Content uploaded by Ali Khalfan Al-Naqbi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ali Khalfan Al-Naqbi on Sep 15, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal for Research in Education (IJRE) No. 35, 2014
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique on
Chemistry Achievement of the United Arab Emirates
Male and Female Tenth Graders
Dr. Ali Khalfan Al-Naqbi
College of Education; UAE University
alik@uaeu.ac.ae
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects
of Instructional Homework Technique (IHT) - as a systematic
preparation homework assignment- on the chemistry achievement of
the UAE tenth graders. The sample of this study consisted of 8
classrooms with an average of 24 students in each class. The 8 classes
were divided equally in terms of gender. The schools were selected
conveniently, and the classrooms were randomly assigned into
experimental and control groups. The students in the experimental
groups received an instructional homework twice a week while students
in the control groups received regular homework assignments. The
experiment lasted ten weeks and included 19 assignments and each
assignment consists of a minimum of 20 items. This study used a
pretest posttest control group design. The results revealed that students
in the experimental group (with IHT) scored significantly higher on the
chemistry posttest achievement measure. The Eta squared for a posttest
as a dependent variable for treatment was 0.15 which is partially high.
There was a significant statistical difference in term of gender with the
UAE male tenth graders scored significantly higher than female
counterparts in the chemistry achievement test.
Keywords: Instructional Homework Technique (IHT), UAE, Tenth
graders, Chemistry achievement, Students gender, Arab students
Introduction
Homework has been at the central debate for more than a century
among educators. For example, many researchers found that homework
was considered as an important educational means because it fosters
both academic and nonacademic benefits (Cooper, 1989; Cooper, 2001;
Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, & Greathouse, 1998; Cooper, Robinson, &
Patall, 2006; Cooper & Valentine, 2001; Corno, 2000; Hong, Peng, &
Rowell, 2009; Lubbers, Van Der Werf, Kuyper, & Hendriks, 2010;
Reinhardt, Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2009; Trautwein, 2007; Warton,
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 2
2001; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005). On the other hand, others such
as Bennett and Kalish (2006), Kohn (2006), and Kralovec and Buell
(2000), suggested that doing homework may not advance students’
academic and nonacademic benefits. Cooper et al (2006) summarized
both potential positive and negative effects of homework.
Review of the Literature
In attempt to study homework’s effects on students’
achievement by comparing homework and no-homework conditions
two major meta-analysis studies have been conducted. For example,
Cooper (1989) used meta-analytical strategies to analyze in details 120
empirical studies of homework's effects. For instance, 20 studies
conducted between 1962 and 1986, 14 produced effects favoring
homework while 6 favored no homework. Cooper (1989) also found an
overall effect of d = .21 favoring homework conditions over no-
homework conditions. The effect of homework assignments was
stronger in higher grades (grades 4-6: d = .15; grades 7-9: d = .31;
grades 10-12: d = .64). However, Trautwein, Köller, Schmitz, &
Baumert (2002) stated that some studies (i.e. Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, &
Greathouse, 1998; Farrow, Tymms, & Henderson, 1999) have casted
doubt on the positive influence of homework on achievement reported
by Cooper’s (1989) review. Furthermore, the empirical support for the
homework-achievement association was not clear (Trautwein, 2007).
Another meta-analysis was conducted by Cooper, Robinson,
and Patall (2006) by updating Cooper's (1989) review of homework
studies that have been reported between 1987 and 2003. In this meta-
analysis three groups of studies were classified. One of these group
consisted of six studies that reported positive effects of homework that
had an experimental design and none of these studies were published in
peer-reviewed journals. Example of these studies was that of Foyle
(1990) who assigned randomly four whole grade five classrooms to a
practice homework (one classroom) condition, a preparation homework
(one classroom) condition, and a no-classroom (two classrooms)
condition. The results showed that students doing homework
outperformed no-homework students on unadjusted posttest scores.
Although their review seems to be impressive, it may yet be too early to
draw any final conclusions about the positive effects of homework. One
reason for this is that the Cooper et al’s. (2006) review was limited to
research conducted in the US, leaving open question of cross-cultural
generalizability. Moreover, Cooper et al. (2006, p. 3) warned that "all
studies regardless of type, had design flaws" which draws concerns
about the quality of the studies that were covered in the meta-analysis.
Further, the majority of the studies included in the meta-analysis
focused almost entirely on time spent on homework and its relation
3 Ali Al-Naqbi
with students’ academic performance where other important variables
such as the quality and quantity of homework were absent.
Homework as an Instructional Tool
Many studies have indicated that homework has been usually assigned
to students for instructional or non-instructional purposes (Epstein &
Van Voorhis, 2001; Mulhenbruck, Cooper, Nye, & Lindsay, 1999). The
well-known instructional purpose for the homework is to give students
opportunities to review or practice lessons that have already been
taught. Another purpose for the instructional homework is to design
homework as a preparation task. In this case, students do the homework
to acquire knowledge that could help them become more active when
the new lesson is taught and to help them “obtain the maximum benefit
when the new material is covered in class” (Muhlenbrack, Cooper, Nye,
& Linddsay, 1999 quoted in Cooper et al., 2006, p. 1). However, how
teachers prepared and assigned homework for preparation purposes was
not evidently examined. The educational literature has discussed other
instructional or non-instructional purposes for the homework
assignments, such as public relations, peer interactions, participation,
parent-child relations, parent-teacher communications, personal
development, and policy (see, Epstein, 2001; Epstein & Van Voorhis,
2001, Markovic, Randjelovic, & Trivic, 2010; Van Voorhis, 2003; Xu,
2005; Xu & Corno, 1998). The current study investigated the effect of
preparation homework as an instructional technique on chemistry
achievement of United Arab Emirates (UAE) male and female tenth
graders.
Lucas (2009) indicated that there was a relative absence of
information and research on design homework and its association with
the instructional methods of secondary school teachers and that almost
all the studies that were conducted about homework have not clearly
identified the relationship between homework assignments and the
instructional methodology of the teachers. Others emphasized that the
“role of homework assignment has not been clearly defined yet”
(Markovic, Randjelovic, & Trivic, 2010, p. 70). For example, Cooper
(1989) defined homework as “tasks assigned to students by school
teachers that are meant to be carried out during non-school hours” (p.
7). Lucas (2009) suggested a framework of methodological beliefs that
take into consideration teachers’ instructional methodology,
development of teacher’s classroom instruction, assessment materials,
and whether different types of assignments such as homework, long-
term projects, labs, and classwork which done inside or outside the
classrooms. Other studies such as that of Agnieszka (2010) called for
more properly planned, organized and applied homework, and for
students’ awareness of the aims attached to homework. Moreover,
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 4
homework assignments should be planned based on the learning
objectives of specific teaching content. Students can be motivated to do
homework assignments frequently and responsibly by including the
application of their results into the teaching and learning of new content
(Markovic, Randjelovic, & Trivic, 2010).
In the current study students were assigned homework for
teaching, learning and preparation purposes to participate actively in
teaching and learning activities. This preparation homework is called
Instructional Homework Technique (IHT) and is defined here as well
prepared (planned/designed) task assigned to students by teachers prior
to the lesson for instructional purposes and this preparation homework
should be carried by students during non-school hours. The IHT as a
well prepared task was fully described in the procedure sub-section in
this study. In this case, a well-prepared task is intended to solve the
flaws in poorly designed homework mentioned in the literature (Epstein
& Pinkow, 1988) and to only assign homework that is valuable to
student learning instead of assigning homework as a matter of policy
(Kohn, 2006). In the present study, homework is designed to extend
student prior knowledge beyond the classroom about chemistry topics
that will be taught. Furthermore, homework will facilitate teacher
instruction approach when the student comes to class completed the
assigned homework. Therefore, this approach may help to create an
attractive classroom environment that could increase the likelihood of
student-teacher interaction, enhancing active learning, and facilitating
students understanding and achievement.
The previous sections in the current study mentioned some
major limitations of the past research on homework in science
education. First, the doubt on the positive influence of homework on
achievement has been reported. Second, there was no strong evidence
of association was found between homework and achievement and the
empirical support for homework-achievement association was not clear.
Therefore, Cooper et al. (2006) suggested further research in this area.
Third, time spent on homework has been almost the focus of the most
homework studies. Fourth, teachers prepared and assigned homework
for preparation purposes was not evidently examined. Finally, the
relationship between homework assignments and the instructional
methodology of the teachers has not clearly identified. The current
study addressed some of those limitations and included other important
variables such as student gender and specific school science topic
which is chemistry. The next sections describe how the present study
addressed the previous mentioned limitations and how the new
variables included.
5 Ali Al-Naqbi
Homework and Gender Achievement:
Studies that have examined homework and gender differences has
mainly focused on gender differences in regard to issues associated
with homework management, attitudes, self-regulation, learning
processes, self-efficacy beliefs, management and organization, family
support, and emotions. For example, Xu (2006) investigated gender
and grade level to five features of homework management which were
setting an appropriate work environment, managing time, and
controlling attention, motivation, and potentially interfering emotions.
Xu found that female students were more frequently reported working
to manage their workspace, budget their time, and monitor their
emotions. Moreover, females also reported that they spent more time
doing homework and were considered homework less boring. Another
example is that of Else-Quest, Hyde, Hejmadi (2008) who studied the
emotions expressed by U.S. mothers and their 11-years-old children
while solving pre-algebra homework. They found no evidence of
gender differences in the emotions while doing homework. However,
studies that focused on homework and its association with gender
achievement differences were rarely found. Mau and Lynn (2000)
conducted a study that focused on gender differences in homework and
test scores in mathematics, reading, and science at tenth and twelfth
grade. The results of their study indicated that male students obtained
significantly higher mean scores in math and science while females
obtained significantly higher mean scores in reading and amount of
homework.
In regard to gender achievement differences in school subjects,
during the last three decades a huge body of studies has been
conducted in the areas such as science, mathematics, art, and reading.
Generally, male students have been found to be better at more
theoretical and logical subjects including math, and science, while
female students have been found better in biology and creative subjects
such as art and reading (Beaton et al., 1996; Jacobson, Doran, &
Schneider, 1992; Mullis et al., 1998).
Many studies have examined the effect of age differences of
male and females on their science achievement. Those studies have
reported that male and female students tended to achieve almost equal
scores in science tests at the elementary level and males tend to achieve
higher scores than females at the beginning of middle schools up to
high school (Becker, 1989; Connelly, 2008; Downey & Yuan, 2005;
Entwhistle, Alexander & Olson, 1997; Fleming & Malone, 1989;
Looker & Thiessen, 2004; McMullen, 2004; Simpson & Oliver, 1990).
More recently, in the U.S., the National Assessment of Educational
Progress At grade 8 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011)
reported that in 2011, male students scored 5 points higher on average
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 6
than female students in science. World-wide, studies indicated that
male students still showed significantly greater achievement than
female students in science. However, in the 2003 Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) among 34
nations, showed a considerable variability in the size of the gender
difference, and grade 8 female students in 3 nations significantly
achieved higher than male students in science (Gonzales et al., 2004;
Martin, Mullis, & Chrostowski, 2004). Dubai TIMSS and PIRLS report
shows that in different school subject such as science and mathematics,
female Emirati students were found to outperform Emirati male
students in all but fourth grade mathematics at private MOE schools.
Moreover, the gap between male and female Emirati students was
larger in favor of females in eighth grade (International Study Center,
2011).
In the UAE as reported in the next section of this study, male
and female students study in single-sex schools. Young and Frazer
(1990), in an attempt to study the degree to which science achievement
varies with student gender and school type, investigated the findings of
previous studies that suggested that students in single-sex schools
achieved higher in science than students in co-educational schools.
They found that females who attended all-female schools achieved
better in science than did the females who attended co-educational
schools. The same finding was reported for males who attended all-
male schools. Similar findings were reported by Hyde, as cited in
Stromquist (1989), who found that females in single-sex schools
achieved significantly better in mathematics and science than females
in co-educational schools.
Previous studies which have investigated homework as pertinent
to gender focused on different issues (i.e. homework frequency,
attitudes, self-regulation, learning processes, self-efficacy beliefs,
management and organization, family support, efforts, and time
allocation). However, there was not a single study which the author was
aware of that focused on gender and homework variables such as
quality, purposes, and instructional use which have been found to have
direct effects on achievement, practicality and time management for
teachers and students (See for example, Harris, Nixon, & Rudduck,
1993; Hong & Milgram, 1999; Mau & Lynn, 2000; Reinhardt,
Theodore, Bray & Kehle, 2009; Trautwein, 2007; Xu, 2006). Thus, the
current study hoped to provide empirical evidence regarding gender
differences in homework-achievement direct relations.
Chemistry
For almost last thirty years on learning science research has shown that
chemistry has proved to be a very complex subject (Bonder, 1991;
7 Ali Al-Naqbi
Gabel, 1998; Knaus, Murphy, Blecking, & Holme, 2011). Many studies
were carried out to discover the reasons behind this complexity (see for
example, Gabel, 1997 & 1999; Tyson & Treagust, 1999). One of the
possible reasons is that many students are not constructing correct
understandings of fundamental chemical concepts at the beginning
level in their elementary school. Therefore, they cannot fully
understand the more complicated chemical concepts that build upon the
basics. Gabel (1999) summed up some barriers that could prevent
students from learning chemistry. Some of these barriers are the nature
of the chemistry concepts which are abstract and are inexplicable
without the use of analogies or models, the high density of chemistry
concepts in elementary science textbooks which make learning these
concepts difficult, and the frequent use of mathematical symbols,
formulas, and equations to convey relationships at the macroscopic and
microscopic levels.
Although there were studies conducted at higher education level
(see for example, Bayram & Comek, 2009; Cole & Todd, 2003) that
investigated the relations between student’s learning and some
variables related to tertiary chemistry education such as using web-
based multimedia homework and immediate rich feedback, there is a
paucity in research with regard to the effects of homework on students'
chemistry achievement specially at high school level. Therefore, the
current study tried to investigate the effect of homework assignments
on the UAE tenth graders chemistry achievement where no research
was carried out in that area. The context where this study was carried
out empowers its findings since almost all previous studies regarding
the influence of homework assignments on students' academic
achievement have been conducted in the Western World and to some
extended in Far Asian schools. Thus, this research explored the effect
of the preparation homework assignment in a new context where the
preparation homework outcomes become important portion of
classroom instructional activities and not just a work that students
routinely carry out at homes.
Chemistry in the UAE Educational System
In the UAE k-12 education consists of kindergarten education
and two cycles. Kindergarten is a co-educational, pre-school education
and children attend kindergarten at the age of four and spend two years
in these schools. Following kindergarten education, education system in
the UAE compromises of two cycles: Cycle One is basic education
which consists of nine years; Cycle Two is secondary education which
consists three years, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades. All students in
the first year of cycle two study a general curriculum. After the tenth
grade, students are assigned to study in the eleventh and twelfth graders
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 8
either in the science or art division based on their performance and their
interests. Governmental schools (public schools) in cycle two and
grade six to nigh from cycle one are single-sex schools for students and
administrators. Schools that only include first grade to fifth grade
students are also single-sex schools for students and not for
administrators and teachers where administrators and teachers in these
schools are females.
During the 2010-2011 schools year, tenth graders used
chemistry textbook that covered the following topics: matter and
change; measurement and calculations; atoms; electronic configuration;
the periodic table; and chemical bonding (Ministry of Education,
2011a). Meanwhile, science division’s eleventh graders studied
chemical topic such as chemical formulas and compounds; chemical
equations and reactions; chemical calculation; physical properties for
gases; structural molecules for gases; and liquids and solid materials
(Ministry of Education, 2011b). On the other hand, science division’s
twelfth graders studied chemistry topics which were chemical
solutions; ions in water solutions and colligative properties; acids and
basis; acid-base titration and pH factor; reactions energy; reactions
speed; chemical equilibrium; oxidation-reduction reactions; electrical
chemistry; carbon and hydrocarbons; organic chemistry; and nuclear
reactions (Ministry of Education, 2011c).
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of
Instructional Homework Technique (IHT) on chemistry achievement of
UAE male and female tenth graders. Based on the extensive literature
review discussed in the previous sections, two research hypotheses
were developed for this study.
Research hypotheses
Research hypothesis 1: The UAE tenth graders who were exposed to
IHT will score significantly higher than those who were not exposed to
IHT in chemistry.
Research hypothesis 2: The UAE male tenth graders who exposed to
IHT will score significantly higher in chemistry than female tenth
graders who were also exposed to IHT.
Definition of Terms
Instructional Homework Technique (IHT): A well prepared
(planned/designed) task assigned to students by teachers prior to the
lesson for instructional purposes and this preparation homework should
be carried by students during non-school hours. In the current study the
IHT was applied by both male and female chemistry teachers for 19
periods of their chemistry teaching at tenth grades.
9 Ali Al-Naqbi
Chemistry Achievement: Student scores in electron configuration, the
Periodic Table, and the chemical bonding that measured by the
chemistry test developed by the researcher and consisted of thirty-seven
mutable choice items.
Method
Participants
The participants of this study were 192 UAE tenth graders who were
studied in eight classrooms. Half of these classes were for female
students. The four males' intact classrooms were chosen from one male
school and were taught chemistry by an expert male teacher and the
four females' intact classrooms were chosen from one female school
and were taught chemistry by an expert female teacher. The classrooms
in each school were randomly divided into experimental and control
group. The random assignment had taken place before the treatment
began. In conducting the random assignment, each classroom was given
a number and a table of random numbers was then used to select
classrooms of the experimental and control groups. The experimental
group included two male classrooms and two female classrooms. The
control group consisted of two male classrooms and two female
classrooms (See Table 1 for participants’ description). As it is shown in
Table 1, both experimental and control classroom were sufficiently
large where that the total of students in experimental and control
classrooms was 97 and 95 students respectively.
As mentioned above, the male experimental and control classes
were taught chemistry by one chemistry male teacher and this was also
the case with the female experimental and control classes where they
were taught chemistry by one chemistry female teacher. These two
teachers had taught chemistry for more than six years at the secondary
school level. The two teachers were specialists in chemistry and both of
them had a bachelor’s degree with a diploma. Therefore, it was
assumed that there were expert chemistry teachers. When this study
was conducted, the two teachers had teaching load of 18 periods per
week and they had chemistry as their primary teaching assignment.
The teachers were well-known to the researcher and they both
agreed to participate in this study. Moreover, the two teachers were
also recommended by their school supervisors to carry out the task of
this study. To officially accept and approve their participation, a letter
was issued by the Dean of the College of Education to the school
districts to approve the two teachers’ participation in the study. As a
result, the district representatives and the teachers signed the acceptance
and the approval.
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 10
Table 1
Participants’ Description
Variables N Classrooms and Classrooms’ Sizes
Gender Males 93 4 (classrooms, sizes = 25, 20, 25, & 23)
Females 99 4 (classrooms, sizes = 27, 23, 25, & 24)
Treatment Experimental 97 4 (classrooms)
Males: sizes = 25 & 23
Females: sizes = 25 & 24
Control 95 4 (classrooms)
Males: sizes = 20 & 25
Females: sizes = 27 & 23
To control for confounding variables, the sample was chosen
from two secondary general public schools and included male and
female students. The male and female students in the classes
participated in this study were equivalent and comparable. For example,
they were all tenth graders, they were 16-15-years-old, used same
science curricula, studied in almost similar classroom size, and are
comparable in terms of cognitive ability. They were enrolled in two
large secondary schools in the UAE with almost 600 students and these
schools were located in two cities. Each one of these two schools
included classes for only tenth, eleventh, and twelfth graders. Students
participated in this study were mainly UAE citizens and they came
from families with similar background.
The purpose of including male and female students was to
examine whether the students' gender makes a difference in homework
achievement. Moreover, the sample of this study was classrooms not
students within the classrooms. This method helped to avoid issues of
demoralization and compensation and/or treatment diffusion effects that
could have negative impact on the IHT on the experimental groups and
to avoid interaction between intervention and control groups (Cooper et
al., 2006).
Instrument
According to Trautwein et al. (2002), research shows that homework
assignments might have different effects in different school subjects.
Therefore, the decision was made for the current study not to combine
achievement measures in different science subjects into a single score
as has been done in many previous studies (e.g., Cooper et al., 1998).
Instead, the investigation focused on one of the science areas which was
chemistry. Chemistry achievement scores were obtained by conducting
a chemistry achievement test which was developed by the researcher
using Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. The test was used as
11 Ali Al-Naqbi
the measuring instrument for this study. The test was administered to
the experimental and control groups as a pretest on the mid of February,
before covering all chemistry topics in the test and a post test on mid of
May after covering all chemistry topics. The test was designed for
tenth graders to measure students' chemistry achievement. The final
version of the test consisted of thirty-seven multiple-choice items that
covered different topics such as atomic theory, atomic structure and
electrons configuration, the historical development of the periodic table,
periodic table law, periodic properties, and the chemical bonding. These
chemistry topics were covered in three chapters of the UAE tenth
graders’ chemistry textbooks. These chapters were: 1) Electron
Configuration, 2) The Periodic Table, and 3) The Chemical Bonding.
The chemistry textbook for tenth graders placed a great deal of
emphasis on the low levels of cognitive domain, such as Knowledge,
Comprehension, and Application. However, because of the nature of
chemistry the higher levels of the cognitive domain, such as Analysis
and Synthesis, were also represented. In order to more accurately
represent the learning outcomes that were provided by the chemistry
textbook, the chemistry test included more low level items and fewer
high level item of the cognitive domain. The development of the test
underwent several steps: First, the selected chemistry topics of tenth
graders’ chemistry textbook (Ministry of Education, 2011b) were
analyzed to pinpoint the facts, concepts, and generalizations in content
presented. Second, thirty-two learning outcomes that covered the
knowledge, comprehension, and application cognitive levels that
provided at the beginning of each chapter were used to develop the
multiple-choice items. The following are examples of these learning
outcomes which were designed for students to accomplish:
1. Describe Bohr Model for hydrogen atom.
2. Compare between the Bohr and quantum models for the
atom.
3. Identify the four quantum numbers.
4. Apply Aufbou’s and Pauli Exclusion principles and Hund’s
rule.
5. Describe the Periodic Table.
6. Identify the atomic and ionic radius, ionization energy,
electronic affinity, and electronegativity.
7. Describe the ionic and covalent bonding.
8. Apply the basic six stages used to draw Lewis structures.
Third, forty-five multiple-choice items were written and
grouped and mapped to their corresponding mentioned learning
outcomes. Fourth, a panel of experts that included college instructors
and secondary school science teachers were asked to review the
complete package for validation purposes. The panel was chosen based
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 12
on their knowledge of chemistry, chemistry curriculum development,
chemistry teaching and learning, tenth grade chemistry textbook in the
UAE, secondary school students, and evaluation. The panel included
two college professors, three associate professors, two assistant
professors, and two chemistry teachers. Each expert was provided with
a letter explaining the questions and the hypotheses of the study and
how the items in the chemistry test were developed. The experts
provided their judgment individually. Finally, from the initial version of
forty-five items only thirty-seven items were considered by the
panelists. Examples of the exam items were displayed in Appendix 1.
Internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) was computed for the
posttest and it was found to be .891. The test was not examined for
differential item functioning (DIF) with respect to male and female
students participated in this study which could be considered as a
limitation of the study.
Quasi-Experimental Design
The design applied in this study was a quasi-experimental design
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996; Gay, 1992) where the pretest posttest
control group technique was applied. This design was used to support
the research purpose and hypotheses. Moreover, the researcher used
convenience sampling in selecting one male school in a district and one
female school in another district. However, the tenth grader classes in
these two schools were randomly assigned as experimental and control
groups. That is, there was random assignment of intact classrooms to
conditions. As a result, the combination of random assignment and
establishment of a control groups served to eliminate the majority of
threats to the internal and external validity of the study. The
compositions of all classes that participated in the study remained
constant throughout the study and the degree of absenteeism was
similar for all classes and both genders.
Procedures
Students in the experimental groups received only an instructional
homework twice a week during their two regular chemistry periods
while students in the control groups received only regular homework
assignments also twice a week during their two regular chemistry
periods. Students in the experimental groups did not receive regular
homework. Regular homework assignment includes questions at the
end of each chemistry chapters in the chemistry school textbooks and
usually assigned as homework by teachers for students to give students
opportunities to review or practice lessons that have already been
taught. Regular homework assignment is usually checked at the
beginning of the class and did not affect new lesson instructional
13 Ali Al-Naqbi
methods. By checking regular homework, teachers intend to identify
students who failed to do the homework assignment. Before the
treatment started both experimental and control classrooms used to get
regular homework assignments for their chemistry class and this is a
common school practice in the UAE that almost involves all school
grades and subjects.
The IHT was a combination of systematic steps that were
taken by the teachers and students (Al-Naqbi, 2010). To apply IHT, the
author consulted two chemistry teachers, then, the author analyzed the
content that students were going to study in the next class meeting to
scientific facts, concepts, and generalizations. The results of the
analysis were used to develop homework assignments for male and
female students in the experimental groups and this process has been
done for 19 chemistry lessons. Therefore, each chemistry topic that was
taught during any of the 19 chemistry lessons (periods) had its
homework items which developed according to the chemistry facts,
concepts, and generalization each topic included. During the
experiment duration (almost ten weeks), the male and female students
in the experimental classrooms in advance of their chemistry classes,
received similar homework for similar chemistry topics as a pre-class
assignment. Therefore, students in the experimental groups continually
experienced chemistry homework assignments twice a week for total of
19 periods of their chemistry school schedule. As a result, IHT was
applied by both male and female chemistry teachers for 19 periods of
their chemistry teaching at tenth grades. To do each homework
assignment students read their school chemistry textbooks, therefore; it
was expected that each student spent between thirty to forty-five
minutes to finish answering any of the nineteenth homework
assignments during the experimentation period.
Following Mikk’s (2006) advice, the focus here was on using
the knowledge that students gained from homework on direct
instruction and not on spending more instructional time in the
classroom dealing with homework. The intention was to prepare more
creative and thoughtful homework (Natriello & McDill, 1996). The
experiment lasted for almost ten weeks and it involved 19 homework
assignments and each homework assignment consisted of a minimum
of 20 items. Homework assignments were based mainly on true/false
questions (N = 86 items), fill in blanks (N = 106 items), complete the
table (N = 16 items), short essay items (N = 14 items), and solve
problems (N = 11 items). Teachers have not used the homework
outcomes (answers) of the control groups as part of any instructional
purposes. Students in the experimental and control groups were taught
the same chemistry topics which were atomic theory; atomic structure
and electrons configuration; the historical development of the periodic
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 14
table; periodic table law; periodic properties; and the chemical bonds.
In the UAE, these chemistry topics were considered a formal start to
chemistry education in the secondary school chemistry curriculum.
Moreover, these topics were basis for more advanced chemistry topics
especially in eleventh and twelfth grade
s as well as in the introductory courses at higher education
levels. To successfully apply IHT, teachers should use teaching
strategies that give students opportunities to participate and to use their
prior knowledge that they could gain by doing the homework.
Examples of these teaching methods are discussion, problem solving,
modeling, guided discovery, and active lecturing. An example of how
chemistry teachers may apply IHT during their teaching is summarized
as follows:
1. The homework assignments should be given to students at
the end of each chemistry classes and the students should do
the homework and bring their answers to the next class.
Each homework assignment should cover all chemistry facts
and concepts incorporated in the topic that will be taught
next chemistry class.
2. In groups or in pairs, students check and review their
homework assignment answers at the beginning of each
class. This may take around five minutes.
3. Then, the teacher should respond to any of students’ concern
about any incorrect point or argument in the students’
homework answers.
4. The teacher should collect all students’ homework
assignment responses for review and grading purposes and
then return them back to students at the beginning of the
next class.
5. Before start teaching a new chemistry topic, the teacher
should ask students some general questions about the topic
to make sure that all students have done the homework
assignment by themselves and the majority of them have
learned something about the topic from the homework
assignment. This may take around three minutes.
6. At this point, the chemistry teacher should start teaching the
new chemistry topic using any teaching methods that allow
students to use and share knowledge that they gained from
the homework assignment. The previous five tips clearly
indicate that when real teaching and learning processes take
place, students will be actively engaged in classroom
activities since they prepared themselves to participate in the
new chemistry lesson.
15 Ali Al-Naqbi
The male and female chemistry teachers who have carried out
the experiment have been trained for almost two weeks by the author
on how to use IHT in their classes. During the training sessions the two
teachers were shown how the chemistry homework assignments and the
chemistry test were developed for this study and they were provided
with ideas about the different purposes for the homework assignments.
The major task that was accomplished during the training sessions
concentrated on the implementation of IHT.
During the implementation the author has met once per week
with each teacher for three purposes. The first purpose was to give the
teachers the next week homework assignments that they will distribute
to their students. The second purpose was to answer questions that may
rise by the teachers during the study implementation and to give them
advices and recommendations to successfully carry out the experiment
and to make sure that all students regardless of their gender taught by
the same methods. The third purpose was to evaluate how students did
in their homework assignments during the previous week. The last
purpose provided ideas for the researcher about how the teachers used
IHT and how students reacted with the homework assignments.
Results
The pretest and posttest mean scores and standard deviations for the
sample are displayed in Table 2. For both the experimental and control
groups the achievement overall mean at the pretest (M = 10.10, SD =
3.58). Table 2 also shows that the experimental groups and the control
groups means for the pretest were almost identical (M = 10.11, SD =
4.00 & M = 10.09, SD = 3.12 respectively). For the experimental
groups the achievement overall mean at the post test (M = 25.30, SD =
8.23) which was greater than the mean of the control groups (M =
19.51, SD = 5.77). This result showed that students who were
receiving IHT scored higher on a chemistry posttest achievement
measure than those who were not receiving IHT.
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 16
Table 2
Tenth Graders’ Pretest-Posttest Mean Scores and Standard Deviations
Pre Test Post Test
Gender Treatment N M SD M SD
Males Experimental 48 10.19 3.26 27.63 9.42
Control 45 09.56 2.98 20.67 6.02
Total 93
Females Experimental 49 0.04 4.64 23.02 6.15
Control 50 10.58 3.19 18.46 5.38
Total 99
Total Experimental 97 10.11 4.00 25.30 8.23
Control 95 10.09 3.12 19.51 5.77
Total 192 10.10 3.58
A two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to
determine significant main effects and interaction effects of treatment
and gender for the chemistry posttest scores. The posttest scores were
used for the outcome variable of the two-way ANOVA. The result of
this analysis is reported in Table 3. However, when the gain scores
(post-pre) were used a similar result was obtained. The analysis showed
a significant main effect for treatment, F (1, 187) = 35.182, p ≤ .000.
Therefore, the first research hypothesis is supported. The Eta squared
(η2) for treatment was calculated by dividing the sum of squares of the
treatment (1576.76) by the total sums of squares (10624.51) (Cohen,
1988; Hays, 1994; Levine & Hullett, 2002; Kirk, 1995) and found to be
0.15 which is partially high (Cohen, 1988) and it indicated that IHT
explains 15% of the variance in student chemistry achievement. As for
gender, a significant difference between male and female students in
the post test (F (1, 187) = 14.01, p ≤ .000) was observed. As previously
reported in Table 2, in the experimental groups the male students
achieved higher (M = 27.63, SD = 9.42 than female students (M =
23.02, SD = 6.15) in the chemistry achievement posttest. Thus, the
second research hypothesis is accepted.
Moreover, as shown in Table 3, the gender accounted for 6% of
the variance, and 79% is accounted for by error. Table 3 illustrates that
there was no interaction effect between the treatment and gender (F (1,
187) = .868, p ≤ .35).
17 Ali Al-Naqbi
Table 3
The Two-Way ANOVA and Gender Variable
Source SS df MS F Sig. η2
Gender 627.90 1 627.90 14.01 .000 0.06
Treatment 1576.76 1 1576.76 35.18 .000 0.15
Gender x 38.92 1 38.92 .87 .353 0.00
Treatment
Error 8380.93 187 44.82 0.79
Total 107851.00 192
Corrected
Total 11235.12 191
To estimate the effect of IHT on the measure of students'
chemistry achievement in the posttest, the standardized mean different
(d-index) was used (Cohen, 1988). The control groups mean was
subtracted from the experimental groups’ mean (IHT students) mean
and the difference was divided by their average standard deviation
(Cooper et al., 2006). The findings indicated that the students who did
IHT outperformed the students who did not receive IHT in posttest
scores (d-index = .83). This indicated that the IHT students
outperformed the no-IHT students on chemistry posttest by (SD = .83).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of Instructional
Homework Technique (IHT) on chemistry achievement of the UAE’s
male and female tenth grade students. The results of the present study
reveal that the means of the experimental and control at the pretest are
almost identical (M=10) which is an indication that the overall
achievement of both groups in the pretest is weak. One reason to
explain why students did poorly in the pretest could be attributed to the
lapse of time where students usually exposed to these introductory
topics instruction at the sixth grade. It appears that students were not
able to recall this basic chemical information that they had studied
almost four years ago. Moreover, the results indicate that regardless of
the students’ gender and the type of school, they were taught science
and chemistry by using similar teaching methods and using the same
science and chemistry textbooks. Furthermore, since the experimental
groups and the control groups regardless of their gender have studied
chemistry during their school years prior to this study by using same
textbooks that assigned for each grade level it could suggest that they
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 18
shared almost the same prior chemistry knowledge which could give
another explanation of the similarity of the means at the pretest.
The results also show that the chemistry achievement overall
mean for the experimental groups in the post test is (M = 25.30) which
is greater than the mean of the control groups (M = 19.51). Based on
these findings, students who were receiving IHT scored higher in a
chemistry posttest achievement measure than those who were not
receiving IHT. Because the chemistry achievement test was based on
the curriculum and reflected the emphasis of the current textbooks, the
mean scores on the chemistry achievement test in the pretest for
experimental and control groups indicate that applying IHT made the
difference which is reflected by the high achievement of the
experimental groups.
The study reported here shows that students who did IHT
outperformed the students who did not receive IHT in chemistry
achievement posttest scores (d-index = .83). This demonstrates that the
IHT students outperformed the no-IHT students on chemistry posttest
by (SD = .83). It seems that IHT could be viewed as an active learning
approach since students could be viewed as active learners when they
use knowledge they have constructed from the homework assignment.
It appears that IHT may enhance constructing students’ scientific prior
knowledge about the chemistry topics that there are about to study
which helps them to enter their classes with good preparation and
experience. Furthermore, using this technique may not just sharpen
students’ reading ability but also may allow them to identify scientific
facts, concepts, and generalizations to increase their scientific
knowledge base. It is more likely that IHT enhances students review
skills and increases their participation rate in the classroom discussion.
Furthermore, it appears that IHT could promote students’ positive
attitude toward chemistry and increase the likelihood of the students’
participation in learning materials in class. This finding corroborates
the findings of Cooper (1989; Cooper et al., 2006). However, the
overall effect in this study is higher than the homework's effects found
by Cooper (1989) who reported in his meta-analysis that for grades 10-
12 the d-index was .64.
Regarding the gender, as shown in the result of this study,
although male and female students in the experimental classes did
better in the chemistry achievement posttest, male students scored
higher than female students where a significant statistical difference in
gender for chemistry posttest is observed. The higher scores in
chemistry achievement posttest obtained by males is consistent with a
number of other studies reviewed in the introduction. For example,
studies done by Becker, 1989; Connelly, 2008; Looker and Thiessen,
2004; Mau and Lynn, 2000; Mullis et al., 1998; Simpson & Oliver,
19 Ali Al-Naqbi
1990 showed that male students have some advantage over females in
physical sciences such as chemistry. The findings of the current study
indicate that in the UAE, where the community provides equal
opportunities for males and females to study science (Khalaf, 2000),
male students tended to do better in chemistry at secondary school level
and that the “gender gap” and the perception of male dominance in
science as suggested by literature still exists. The effect of IHT on the
student gender can be observed that male and female students in the
experimental groups outperformed male and female students in the
control groups in the posttest.
Based on the results of a two-way ANOVA, there is a
significant main effect for treatment and has high effect on students’
chemistry achievement. Therefore, the results indicate that students
who were receiving IHT scored significantly higher in the chemistry
achievement posttest than students who did not receive IHT. This
finding is consistent with the findings of previous studies which
considered homework as an important educational means because it
fosters both academic and nonacademic benefits (see for example,
Cooper, 2001; Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, & Greathouse, 1998; Cooper,
Robinson, & Patall, 2006; Cooper & Valentine, 2001; Hong, Peng, &
Rowell, 2009; Lubbers, Van Der Werf, Kuyper, & Hendriks, 2010;
Reinhardt, Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2009; Trautwein, 2007).
Moreover, this finding does not support other studies such as that of
Kohn (2006) who found out that there are many research studies
suggesting that doing homework may not advance students’ academic
and nonacademic achievements.
In addition, the results reveal that IHT explains 15% of the
variance in student chemistry achievement which is partially high
according to Cohen (1988). Although the treatment accounts for 15% of
the variance, there is 79% of the variance of chemistry achievement
was not explained by the Eta squared analysis. A possible explanation
for this is that not all the variables relate to chemistry achievement were
included in the study.
Finally, a two way ANOVA indicate that there are no
significant differences in treatment by gender interaction effect. This
can be explained in the light of the results of the descriptive statistics
which show that the overall mean scores of the chemistry achievement
posttest for the male students in both experimental and control groups
are higher (M = 27.63) and (M = 20.67) respectively than those of the
female students in the experimental and control groups (M = 23.02) and
(M = 18.46) respectively. This emphasizes the finding of the previous
research studies which indicated that males students at the secondary
school level generally tend to score higher than their female
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 20
counterparts (see for examples, Connelly, 2008; Khalaf, 2000; Looker
& Thiessen, 2004; McMullen, 2004).
The current study explored ideas about the homework-
achievement relation pertaining to culture other than Western or Far
Asian cultures. It is most likely that IHT can be successfully applied by
both male and female teachers and can be assigned for both male and
female students at different school levels (Al-Naqbi, 2010).
Educational Implications
The present study offers the following educational implications. First,
teachers regardless of the subject they teach should become more aware
about the importance of the instructional homework and they should
consider homework as a viable instructional tool. Second, teachers
should carefully plan for the homework assignments so that homework
can support students' learning and help them construct fundamental
knowledge that they need to use when they come to study more
complicated concepts in the classroom. Third, IHT offers a significant
potential for the development of chemistry education at the secondary
school level, it should be therefore, become part of school science
teaching methods. Fourth, students at high schools should receive
homework prior to the formal instruction and it should be part of the
teaching preparation and the instructional techniques. Fifth, knowing
how to prepare instructional homework needs to be part of science
teacher education programs. Therefore, teachers at their training
programs should spend a great deal of time and efforts on developing
appropriate designed homework instruction. Finally, homework
assignment strategies at schools today should be reviewed so that
regular homework which students usually receive should be changed or
modified.
The current study could open new windows for research to
explore the role of teachers as well as students in preparation and
carrying out homework assignment in a way that could directly
influence student’s achievement and other student dependent variables
as mentioned in the educational literature. Future research relate to IHT
should consider other variables that were not included in the current
study, such as students’ attitudes toward IHT, students’ participation
level in classroom instructional activities where IHT is applied, and
home support for homework assignment completion. Using a mixed
methods approach that offers insights into how students undertake the
IHT and normal homework assignments relating to specific chemistry
topics should also be considered for a future research that examining
the effects of IHT.
21 Ali Al-Naqbi
References
Agnieszka, K-O. (2010). Homework in chemistry teaching. Paper
presented at the 4th International Conference in didactics of
Science. Krakow, Poland, July 07-09.
Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2010). The effects of instructional homework
technique on elementary students chemistry understanding.
Paper published in the proceedings of the ICERI2010
(International Conference of Education, Research and
Innovation), November 15-17, 2010, Madrid, Spain.
Bayram, H., & Comek, A. (2009). Examining the relations between
science attitudes, logical thinking ability, information literacy
and academic achievement through interne assisted chemistry
education. Procedia Social and Behavioral science, 1, 1526-
1532.
Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, Ina V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith,
T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1996). Science achievement in the middle
school year: IEA’s third international mathematics and science
study (TIMSS). Chestnut, MA: Boston College, Center for Study
of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.
Becker, R. M. (1989). Gender and science achievement: A reanalysis of
studies from two meta-analyses. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 26(2), 141-169.
Bennett, S., & and Kalish, N. (2006). The case against homework:
How homework is hurting our children and what we can do
about it. New York: Crown.
Bonder, G. M. (1991). I have found you an argument: The conceptual
knowledge of beginning chemistry graduate students. Journal of
Chemistry Education, 68, 385-388.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cole, R. S., & Todd, J. B. (2003). Effects of web-based multimedia
homework with immediate rich feedback on student learning in
general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 1338-
1343.
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 22
Connelly, P. (2008). A critical review of some recent developments in
quantitative research on gender and achievement in the United
Kingdom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(3),
249-260.
Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational
Leadership, 47(3), 85-91.
Cooper, H. (2001). Homework for all in Moderation. Educational
Leadership, 58(7), 34-38.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J.J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998).
Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of
homework assigned and completed, and students achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 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 Psychologist,
36, 143-154.
Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. Elementary School
Journal, 100, 529-548.
Downey, D. & Yuan, A. (2005). Sex differences in school performance
during high school: Puzzling patterns and possible explanations.
The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 299-321.
Else-Quest, M.M., Hyde, J.S., & Hejmadi, A. (2008). Mother and child
emotions during homework. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 10(1), 5-35.
Entwhistle, D. Alexander, K. & Olson, L. (1997). Children, schools
and inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships:
Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Epstein, J. L., & Pinkow, L. (1988). A model for research on homework
based on U.S. and international studies. (Report No. 27). Center
23 Ali Al-Naqbi
for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. ( ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 301 323).
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes:
Teachers' role in designing homework. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 181-193.
Farrow, S., Tymms, P., & Henderson, B. (1999). Homework and
attainment in primary schools. British Educational Research
Journal, 25, 323-341.
Fleming, M. L., & Malone, M. R. (1983). The relationship of student
characteristics and student performance in science as viewed by
meta-analysis research. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 20(5), 481-495.
Foyle, H. (1990). Homework and cooperative learning: A classroom
field experiment. Emporia, KS: Emporia State University,
Faculty Research and Creativity Committee. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 350 285)
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate
research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implication for
teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International
handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers BV.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry
education research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical
Education, 76(4), 548-554.
Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and application. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Gonzales, p., et al. (2004). Highlights from the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003. Washington,
DC.: U.S department of Education (NCES no. 2005-005)
Harris, S., Nixon, J., & Rudduck, J. (1993). School work, homework
and gender. Gender and Education, 5(1), 3-14.
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 24
Hays, W.L. (1994). Statistics. Fort Worth: TX: Harcourt Brace.
Hong, E., & Milgram, R. M. (1999). Preferred and actual homework
style: A cross-cultural examination. Educational Research,
41(3), 251-265.
Hong, E., Peng, Y., Rowell, L. L. (2009). Homework self-regulation:
Grade, gender, and achievement-level differences. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19, 269-276.
International Study Center .(2011). Dubai TIMSS and PIRLS 2011
report. Boston: Lynch School of Education, Boston College
Kirk, R.E. (1995). Experimental design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks
Cole.
Khalaf, A. K. (2000). The predictors of chemistry achievement of 12th
grade students in secondary schools in the United Arab
Emirates (Doctoral dissertation, the Ohio State University,
2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 61-02,
Section: A, page: 0479.; 327 p.).
Knaus, K., Murphy, K., Blecking, A., & Holme, T. (2011). A Valid and
reliable instrument for cognitive complexity rating assignment
of chemistry exam items. Chemical Education Research, 88(5),
554-560.
Kohn, A. (2006). Abusing research: The study of homework and other
examples. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 9-22.
Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How
homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits
learning. Boston: Beacon.
Levine, T., & Hullett, C. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and
misreporting of effect size communication research. Human
Communication Research, 28(4), 612-625.
Looker, D. & Thiessen, V. (2004). Aspirations of Canadian youth for
higher education. Final Report (SP-600-05-04E) Ottawa:
HRSDC.
Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P.C., Kuyper, H., & Hendriks, A.A.
J. (2010). Does homework behavior mediate the relation
25 Ali Al-Naqbi
between personality and academic performance? Learning and
Individual Differences, 20(3), 203-208.
Lucas, P.M. (2009). Secondary science homework and instructional
methodologies: An investigation of the alignment of homework
assignments and teachers’ self-professed instructional
methodology. (Doctoral dissertation, Ashland University,
Ashland, Ohio, 2009). ProQuest Dissertation & Theses,
3401755.
Markovic, M., Randjelovic, M., & Trivic, D. (2010). Practical
homework assignments as part of chemistry teaching and
learning. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 69-78.
Martin, M., Mullis, I., & Chrostowski, S. (2004). TIMSS 2003 technical
report. Boston, MA: Boston College, Chestnut Hill
Mau, W-C., & Lynn R. (2000). Gender differences in homework and
test scores in mathematics, reading and science at tenth and
twelfth grade. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 2(2), 119-125.
McMullen, K. (2004). The gap in achievement between boys and girls.
Education Matters, No. 4. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Mikk, J. (2006, May, 12-13) Students homework and TIMSS 2003
mathematics results. Paper presented at the International
Conference "Teaching Mathematics: Retrospective and
Perspectives," Tartu, Estonia. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 491 866)
Ministry of Education. (2011a). Chemistry for the tenth grade students.
UAE. Author.
Ministry of Education. (2011b). Chemistry for the eleventh grade
students. UAE. Author.
Ministry of Education. (2011c). Chemistry for the twelfth grade
students. UAE. Author.
Mulhenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. J. (1999).
Homework and achievement: Explaining the different strengths
of relation at the elementary and secondary school levels. Social
Psychology of Education, 3, 295-317.
The Effects of Instructional Homework Technique 26
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Beaton, A.E., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L.,
& Smith, T.A. (1998). Mathematics and science achievement in
the final year of secondary school: IEA’s Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, Ma:
Boston College, TIMSS International Study Center. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 414 207)
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Science 2011:
National assessment of educational progress at grade 8.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of
Education (NCES no. 2012-465).
Natriello, G., & McDill, E. (1996). Performance standards, student
effort on homework and academic achievement. Sociology of
Education, 59, 18-31.
Reinhardt, D., Theodore, L., Bray, M., & Kehle, T. (2009). Improving
homework accuracy: Interdependent group contingencies and
randomized components. Psychology in the Schools, 46(5), 471-
488.
Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences
on attitudes toward achievement in science among adolescent
students. Science Education, 94(1), 1-18.
Stromquist, N. P. (1989). Determinant of educational participation and
achievement of women in Third World: A review of the
evidence and a theoretical critique. Review of Educational
Research, 59(2), 143-183.
Trautwein, u. (2007). The homework-achievement relation
reconsidered: Differentiating homework time, homework
frequency, and homework effort. Learning and Instruction,
17(3), 373-388.
Trautwein, U., Köller, O., Schmitz, B., & Baumert, J. (2002). Do
homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel
analysis in 7th-grade mathematics. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 27, 26-50.
Tyson, L., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). The complexity of teaching and
learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education,
76 (4), 554-558.
27 Ali Al-Naqbi
Van Voorhis, F. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school:
Effects on family involvement and science achievement. The
Journal of Educational Research, 96, 323-338.
Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of
students. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 155-165.
Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). Science achievement of girls in
single-sex and co-educational schools. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 8(1), 5-20.
Xu, J. (2005). Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and
high school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 99,
46-55.
Xu, J. (2006). Gender and homework management reported by high
school students. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 73-91.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (1998). Case studies of families doing third grade
homework. Teachers College Record, 100, 402-436.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, K. (2005). Homework practices and
academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and
perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 30, 397-417.
