Types of Homework Feedback and Their Relationship With Academic Achievement

Session Information

ERG SES C 02, Poster Session

Poster Session

Time:
2014-09-01
11:00-12:30
Room:
FPCEUP - 114
Chair:
Mustafa Yunus Eryaman

Contribution

Homework is defined as a set of school tasks assigned by teachers to be completed by students outside of school hours, that is, in the extracurricular period (Cooper, Steenbergen-Hu, & Dent, 2012).

In the homework process, teacher feedback is one of the relevant variables to understanding the relationship between homework and academic achievement (Núñez et al., revise & resubmited; Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder and Niggli, 2006). For example, some studies have analyzed the impact of this feedback on student interest in homework (e.g., Xu, 2008), on doing homework (Xu, 2011), on managing homework (e.g., Rosário et al., 2009; Xu and Wu, 2013), on the effort students display (e.g., Trautwein, et al., 2006), and on academic performance (e.g., Elawar and Corno, 1985). In spite of the recognized importance of teacher feedback to student learning and performance (e.g., Evans, 2013; Hattie and Timperley, 2007), the effects of different homework feedback types on learning and academic achievement have not been extensively studied.

Recently, Xu (2010, 2011, 2012) and Xu and Wu (2013), for example, used a unique measure of homework feedback without considering the effect of different feedback types. Trautwein et al. (2002) found that more homework control by teachers has a positive effect on achievement. However Trautwein et al. (2006) focused just on negative teacher responses (one aspect of homework control). These authors noted the need to include other dimensions of homework feedback in future studies (e.g., control of homework completion, homework correction and grading).

Regarding research into English classes, laboratory studies predominate in the study of both oral feedback and written feedback (e.g., Bitchener and Knoch, 2010a,b), while fewer have been done in the classroom (Lee, 2013; Lyster, et al., 2013).

According to our knowledge, the study by Cardelle and Corno (1981) is the only one that has analyzed the effects of different written homework feedback types on the learning of a second language (i.e., Spanish). The authors suggest that the effect of other homework feedback types should be further studied. Lee (2013) and Lyster et al. (2013) also note the need to conduct new studies in real learning contexts to evaluate the effect of different types of feedback on academic achievement.

Thus, this study aimed to analyze the different effects of different types of teacher homework feedback on academic performance in EFL within a real learning context. In order to better control the effect of feedback type on academic achievement, our study design initially included as covariables prior student achievement,, and later, the quantity of feedback given to students. Concretely, we aimed to answer the following questions:

(a) Is there a relationship between the type of homework feedback given by teachers and student academic achievement?

(b) In the case that it does exist, which treatment (or treatments) is responsible for this relationship? and

(c) Does prior student performance affect the relationship between the type of homework feedback given and student academic achievement?

Considering the scarce results of prior studies, it was not possible to establish specific hypotheses regarding the relationship between homework feedback type and student academic achievement. However, taking into account the nature of each type of feedback and its implications for student learning process, in this study we hypothesize:

a) that different homework feedback types are differentially associated with student academic achievement, decreasing from type 5 (collecting and grading homework) to type 1 (Checking whether homework was completed).

b) that the magnitude of the impact of teacher homework feedback on academic achievement is affected by the prior level of achievement by students.

Method

Participants Forty-five middle school EFL teachers participated in the study. Nineteen teachers were excluded from the study for different reasons (three were as laid off, six did not correctly report the work they did or the data requested, and ten did not faithfully follow the feedback administration procedure). Thus, there were 26 teacher participants in the end, 20 women and 6 men, between 28 and 54 years of age, who taught EFL classes for 553 6th grade students in six public schools in northern Portugal. Of these students, 278 (50.3%) were girls and 275 (49.7%) boys between the ages of 10 and 13 (M = 11.05; SD = 0.87). Measures The two academic achievement measures used in this study were gathered in the administrative offices of the corresponding schools. Prior achievement (which served as a pretest) was obtained based on student grades obtained in a final English exam from the previous year. Final academic achievement (which served as a post-test) was obtained based on the grades obtained by students in a final English exam given for purpose of this study. The exam was made up of 20 questions to evaluate reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, translation of sentences from English to Portuguese and vice-versa, and the writing of a short essay (5-10 lines). The exam lasted 45 minutes. Grades in Portuguese compulsory education are 1 and 2 (negative), 3 (passing), 4 (good), and 5 (excellent). Data analysis Given that this study worked with an independent variable (feedback type), a dependent variable (academic achievement post-feedback), and two covariates (number of feedback sessions administered and achievement prior to feedback), the statistical treatment of the data was carried out using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Given the complexity of the information managed when using the ANCOVA technique, it is helpful to follow a modeling strategy to determine which model best fits the data. In this case, these models were a null model, a regression model, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, a parallel or homogeneous-slope ANCOVA, and a non-parallel or heterogeneous-slope ANCOVA.

Expected Outcomes

According to Walberg and Paik (2000), feedback is “the key to maximizing the positive impact of homework” (p. 9). However, little attention has been paid to the impact of this variable on homework. The results of our study were obtained in a real classroom context, which suggests that their external validity should be high. As expected we found that different homework feedback types are differentially associated with student academic achievement. Feedback type 1 (Checking whether homework was completed) and 2 (answering specific questions about the homework) did not show differences in academic achievement. The second family includes feedback types 3, 4, and 5 (verbal correction of the entire homework assignment; in-class written corrections of the entire homework assignment on the blackboard; and collecting and grading homework). The data indicate that although there were no statistically significant differences in post-test performance among the three types of feedback (intra-group comparisons), student achievement was higher with feedback type 5 than type 4 and with type 4 than type 3. We also observed that the effect of feedback on achievement was affected by the degree of prior performance, which was demonstrated by comparing the significance of this variable in Model C (ANCOVA) and the ANOVA. The data reveal that, to the extent that feedback offers individual information to the student (e.g., graded homework) the impact on school performance is high. These data indicates that the time and effort that a teacher dedicates to evaluating, presenting, and discussing homework with students is worth the effort. Thus, it is important for teachers to be trained in effective strategies for giving homework feedback to students.

References

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214. Cooper, H., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Dent, A. L. (2012). Homework. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 3: Application to learning and teaching. (pp. 475–495)Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Evans, C. (2013). Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., & Valle, A. (revise & resubmit). Teachers’ feedback on homework, homework-related behaviors and academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research. Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Baldaque, M., Nunes, T., Núñez, J.C., ... & Valle, A. (2009). Homework, self-regulated learning and math achievement. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 14, 179-192. Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 438–456. Walberg, H. J., & Paik, S.J. (2000). Effective educational practices. International Bureau of education. Educational practices series – 3, 9. http://www.ibe.unesco.org. Xu, J. (2008). Models of secondary school students’ interest in homework: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1180–1205. Xu, J. (2010). Predicting homework distraction at the secondary school level: A multilevel analysis. Teachers College Record, 112, 1937–1970. Xu, J. (2011). Homework completion at the secondary school level: A multilevel analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 171–182. Xu, J. (2012). Predicting students’ homework environment management at the secondary school level, Educational Psychology. An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 32(2), 183-200. Xu, J., & Wu, H. (2013). Self-Regulation of Homework Behavior: Homework Management at the Secondary School Level. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(1), 1-13.

Author Information

Tânia Nunes (submitting)
Universidade do Minho
Paços de Ferreira
Jennifer Cunha (presenting)
Universidade do Minho
Universidade do Minho
Braga
Universidade do Minho, Portugal
Universidade do Minho, Portugal
Universidade do Minho, Portugal
Universidade do Minho, Portugal

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.