This research explores students’ homework engagement across three dimensions: (a) cognitive, (b) emotional, and (c) behavioral activities, specifically contrasting private and public secondary schools in Addis Ababa. A qualitative research methodology was utilized, with reliability and validity assessments carried out through peer review, site evaluations, and member validation. Twelve teachers, six school leaders, and six Focus Group Discussions (FGD) participated. A semi-structured questionnaire and thematic analysis indicated that high-achieving secondary school students exhibit greater engagement and superior academic performance. In contrast, low-achieving institutions tend to emphasize superficial homework, while average-performing schools concentrate on motivating students toward future career aspirations. Private schools also strongly emphasize fostering intrinsic motivation, using digital resources, addressing accountability issues, and assigning substantial homework, but public schools cannot. Students in private schools tend to demonstrate higher levels of respect and more favorable perceptions, while students in public schools often hold negative views toward homework and related homework settings. In summary, while private educational institutions offer distinct advantages, the variability in homework engagement necessitates a focus on effective strategies and supportive home environments to improve learning outcomes, highlighting the need for policy advocacy by the Ministry of Education.
AndersonB. (1986). Homework: What do national assessment results tell us? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 276 980). National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED276980
3.
ArchambaultI.JanoszM.MorizotJ.PaganiL. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79(9), 408–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00428.x
4.
Battin-PearsonS.NewcombM. D.AbbottR. D.HillK. G.CatalanoR. F.HawkinsJ. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five theories. Journal of Education & Psychology, 92(3), 568–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.568
5.
BembenuttyH. (2010). Homework completion: The role of self-efficacy, delay of gratification and self-regulatory processes. International Journal of Educational Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 1–20. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-24447-001
6.
BouffardT.BoileauL.VezeauC. (2001). Students’ transition from elementary to high school and changes of the relationship between motivation and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(4), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173199
BrysonC.HandL. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701602748
ConnellJ. P.WellbornJ. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In GunnarM. R.SroufeL. A. (Ed.), Self-processes and development: Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.76088
CooperH.RobinsonJ. C.PatallE. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249797937
13.
CooperH. M. (Ed.). (2007). Battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.
14.
CornoL.MandinachE. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528309529266
15.
CouttsP. M. (2004). Meanings of homework and implications for practice. Theory into Practice, 43(3), 182–188. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3701519
16.
DavidovitchN.YavichR. (2017). Views of students, parents, and teachers on homework in elementary school. International Education Studies, 10(10), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n10p90
DettmersS.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.KunterM.BaumertJ. (2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: Using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics. Journal of Education & Psychology, 102(2), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018453
EpsteinJ. L.Van VoorhisF. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers' roles in designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP36034
FinnJ. D.PannozzoG. M.VoelklK. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. Elementary School Journal, 95(5), 421–454. https://doi.org/10.1086/461853
23.
FinnJ. D.RockD. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221
24.
FlinkC.BoggianoA. K.MainD. S.BarrettM.KatzA. (1992). Children’s achievement-related behaviors: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational orientation. In BoggianoA. K.PittmanT. S. (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social developmental perspective (pp. 189–214). Cambridge University Press.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
HammondsL.MathersonL. H.WilsonE. K.WrightV. H. (2013). Gateway tools: Five tools to allow teachers to overcome barriers to technology integration. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 80(1), 36–40. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1437196957?
IlukolR. P.PatienceT. (2024). Homework engagement and learner academic achievement in universal primary education schools in Moro to District, Uganda. International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Trends, 3(10), 239566. https://ijsret.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/IJSRET_V10_issue3_239.pdf
33.
JimersonS. R.CamposE.GreifJ. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8(1), 7–27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272038497
KatzI.KaplanA.GuetaG. (2009). Students’ needs, teachers’ support, and motivation for doing homework: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Experiential Education, 78(2), 246–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292868
36.
KolikantB. D. Y. (2010). Students’ attitudes towards use of the Internet after school hours for school assignments. In Eshet-AlakalaiY.CaspiA.EdenS.GeriN.YairY. (Eds.), The learning person in the technological era (pp. 32–37). Open University [Hebrew].
LettermanD. (2002). Students perception of homework assignments and what influences their ideas. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 10(2), 113–122. http://www.cluteinstitute.com
MarzanoR. J.PickeringD. J. (2007). Special topic: The case for and against homework. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 74–79. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ766368
44.
MeeceJ. L.BlumenfeldP. C.HoyleR. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.514
45.
MerwinJ. C. (1969). Historical review of changing concepts of evaluation. In TylerR. L. (Ed.), Educational evaluation: New roles, new methods: The sixty-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 48–60). University of Chicago Press. https://hdl.handle.net/2139/6587
46.
Ministry of Education. (2018). Ethiopian education development roadmap. Education Strategy Center.
O’FarrellS. L.MorrisonG. M. (2003). A factor analysis exploring school bonding and related constructs among upper elementary students. California School Psychologist, 8(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340896
49.
OgulaP. A. (2005). Research methods. CUEA Publications.
50.
OlsonA. L.PetersonR. L. (2015, April). Student engagement, strategy brief: Student engagement project. University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the Nebraska Department of Education. http://k12engagement.unl.edu/student-engagement.
51.
PhillipsB. D. (2014). Qualitative disaster research. Oxford University Press.
52.
PringR. (Ed.). (2015). Philosophy of educational research (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
RosárioP.NúñezJ. C.VallejoG.CunhaJ.NunesT.MourãoR.PintoR. (2015). Does homework design matter? The role of homework’s purpose in student mathematics achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 10–24. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/
55.
SinclairM. F.ChristensonS. L.LehrC. A.AndersonA. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. California School Psychologist, 8, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340894
56.
SkinnerE.FurrerC.MarchandG.KindermannT. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic?Journal of Education & Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
57.
SuárezN.RegueiroB.EstévezI.Del Mar FerradásM.GuisandeM. A.RodríguezS. (2019). Individual precursors of student homework behavioral engagement: The role of intrinsic motivation, perceived homework utility and homework attitude. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00941
58.
SullivanM. H.SequeiraP. V. (1996). The impact of purposeful homework on learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 69(6), 346–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1996.10114337
59.
TrautweinU.KöllerO. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement-still much of amystery. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 115–145. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023460414243
60.
TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.SchnyderI.NiggliA. (2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Education & Psychology, 98(2), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438
61.
UlmanenS.SoiniT.PietarinenJ.PyhältöK. (2016). Students’ experiences of the development of emotional engagement. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.003
VoH.HoH. (2024). Online learning environment and student engagement: The mediating role of expectancy and task value beliefs. Australian Educational Researcher, 51(3), 2183–2207. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378212654
65.
WalkerJ. M. T.Hoover-DempseyK. V.WhetselD. R.GreenC. L. (2004). Parental involvement in homework: A review of current research and its implications for teachers, after school program staff, and parent leaders. Harvard Family Research Project. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228927833
66.
WangM. T.HofkensT. (2020). Beyond classroom academics: A school-wide and multi-contextual perspective on student engagement in school. Adolescent Research Review, 5(4), 419–433. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33313381/
67.
XuJ.YuanR. (2003). Doing homework: Listening to students’, parents’, and teachers’ voices in one urban middle school community. School Community Journal, 13(2), 25–44. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-10507-002
68.
Yazzie-MintzE. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University. https://archive.org/details/ERIC_ED495758/page/n9/mode/2up
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
