Age and gender differences in adolescents' homework experiences

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 70-77

  Kackar, Hayal Z ^a   Shumow, Lee ^b   Schmidt, Jennifer A ^b   Grzetich, Janel ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescents; Age; Experience sampling method; Gender; Homework; Subjective experience

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952186540     PISSN: 01933973     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bempechat J. The motivational benefits of homework: A social-cognitive perspective. Theory into Practice 2004, 43(3):189-196.
2. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. Six theories of child development 1992, 187-249. Jessica Kingsley, London. R. Vasta (Ed.).
3. Catsambis S. The path to math: Sex and racial-ethnic differences in mathematics participation from middle school to high school. Sociology of Education 1994, 67(3):199-215.
4. Cooper H., Robinson J., Patall E. Does homework improve academic achievement?: A synthesis of research 1987 - 2003. Review of Educational Research 2006, 76(1):1-62.
5. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience 1990, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
6. Csikszentmihalyi M. Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life 1997, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
7. Csikszentmihalyi M., Larson R. Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenage years 1984, Basic Books, New York, NY.
8. Csikszentmihalyi M., Larson R. Validity and reliability of the experience - sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 1987, 175:526-536.
9. Csikszentmihalyi M., Schneider B. Becoming adult: how teenagers prepare for the world of work 2000, Basic Books, New York, NY.
10. Duckworth A.L., Seligman M.E.P. Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology 2006, 98(1):198-208.
11. Eccles J. Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches 1983, 75-146. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. J.T. Spence (Ed.).
12. Gill B.P., Schlossman S.L. A nation at rest: The American way of homework. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2003, 25(3):319-337.
13. Hektner J., Schmidt J.A., Csikszentmihalyi M. Experience sampling method: measuring the quality of everyday life 2007, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
14. Kantrowitz B., Wingert P. The parent trap. Newsweek 2001, 137(5):49-55. January 29.
15. King K., Gurian M. Teaching to the minds of boys. Educational Leadership 2006, 64(1):56-58. 60-61.
16. Kralovec E., Buell J. The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning 2000, Beacon, Boston, MA.
17. Kubey R., Larson R., Csikszentmihalyi M. Experience sampling method applications to communication research questions. The Journal of Communication 1996, 46:99-120.
18. Larson R., Richards M. Divergent realities: the emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents 1994, Basic Books, New York, NY.
19. Larson R., Richards M., Moneta G., Holmbeck G., Duckett E. Changes in adolescents' daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology 1996, 32(4):744-754.
20. Leone C., Richards M. Classwork and homework in early adolescence: The ecology of achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 1989, 18(6):531-548.
21. Loveless T. The 2003 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning? 2003, Retrieved July 13, 2006 from, Brookings Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.brook.edu/gs/brown/20031001.pdf.
22. Mau W., Lynn R. Gender differences in homework and test scores in mathematics, reading and science at tenth and twelfth grade. Psychology, Evolution & Gender 2000, 2(2):119-125.
23. Patrikakou E. Adolescence: Are parents relevant to students' high school achievement and post-secondary attainment.(Family Involvement Research Digest) 2004, Retrieved November 16, 2008, from, Harvard Family Research Project, Cambridge, MA. http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/adolescence-are-parents-relevant-to-students-high-school-achievement-and-post-secondary-attainment.
24. Pintrich P.R., Schunk D.H. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications 2002, Merrill, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
25. Raudenbush S.W., Bryk A.S. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods 2002, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
26. Rideout V., Foehr U., Roberts D. Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8 to 18year olds 2010, Retrieved September 28, 2010 from, Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, Menlo Park, CA. http://www.kff.org/entmedia/8010.cfm.
27. Rogers L., Hallam S. Sex differences in approaches to studying for the GCSE among high-achieving pupils. Educational Studies 2006, 32(1):59-71.
28. Sax L., Lindholm J.A., Astin A.W., Korn W.S., Mahoney K.M. The American freshman: National norms for fall 2002 2002, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
29. Schneider, B., & Waite, L. J. (2005). Being together, working apart: Dual-career families and the work-life balance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30. Shernoff D., Csikszentmihalyi M., Schneider B. Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly 2003, 18(2):158-176.
31. Shumow, L., Lyutykh, E., & Schmidt, J. A. (in press). Predictors and outcomes of parental involvement with students enrolled in science classes during high school. School Community Journal.
32. Shumow L., Schmidt J.A., Kackar H. Adolescents' experience doing homework: Associations among context, quality of experience and outcomes. The School Community Journal 2008, 18(2):9-27.
33. Simon B. Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects. NASSP Bulletin 2001, 85(627):8-19.
34. Snyder T. Trends in education. Principal 1998, 78(1). 40, 42, 44, 46-48.
35. Thibert G., Karsenti T.P. Motivation profile of adolescent boys and girls: Sex differences throughout schooling. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 8-12 1995.
36. Timmer S.G., Eccles J., O'Brien K. How children use time. Time, goods, and well-being 1985, 353-382. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. F. Juster, F.P. Stafford (Eds.).
37. Ver Ploeg M., Altonji J., Bradburn N., DaVanzo J., Nordhaus W., Samaniego F. Time-use measurement and research: Report of workshop 2000, Retrieved October 31, 2007, from, National Academy Press, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, Washington, DC. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9866&page=R1.
38. Warton P. The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students. Educational Psychologist 2001, 36(3):155-165.
39. Xu J. Family help and homework management in urban and rural secondary schools. Teachers College Record 2004, 106(9):1786-1803.
40. Xu J. Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high school students. Journal of Educational Research 2005, 99(1):46-55.
41. Xu J. Sex and homework management reported by high school students. Educational Psychology 2006, 26(1):73-91.
42. Xu J., Corno L. Sex, family help, and homework management reported by rural middle school students. Journal of Research in Rural Education 2006, 21(2):1-13.
43. Zuzanek J. Experience sampling method: Current and potential research applications. Paper presented at the Workshop on Measurement of and Research on Time Use, May 27-28 1999.