Gender differences in human capital investments made outside of the traditional school day suggest that males and females consume, respond to, and form habits relating to education differently. We document robust, statistically significant one-hour weekly gender gaps in secondary students’ non-school study time using time diary data from the 2003–2012 waves of the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) and transcript data from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS). These complementary data sets provide consistent evidence of gender gaps that favor females and are not explained by gender differences in after-school time use, parental involvement, educational expectations, course taking, past academic achievement, or cognitive ability.
AllemanJ.BrophyJ. (1991). Reconceptualizing homework as out-of-school learning opportunities. East Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching.
2.
BaileyM. J.DynarskiS. M. (2011). Gains and gaps: Changing inequality in US college entry and completion (No. w17633). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
3.
BoundJ.HershbeinB.LongB. T. (2009). Playing the admissions game: Student reactions to increasing college competition (No. w15272). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
4.
BoundJ.TurnerS. (2011). Dropouts and diplomas: The divergence in collegiate outcomes. In HanushekE.MachinS.WoessmanL. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 4, pp. 573–613). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
5.
BuchmannC.DiPreteT. A. (2006). The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 515–541.
6.
CavanaghS. E.SchillerK. S.Riegle-CrumbC. (2006). Marital transitions, parenting, and schooling: Exploring the link between family-structure history and adolescents’ academic status. Sociology of Education, 79(4), 329–354.
7.
CooperH.LindsayJ. J.NyeB.GreathouseS. (1998). Relationships among attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 70–83.
8.
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.
9.
CornoL. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14–22.
10.
CornoL. (1996). Homework is a complicated thing. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 27–30.
11.
DauberS. L.AlexanderK. L.EntwisleD. R. (1993). Characteristics of retainees and early precursors of retention in grade: Who is held back?Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(3), 326–343.
12.
DuckworthA. L.SeligmanM. E. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 198.
13.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.
14.
FosterG.KalenkoskiC. M. (2013). Tobit or OLS? An empirical evaluation under different diary window lengths. Applied Economics, 45(20), 2994–3010.
15.
GershensonS. (2013). Do summer time-use gaps vary by socioeconomic status?American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1219–1248.
16.
GrimmP. (2010). Social desirability bias. New York, NY: Wiley International.
17.
HidiS.RenningerK. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
18.
Hoover-DempseyK. V.BattiatoA. C.WalkerJ. M.ReedR. P.DeJongJ. M.JonesK. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 195–209.
19.
JacobB. A. (2002). Where the boys aren’t: Non-cognitive skills, returns to school, and the gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 21(6), 589–598.
20.
JusterF. T.StaffordF. P. (1991). The allocation of time: Empirical findings, behavioral models, and problems of measurement. Journal of Economic Literature, 29(2), 471–522.
21.
KalenkoskiC. M.PabiloniaS. W. (2014). Does high school homework increase academic achievement? (IZA Discussion Paper No. 8142). Bonn: IZA.
22.
LundbergS. (2013). The college type: Personality and educational inequality. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(3), 421–441.
23.
MullerC. (1998). Gender differences in parental involvement and adolescents’ mathematics achievement. Sociology of Education, 71(4), 336–356.
24.
PabiloniaS. (2014). Children’s media use and homework time. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
25.
RaciborskiR. (2011). Right-censored Poisson regression model. Stata Journal, 11(1), 95–105.
26.
RameyG.RameyV. A. (2010). The rug rat race. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 41(1), 129–199.
27.
SchneiderB. L.WallsworthG.GutinI. (2014). Family experiences of competition and adolescent performance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(3), 665–676.
28.
SchochetP. Z. (2008). Technical methods report: Guidelines for using multiple testing in impact evaluations (NCEE 2008-4018). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
29.
SinghK.GranvilleM.DikaS. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–332.
30.
SockettH. (1988). Education and will: Aspects of personal capability. American Journal of Education, 96(2), 195–214.
31.
StewartJ. (2013). Tobit or not Tobit?Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 38(3), 263–290.
XuJ. (2005). Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(1), 46–55.
34.
XuJ. (2006). Gender and homework management reported by high school students. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 73–91.
35.
XuJ. (2008). Models of secondary school students’ interest in homework: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1180–1205.
36.
XuJ.CornoL. (1998). Case studies of families doing third-grade homework. The Teachers College Record, 100(2), 402–436.
37.
ZickC.BryantW. K. (1996). A new look at parents’ time spent in child care: Primary and secondary time use. Social Science Research, 25(3), 260–280.
Supplementary Material
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.
