Ecuador 57.95 34.66 7.39 0.00 40.43 44.68 14.89 0.00
El Salvador 31.16 53.02 15.35 0.47 22.54 60.09 17.37 0.00
Guatemala 48.62 42.66 8.72 0.00 35.56 49.33 15.11 0.00
Mexico 39.51 48.78 11.71 0.00 39.06 48.44 12.50 0.00
Nicaragua 70.18 25.00 4.82 0.00 68.92 24.77 6.31 0.00
Panama 29.33 50.67 19.11 0.89 14.60 44.25 40.71 0.44
Paraguay 25.76 52.84 20.52 0.87 11.26 52.25 34.68 1.80
Peru 55.56 33.89 10.56 0.00 46.24 39.78 13.98 0.00
Dominican Rep. 42.31 51.54 6.15 0.00 53.91 42.19 3.91 0.00
Uruguay 11.58 43.86 41.40 3.16 8.97 32.76 54.48 3.79
Country average 37.18 43.05 18.91 0.87 32.12 43.00 23.73 1.16
Figure 1 Teachers’ estimation of the amount of time Primary Grade 3 students require to finish their
Maths/Language homework. Source This figure/our research is based on LLECE (2008).
123
Figure 2 Teachers’ estimation of the amount of time Primary Grade 6 students require to finish their
Maths/Language homework. Source This figure/our research is based on LLECE (2008)
Language teachers stated that they corrected the homework they had set for their
students in the previous session in more than 80 per cent of their classes.
This behaviour is constant in every country included in our study. In Brazil,
however, 44 per cent of Grade 3 teachers and 32 per cent of Grade 6 teachers
admitted that they corrected homework less than 20 per cent of the times they set it
for the students. In Chile, these figures were in the range of 25–30 per cent (Grades
3 and 6, respectively), and in Nicaragua, 16 per cent and 18 per cent (Grades 3 and
6, respectively) (Table 4).
Frequency of building on set homework
The fourth variable we analysed was the frequency with which teachers use
homework as a basis for classroom teaching. Thirty-three per cent of the teachers
said they built on homework in all their classes. Another 33 per cent stated they used
homework in more than 70 per cent of their teaching sessions. Only 4.5 per cent
admitted that they did not use homework in class. This trend was observed in both
Maths and Language teachers teaching Grades 3 and 6 (Tables 5, 6, 7).
There is a relationship between the teachers’ habits and which country they
were teaching in. Countries where the majority of teachers always use homework
(regardless of grade or subject area) are Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama. The
countries where the majority of teachers admitted using homework in the
dynamics of some classes are Mexico and Uruguay. This distribution can only be
explained considering the cultural background and tradition of each country
respectively.
123
Table 4 Frequency of times the teacher corrects the homework set for Grade 3 Maths and Language
students

Argentina 60.94 28.52 10.55 0.00 64.53 26.42 9.06 0.00

Brazil 27.54 26.69 31.78 13.98 31.20 26.50 29.91 12.39
Colombia 61.45 33.33 5.22 0.00 58.92 34.44 6.64 0.00
Costa Rica 67.72 25.98 5.51 0.79 76.86 21.49 1.65 0.00
Cuba 88.10 9.18 2.38 0.34 89.62 7.61 2.77 0.00
Chile 31.45 41.51 21.38 5.66 34.87 41.45 17.76 5.92
Ecuador 69.11 23.04 6.81 1.05 66.67 28.04 4.76 0.53
El Salvador 80.00 17.45 2.55 0.00 78.26 19.93 1.81 0.00
Guatemala 80.00 18.91 1.09 0.00 78.02 21.25 0.73 0.00
Mexico 59.80 31.66 8.04 0.50 59.61 32.02 7.39 0.99
Nicaragua 48.67 31.56 19.39 0.38 47.51 39.46 12.64 0.38
Panama 53.44 34.35 11.07 1.15 62.69 26.92 8.46 1.92
Paraguay 76.57 21.34 2.09 0.00 78.72 17.87 3.40 0.00
Peru 62.39 29.65 7.08 0.88 64.13 25.11 9.87 0.90
Dominican Rep. 67.13 31.47 1.40 0.00 64.86 30.63 4.50 0.00
Uruguay 78.90 16.56 3.25 1.30 77.53 18.35 2.85 1.27
Country average 63.32 26.33 8.72 1.63 64.62 26.09 7.76 1.52
Impact of homework on students’ academic achievement
The second goal of our study was to determine the impact of four homework-related
variables on students’ academic achievement in Maths and Language.4 We checked
the validity of each of the proposed 16 hypotheses obtained by crossing the two
grades studied, the two product variables and four independent variables.
We used multilevel models with four levels of analysis: the student, the
classroom, the school and the country, to determine whether, indeed, the four task-
related variables affected students’ academic achievement not only discarding the
influence of control variables, but also the influence of the type of school attended
and which country it was located in.
Our model process, as described in the methodology section, consisted of three phases:
(1) Estimation of four null models, depending only on the independent variable
and the constant variable.
(2) The estimation of four models using the control variables (adjusted models).
The control variables we used in our models were: The socioeconomic level of
the student’s family, the family’s cultural level, the number of years the
4
As mentioned earlier, we were unable to include Mexico in this second part of our analysis.
123
Table 5 Frequency of times the teacher corrects the homework set for Grade 6 Maths and Language
students

Argentina 44.61 38.24 16.67 0.49 51.90 31.43 15.71 0.95

Brazil 43.09 29.26 21.81 5.85 40.33 22.65 29.83 7.18
Colombia 45.61 45.03 8.19 1.17 57.40 36.69 5.92 0.00
Costa Rica 70.51 25.64 2.56 1.28 72.28 20.79 5.94 0.99
Cuba 91.61 7.69 0.70 0.00 91.04 6.81 2.15 0.00
Chile 31.88 34.06 26.81 7.25 37.96 35.04 25.55 1.46
Ecuador 70.59 25.29 4.12 0.00 66.29 28.00 5.14 0.57
El Salvador 71.15 22.60 5.29 0.96 77.36 19.81 2.83 0.00
Guatemala 83.72 15.35 0.47 0.47 77.83 20.36 1.36 0.45
Mexico 61.81 33.67 4.02 0.50 68.85 26.23 4.92 0.00
Nicaragua 44.24 33.64 21.20 0.92 45.54 40.38 14.08 0.00
Panama 60.09 30.52 7.98 1.41 61.03 28.17 9.39 1.41
Paraguay 63.43 32.87 3.24 0.46 64.29 29.52 6.19 0.00
Peru 52.02 38.73 8.09 1.16 52.54 39.55 6.78 1.13
Dominican Rep. 57.98 33.61 6.72 1.68 65.52 31.90 2.59 0.00
Uruguay 66.30 24.81 8.15 0.74 67.53 22.14 10.33 0.00
Country average 59.92 29.44 9.13 1.52 62.35 27.47 9.29 0.88
student spent in preschool education, the student’s gender, the student’s native
language, the socioeconomic level of the school’s catchment area, and the
country’s Human Development Index (HDI). Our results are shown in Table 8.
It can be observed that the coefficients of the seven control variables we used are
statistically significant, indicating they are all related to performance in both grade
levels and for the two subject areas, and they therefore fully meet the requirements
for their role as control variables.
(3) For each of the four models we introduced the four analysed variables:
frequency of setting homework, expected time requirement for completing the
homework, grading of the homework, and building on the homework in class.
Thus we had 16 models. The results obtained were used to validate or to refute
each of the proposed 16 hypotheses. Table 9 summarises the results.
According to the information shown in Table 9 we can conclude that:

1. There are no significant differences in the academic achievement of Maths and
Language students in Primary Grades 3 and 6 in Latin America in relation to
how often the teachers set homework (H1).
123
Table 6 Frequency of times the teacher built on Maths and Language homework in the Primary Grade 3
classroom

Argentina 19.69 22.44 45.67 12.20 20.83 21.97 46.97 10.23

Brazil 27.66 29.36 34.04 8.94 28.69 23.63 39.66 8.02
Colombia 37.25 34.01 25.51 3.24 33.47 30.17 34.71 1.65
Costa Rica 35.20 14.40 41.60 8.80 33.88 21.49 34.71 9.92
Cuba 37.76 26.53 35.37 0.34 42.91 30.10 26.64 .35
Chile 26.09 32.92 39.13 1.86 22.44 40.38 31.41 5.77
Ecuador 44.44 32.80 19.05 3.70 49.73 27.57 21.08 1.62
El Salvador 28.83 31.75 34.67 4.74 25.99 28.88 40.43 4.69
Guatemala 36.26 28.57 30.77 4.40 35.29 28.68 31.25 4.78
Mexico 26.13 30.15 33.17 10.55 26.34 23.90 40.00 9.76
Nicaragua 38.78 30.04 27.00 4.18 37.74 31.13 28.02 3.11
Panama 41.98 39.69 16.79 1.53 43.13 34.73 21.37 .76
Paraguay 31.76 36.05 29.61 2.58 34.05 38.36 25.43 2.16
Peru 30.59 28.77 37.44 3.20 34.70 25.57 36.99 2.74
Dominican Rep. 30.56 40.97 25.00 3.47 30.97 39.82 23.01 6.19
Uruguay 12.34 24.68 57.14 5.84 13.33 28.25 54.29 4.13
Country average 31.58 30.20 33.25 4.97 32.09 29.66 33.50 4.74

Language students in Primary Grades 3 and 6 in Latin America in relation to
how much time students require to complete their homework (H2).
Language students in Primary Grade 3 and Maths students in Primary Grade 6
in Latin America in relation to whether or not the teacher corrects homework
providing feedback to the students (H3).
4. There are no significant differences in the academic achievement of Maths
students in Primary Grade 3 in Latin America in relation to whether the teacher
builds on their homework in class (H4).
5. There are significant differences in the academic achievement of Language
students in Primary Grade 6 in Latin America in relation to whether or not the
teacher corrects homework set for the students (H3).
6. There are significant differences in the academic achievement of Primary Grade
3 Language students and Primary Grade 6 Maths and Language students in
Latin America students in relation to whether the teacher builds on their
homework in class (H4).
123
Table 7 Frequency of times the teacher built on Maths and Language homework in the classroom in the
Primary Grade 6 classroom

Argentina 27.09 33.99 32.02 6.90 25.12 27.01 41.23 6.64

Brazil 32.09 34.22 31.55 2.14 29.73 41.08 29.19 0.00
Colombia 37.79 36.05 25.00 1.16 31.55 31.55 35.71 1.19
Costa Rica 38.96 22.08 29.87 9.09 39.00 16.00 39.00 6.00
Cuba 45.45 33.57 20.98 0.00 49.64 36.69 13.67 0.00
Chile 34.53 37.41 20.86 7.19 24.82 30.66 38.69 5.84
Ecuador 41.76 40.00 17.65 .59 40.00 40.00 18.86 1.14
El Salvador 32.06 30.14 31.10 6.70 29.58 32.86 33.33 4.23
Guatemala 46.95 25.35 23.00 4.69 42.53 24.89 28.96 3.62
Mexico 21.50 26.50 45.00 7.00 20.00 25.00 40.00 15.00
Nicaragua 31.78 29.44 35.05 3.74 34.93 29.19 33.01 2.87
Panama 52.09 27.44 20.00 0.47 45.28 33.49 19.34 1.89
Paraguay 27.23 43.19 27.23 2.35 27.80 40.98 30.24 0.98
Peru 22.67 48.26 25.58 3.49 26.70 34.09 34.09 5.11
Dominican Rep. 42.37 34.75 18.64 4.24 37.93 43.10 16.38 2.59
Uruguay 15.81 31.25 50.37 2.57 17.28 29.78 50.37 2.57
Country average 34.38 33.35 28.37 3.89 32.62 32.27 31.38 3.73
We can thus conclude that homework is a factor which influences student learning.
However, checking whether the students did their homework, the amount of time
the students dedicated to their homework, and whether or not the teacher builds on
their homework in class are not decisive. What really affects student learning is
whether their homework is incorporated into classroom dynamics.
Discussion and conclusions
We have described the habits of teachers in Latin America related to homework.

1. Most teachers in the sample set homework in all or almost all Grade 3 and
Grade 6 Maths and Language classes.
2. Ninety per cent of teachers consider that it takes students between 15 and
30 minutes per day to finish their homework.
3. The vast majority of teachers in the sample corrected and evaluated all or
almost all the homework they set for their students.
123
Table 8 Results of the adjusted four-level models on Maths and Language

Primary Grade 3 Primary Grade 6
Academic Academic Academic Academic

achievement achievement achievement achievement
in Maths in Language in Maths in Language
b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
Fixed effects
Intercept 509.95 (9.65) 501.28 (9.27) 502.53 (9.25) 495.78 (6.93)
Socioeconomic level 1.20 (0.41) 2.96 (0.48) 2.53 (0.51) 3.27 (0.47)
of student’s family
Cultural level 14.24 (0.49) 17.27 (0.63) 9.20 (0.49) 10.65 (0.45)
of student’s family
Number of years student 0.94 (0.24) 1.11 (0.25) 1.89 (0.277) 1.96 (0.26)
spent in preschool
education
Gender (boy or girl) -5.36 (0.64) 6.13 (0.68) -7.58 (0.77) 6.31 (0.72)
Student’s mother tongue -15.77 (1.36) -20.65 (1.45) -14.01 (2.04) -20.74 (1.80)
(Spanish/Portuguese or
other)
Socioeconomic level 12.39 (1.35) 16.45 (1.22) 16.67 (1.51) 21.58 (1.26)
of the school’s
catchment area
Human Development 22.99 (9.93) 22.26 (9.5) 30.66 (9.52) 26.37 (7.11)
Index (HDI) for
each country
Random effects
Countries 1,460.13 1,349.04 1,332.08 741.00
(525.04) (484.44) (482.25) (269.47)
Schools 1,743.92 1,294. 11 2,071.47 1,400.70
(84.73) (71.41) (108.92) (73.03)
Classrooms 551.17 (34.40) 477.11 (32.60) 681.89 (53.98) 417.05 (32.17)
Students 5,522.47 6,097.81 6,459.38 6,185.30
(33.23) (37.18) (42.74) (39.14)
SE = standard error
4. A third of the teachers affirmed that they built on homework in all subjects.
Another third of the teachers used homework in most of their subjects, and the
last third affirmed using homework only in some classes.
We also found that teachers’ habits regarding the use of homework were not very
different between Language and Mathematics or between Grades 3 and 6, despite
the differences which exist among countries.
These results are consistent with other studies performed using data from
countries outside of our sample. For example, Jay Campbell et al. (1996) found that
two out of three 9-year-old students did homework on a daily basis, and three out of
four 13- to 17-year-old students did homework every day. Regarding the time
123
Table 9 Results of the final four-level models on Maths and Language: contributions of the coefficients
of the variables related to the homework
Primary Grade 3 Primary Grade 6
Academic Academic Academic Academic

achievement achievement achievement achievement
in Maths in Language in Maths in Language
b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
Frequency of setting homework NS NS NS NS

Expected time requirement for NS NS NS NS
completing the homework
Grading of the homework NS NS NS 1.69 (0.78)
Building on the homework in class NS 3.40 (0.84) 1.90 (0.81) 1.77 (0.80)
SE = standard error; NS = not significant

variable, their research suggests that 15 minutes of homework in primary education

is adequate (Cooper 2007). The need of more time to complete homework may
diminish students’ academic achievement due to work overload.
In addition, our study explored the relationship between these habits and
students’ academic achievement through our validation of 16 hypotheses. Only four
of them turned out to be true:
1. There are significant differences in Latin American Primary Grade 6 students’
academic achievement in Language in relation to whether or not the teacher
corrects set homework (H3-6m).
2. There is a strong dependence between the improvement of the academic
achievement and the way the teacher uses the homework in the classroom. We
found this dependence in both Grade 3 Maths (H4-3m), and Grade 6 Maths
(H4-6m) and Language (H4-6l) Latin American students.
Having controlled for the adjusting variables, we are able to conclude that only
homework which is supported by its efficient use in the classroom has an important
role in the improvement of students’ academic achievement.
The results summarised here are consistent with previous international and
regional studies and reviews on the influence of homework on students’ academic
achievement. Our study demonstrates the possibility of extrapolating the results of
previous studies in the context of Latin American countries. A study by Swantje
Dettmers et al. (2010) with a representative sample of 3,483 German students from
155 classrooms indicates that it is possible to increase the efficiency of learning if
the teacher makes the effort to adjust the homework to the topics taught in the
classroom, and supervises its proper execution. Dettmers notes that teachers can
improve the effectiveness of their instruction by optimising the use of homework.
The results from our research coincide with Dettmers et al. and highlight that the
homework factor which affects the academic achievement of students is the way the
teacher implements it in the classroom.
123
We also conclude that homework has a much more important impact on the
academic achievement in Maths than other variables such as the size of the
classroom, and the number of teaching hours (Eren and Henderson 2008). This is
also consistent with the results obtained by Marte Rønning (2010), who states that
Maths homework is beneficial for most students. Not all students, however, benefit
from Maths homework to the same degree. For students with a lower socioeconomic
status (measured by the number of books the students have at home) it is more
beneficial to be asked to do homework which requires less time to be finished.
Future work on this subject would include the addition of information coming
from questionnaires completed by students, to discern which aspects of their
homework they found more compelling, and which ones were more satisfying.
Setting homework is a factor which influences student learning. Incorporating
homework into classroom dynamics is vital for obtaining maximum impact on
students’ academic achievement. It is even more important than the time which
students dedicate to their homework or the supervision of the homework by the
teacher.
References
Baker, D. P., LeTendre, G. K., & Akiba, M. (2005). Schoolwork at home? Low quality schooling and
homework. In D. P. Baker & G. K. LeTendre (Eds.), National differences, global similarities: World
culture and the future of schooling (pp. 117–133). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Campbell, L. J. (1990). Using individual learning style inventories and group teaching methods in a sixth
grade classroom. Miami: Nova Southeastern University.
Campbell, J. R., Reese, C. M., O’Sullivan, C., & Dossey, J. A. (1996). National Assessment of Academic
Progress (NAEP) 1994: Trends in academic progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among attitudes about
homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90(1), 70–83.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement?
A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62.
Cooper, H., & Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework.
Educational Psychology, 36(3), 143–153.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2010). Homework works if
homework quality is high: Using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 467–482.
DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). (1997). White paper: Excellence in schools. Cmnd
3681. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Epstein, J. L. (1988). Homework practices, achievement, and behaviors of elementary school students.
Baltimore. MD: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children’s Learning, Johns
Hopkins University.
Eren, O., & Henderson, D. (2008). The impact of homework on student achievement. Econometrics
Journal, 11(2), 326–348.
Falch, T., & Rønning, M. (2011). Homework assignment and student achievement in OECD countries.
Oslo: Department of Economics/Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
123
Garner, W. T. (1978). Linking school resources to educational outcomes: The role of homework.
Teachers College Research Bulletin, 19, 1–10.
Gill, B., & Schlossman, S. (1996). A sin against childhood: Progressive education and the crusade to
abolish homework, 1897–1941. American Journal of Education, 105(1), 27–66.
Goldstein, H. (2010). Multilevel statistical models (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Gordon, P. (1980). Homework: Origins and justifications. Westminister Studies in Education, 3(1), 27–46.
Hagen, H. H. (1927). The value of homework as compared with supervised study. In Second yearbook,
Chicago Principal’s Club (pp. 147–149). Chicago: Chicago Principal’s Club
Hallam, S. (2006). Homework: Its uses and abuse. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Rowell, L. L. (2004). Homework motivation and preference: A learner-
centered homework approach. Theory Into Practice, 43(3), 197–205.
Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. S., & Singh, K. (1993). Does
parental involvement affect eighth-grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data.
School Psychology Review, 22(3), 474–496.
Kohn, A. (2006). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Cambridge, MA: Da
Capo Press.
Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens
children, and limits learning. Boston: Beacon.
Lam, J. W. (1996). The employment activity of Chinese-American high school students and its
relationship to academic achievement (Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Arlington, 1996).
Masters Abstracts International, 34, 2148.
Leeuw, J., & Meijer, E. (2008). Handbook of multilevel analysis. New York: Springer.
LLECE (Laboratorio Latinoamericano de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Educación). (2008). Segundo
Estudio Regional Explicativo y Comparativo (SERCE). Santiago de Chile: UNESCO
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2007). Special topic: The case for and against homework. Educational
Leadership, 64(6), 74–79.
Mills, M., & Stevens, P. (1998). Improving writing and problem solving skills of middle school students.
Skylight, IL: Saint Xavier University and IRI.
Muhlenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. J. (2000). Homework and achievement: Explaining
the different strengths of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Social Psychology
of Education, 3(4), 295–317.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2005). IEA’s TIMSS 2003 International report on achievement
in the mathematics cognitive domains: Findings from a developmental project. Chestnut Hill, MA:
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Murillo, F. J. (Coord.) (2007). Investigación Iberoamericana sobre Eficacia Escolar [Iberoamerican
research of school effectiveness]. Bogotá: Convenio Andrés Bello.
Murillo, F. J., & Martinez-Garrido, C. (2013). Impact of homework on academic performance. A study of
Iberoamerican students of primary education/Incidencia de las tareas para casa en el rendimiento
académico. Un estudio con estudiantes iberoamericanos de Educación Primaria. Revista de
Psicodidáctica/Journal of Pscychodidactics, 18(1), 157–171.
Murillo, F. J., Martinez-Garrido, C., & Hernandez-Castilla, R. (2011). Décalogo para una enseñanza
eficaz [Decalogue for effective teaching]. REICE-Revista Iberoamericana sobre calidad eficacia y
cambio en educación, 9(1), 6–27.
Pape, S. J., Zimmerman, B. J., & Pajares, F. (2002). This issue: Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory
Into Practice, 41(2), 62–63.
Pettigrew, F., & Buell, C. (1989). Preservice and experienced teacher‘s ability to diagnose learning styles.
Journal of Educational Research, 82(3), 187–189.
Reimers, F. (2000). Educación, desigualdad y opciones de polı́tica en América Latina en el siglo XX
[Education, inequality and policy in Latin America in the 20th century]. Revista Iberoamericana de
Educación, 30(2), 11–42.
Rønning, M. (2010). Homework and pupil achievement in Norway. Evidence from TIMSS. Oslo: Statistics
Norway.
Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2003a). The relationship between homework and achievement still much of
a mystery. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 115–145.
Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2003b). Time investment does not always pay off: The role of self-
regulatory strategies in homework execution. Zeitschrift fur Pädagogische Psychologie, 17(3/4),
199–209.
123
Trautwein, U., Schmitz, B., & Baumert, J. (2001). Do homework assignments enhance achievement?
A multilevel analysis in 7th-grade mathematics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 26–50.
U. S. DoE (Department of Education). (2002). No child left behind: A desktop reference. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (2006). Evaluación del
desempeño y carrera profesional docente. Una panorámica de América y Europa [Performance
evaluation and teaching career. A view of America and Europe]. Santiago de Chile: UNESCO.
The authors
F. Javier Murillo is Associate Professor of Educational Research Methods at the School of Education,
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain). He is Director of Doctoral Program in Education at
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Managing Director of the Iberoamerican School Effectiveness and
Improvement Research Network (RINACE) and Research Group Coordinator Educational Change for
Social Justice (GICE). He was General Coordinator of Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the
Quality of Education (LLECE), UNESCO, and Research Director at the Centre for Educational Research
and Documentation (CIDE), Spanish Ministry of Education.
Cynthia Martinez-Garrido is a PhD student in Educational Sciences at Universidad Autonoma de

Madrid (Spain), Area of Research Methods and Diagnosis in Education. She is also one of the Editors of
the Iberoamerican Journal of School Quality, Improvement and Effectiveness (REICE; http://www.
rinace.net/reice), and also edits the International Journal of Education for Social Justice (RIEJS; http://
www.rinace.net/riejs). She is a member of the Research Group Educational Change for Social Justice
(GICE). She holds a Master’s degree in Information Technologies and Communication in Education and
Training as well as a degree in Psycho-Pedagogy from Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.
123
View publication stats

Homework and Primary-School Students' Academic Achievement in Latin America

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

Homework and Primary-School Students' Academic Achievement in Latin America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Homework and primary-school students’ academic achievement in Latin

Article in International Review of Education · August 2014

F. Javier Murillo Cynthia Martínez-Garrido

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

¿Qué educación para la ciudadanía necesitamos? View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

F. Javier Murillo & Cynthia Martinez-

International Review of Education

Int Rev Educ

Homework and primary-school students’ academic

F. Javier Murillo • Cynthia Martinez-Garrido

Keywords Homework School performance Academic achievement Teaching

F. J. Murillo C. Martinez-Garrido (&)

We can define homework as ‘‘the work assigned to students by their teachers

Our research had two main aims:

Table 1 Sample of schools, teachers and students by country

Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 3 Grade 6

Argentina 167 312 353 6,663 6,696

Source This table is based on LLECE (2008, p. 58)

Homework in Latin America

All Most Some Never All Most Some Never

Argentina 28.73 46.18 21.82 3.27 25.53 41.13 30.50 2.84

Source This table/our research is based on LLECE (2008)

Average homework completion time

Correction and evaluation of homework

All Most Some Never All Most Some Never

Argentina 20.83 43.52 32.41 3.24 23.56 41.78 32.44 2.22

Source This table/our research is based on LLECE (2008)

Frequency of building on set homework

All Most Some Never All Most Some Never

Argentina 60.94 28.52 10.55 0.00 64.53 26.42 9.06 0.00

Source This table/our research is based on LLECE (2008)

Impact of homework on students’ academic achievement

All Most Some Never All Most Some Never

Argentina 44.61 38.24 16.67 0.49 51.90 31.43 15.71 0.95

Source This table/our research is based on LLECE (2008)

According to the information shown in Table 9 we can conclude that:

All Most Some Never All Most Some Never

Argentina 19.69 22.44 45.67 12.20 20.83 21.97 46.97 10.23

Source This table/our research is based on LLECE (2008)

2. There are no significant differences in the academic achievement of Maths and

All Most Some Never All Most Some Never

Argentina 27.09 33.99 32.02 6.90 25.12 27.01 41.23 6.64

Source This table/our research is based on LLECE (2008)

Discussion and conclusions

We have described the habits of teachers in Latin America related to homework.

Table 8 Results of the adjusted four-level models on Maths and Language

Academic Academic Academic Academic

Academic Academic Academic Academic

Frequency of setting homework NS NS NS NS

SE = standard error; NS = not significant

variable, their research suggests that 15 minutes of homework in primary education

Cynthia Martinez-Garrido is a PhD student in Educational Sciences at Universidad Autonoma de

You might also like