how does homework lower students enthusiasm

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff

News and Media

• News & Media Home
• Research Stories
• School’s In
• In the Media

You are here

More than two hours of homework may be counterproductive, research suggests.

A Stanford education researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter.   "Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good," wrote Denise Pope , a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of a study published in the Journal of Experimental Education .   The researchers used survey data to examine perceptions about homework, student well-being and behavioral engagement in a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California communities. Along with the survey data, Pope and her colleagues used open-ended answers to explore the students' views on homework.   Median household income exceeded $90,000 in these communities, and 93 percent of the students went on to college, either two-year or four-year.   Students in these schools average about 3.1 hours of homework each night.   "The findings address how current homework practices in privileged, high-performing schools sustain students' advantage in competitive climates yet hinder learning, full engagement and well-being," Pope wrote.   Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school.   Their study found that too much homework is associated with:   • Greater stress : 56 percent of the students considered homework a primary source of stress, according to the survey data. Forty-three percent viewed tests as a primary stressor, while 33 percent put the pressure to get good grades in that category. Less than 1 percent of the students said homework was not a stressor.   • Reductions in health : In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems. The researchers asked students whether they experienced health issues such as headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss and stomach problems.   • Less time for friends, family and extracurricular pursuits : Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were "not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills," according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy.   A balancing act   The results offer empirical evidence that many students struggle to find balance between homework, extracurricular activities and social time, the researchers said. Many students felt forced or obligated to choose homework over developing other talents or skills.   Also, there was no relationship between the time spent on homework and how much the student enjoyed it. The research quoted students as saying they often do homework they see as "pointless" or "mindless" in order to keep their grades up.   "This kind of busy work, by its very nature, discourages learning and instead promotes doing homework simply to get points," said Pope, who is also a co-founder of Challenge Success , a nonprofit organization affiliated with the GSE that conducts research and works with schools and parents to improve students' educational experiences..   Pope said the research calls into question the value of assigning large amounts of homework in high-performing schools. Homework should not be simply assigned as a routine practice, she said.   "Rather, any homework assigned should have a purpose and benefit, and it should be designed to cultivate learning and development," wrote Pope.   High-performing paradox   In places where students attend high-performing schools, too much homework can reduce their time to foster skills in the area of personal responsibility, the researchers concluded. "Young people are spending more time alone," they wrote, "which means less time for family and fewer opportunities to engage in their communities."   Student perspectives   The researchers say that while their open-ended or "self-reporting" methodology to gauge student concerns about homework may have limitations – some might regard it as an opportunity for "typical adolescent complaining" – it was important to learn firsthand what the students believe.   The paper was co-authored by Mollie Galloway from Lewis and Clark College and Jerusha Conner from Villanova University.

Clifton B. Parker is a writer at the Stanford News Service .

More Stories

⟵ Go to all Research Stories

Get the Educator

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Stanford Graduate School of Education

482 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-3096 Tel: (650) 723-2109

• Contact Admissions
• GSE Leadership
• Site Feedback
• Web Accessibility
• Career Resources
• Faculty Open Positions
• Explore Courses
• Academic Calendar
• Office of the Registrar
• Cubberley Library
• StanfordWho
• StanfordYou

Improving lives through learning

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?

A conversation with a Wheelock researcher, a BU student, and a fourth-grade teacher

“Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids’ lives,” says Wheelock’s Janine Bempechat. “It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful. It has to do with the value of practicing over and over.” Photo by iStock/Glenn Cook Photography

Do your homework.

If only it were that simple.

Educators have debated the merits of homework since the late 19th century. In recent years, amid concerns of some parents and teachers that children are being stressed out by too much homework, things have only gotten more fraught.

“Homework is complicated,” says developmental psychologist Janine Bempechat, a Wheelock College of Education & Human Development clinical professor. The author of the essay “ The Case for (Quality) Homework—Why It Improves Learning and How Parents Can Help ” in the winter 2019 issue of Education Next , Bempechat has studied how the debate about homework is influencing teacher preparation, parent and student beliefs about learning, and school policies.

She worries especially about socioeconomically disadvantaged students from low-performing schools who, according to research by Bempechat and others, get little or no homework.

BU Today  sat down with Bempechat and Erin Bruce (Wheelock’17,’18), a new fourth-grade teacher at a suburban Boston school, and future teacher freshman Emma Ardizzone (Wheelock) to talk about what quality homework looks like, how it can help children learn, and how schools can equip teachers to design it, evaluate it, and facilitate parents’ role in it.

BU Today: Parents and educators who are against homework in elementary school say there is no research definitively linking it to academic performance for kids in the early grades. You’ve said that they’re missing the point.

Bempechat : I think teachers assign homework in elementary school as a way to help kids develop skills they’ll need when they’re older—to begin to instill a sense of responsibility and to learn planning and organizational skills. That’s what I think is the greatest value of homework—in cultivating beliefs about learning and skills associated with academic success. If we greatly reduce or eliminate homework in elementary school, we deprive kids and parents of opportunities to instill these important learning habits and skills.

We do know that beginning in late middle school, and continuing through high school, there is a strong and positive correlation between homework completion and academic success.

That’s what I think is the greatest value of homework—in cultivating beliefs about learning and skills associated with academic success.

You talk about the importance of quality homework. What is that?

Quality homework is engaging and relevant to kids’ lives. It gives them autonomy and engages them in the community and with their families. In some subjects, like math, worksheets can be very helpful. It has to do with the value of practicing over and over.

What are your concerns about homework and low-income children?

The argument that some people make—that homework “punishes the poor” because lower-income parents may not be as well-equipped as affluent parents to help their children with homework—is very troubling to me. There are no parents who don’t care about their children’s learning. Parents don’t actually have to help with homework completion in order for kids to do well. They can help in other ways—by helping children organize a study space, providing snacks, being there as a support, helping children work in groups with siblings or friends.

Isn’t the discussion about getting rid of homework happening mostly in affluent communities?

Yes, and the stories we hear of kids being stressed out from too much homework—four or five hours of homework a night—are real. That’s problematic for physical and mental health and overall well-being. But the research shows that higher-income students get a lot more homework than lower-income kids.

Teachers may not have as high expectations for lower-income children. Schools should bear responsibility for providing supports for kids to be able to get their homework done—after-school clubs, community support, peer group support. It does kids a disservice when our expectations are lower for them.

The conversation around homework is to some extent a social class and social justice issue. If we eliminate homework for all children because affluent children have too much, we’re really doing a disservice to low-income children. They need the challenge, and every student can rise to the challenge with enough supports in place.

What did you learn by studying how education schools are preparing future teachers to handle homework?

My colleague, Margarita Jimenez-Silva, at the University of California, Davis, School of Education, and I interviewed faculty members at education schools, as well as supervising teachers, to find out how students are being prepared. And it seemed that they weren’t. There didn’t seem to be any readings on the research, or conversations on what high-quality homework is and how to design it.

Erin, what kind of training did you get in handling homework?

Bruce : I had phenomenal professors at Wheelock, but homework just didn’t come up. I did lots of student teaching. I’ve been in classrooms where the teachers didn’t assign any homework, and I’ve been in rooms where they assigned hours of homework a night. But I never even considered homework as something that was my decision. I just thought it was something I’d pull out of a book and it’d be done.

I started giving homework on the first night of school this year. My first assignment was to go home and draw a picture of the room where you do your homework. I want to know if it’s at a table and if there are chairs around it and if mom’s cooking dinner while you’re doing homework.

The second night I asked them to talk to a grown-up about how are you going to be able to get your homework done during the week. The kids really enjoyed it. There’s a running joke that I’m teaching life skills.

Friday nights, I read all my kids’ responses to me on their homework from the week and it’s wonderful. They pour their hearts out. It’s like we’re having a conversation on my couch Friday night.

It matters to know that the teacher cares about you and that what you think matters to the teacher. Homework is a vehicle to connect home and school…for parents to know teachers are welcoming to them and their families.

Bempechat : I can’t imagine that most new teachers would have the intuition Erin had in designing homework the way she did.

Ardizzone : Conversations with kids about homework, feeling you’re being listened to—that’s such a big part of wanting to do homework….I grew up in Westchester County. It was a pretty demanding school district. My junior year English teacher—I loved her—she would give us feedback, have meetings with all of us. She’d say, “If you have any questions, if you have anything you want to talk about, you can talk to me, here are my office hours.” It felt like she actually cared.

Bempechat : It matters to know that the teacher cares about you and that what you think matters to the teacher. Homework is a vehicle to connect home and school…for parents to know teachers are welcoming to them and their families.

Ardizzone : But can’t it lead to parents being overbearing and too involved in their children’s lives as students?

Bempechat : There’s good help and there’s bad help. The bad help is what you’re describing—when parents hover inappropriately, when they micromanage, when they see their children confused and struggling and tell them what to do.

Good help is when parents recognize there’s a struggle going on and instead ask informative questions: “Where do you think you went wrong?” They give hints, or pointers, rather than saying, “You missed this,” or “You didn’t read that.”

Bruce : I hope something comes of this. I hope BU or Wheelock can think of some way to make this a more pressing issue. As a first-year teacher, it was not something I even thought about on the first day of school—until a kid raised his hand and said, “Do we have homework?” It would have been wonderful if I’d had a plan from day one.

Explore Related Topics:

• Share this story

Senior Contributing Editor

Sara Rimer A journalist for more than three decades, Sara Rimer worked at the Miami Herald , Washington Post and, for 26 years, the New York Times , where she was the New England bureau chief, and a national reporter covering education, aging, immigration, and other social justice issues. Her stories on the death penalty’s inequities were nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and cited in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Her journalism honors include Columbia University’s Meyer Berger award for in-depth human interest reporting. She holds a BA degree in American Studies from the University of Michigan. Profile

She can be reached at [email protected] .

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 81 comments on Does Homework Really Help Students Learn?

Insightful! The values about homework in elementary schools are well aligned with my intuition as a parent.

when i finish my work i do my homework and i sometimes forget what to do because i did not get enough sleep

same omg it does not help me it is stressful and if I have it in more than one class I hate it.

Same I think my parent wants to help me but, she doesn’t care if I get bad grades so I just try my best and my grades are great.

I think that last question about Good help from parents is not know to all parents, we do as our parents did or how we best think it can be done, so maybe coaching parents or giving them resources on how to help with homework would be very beneficial for the parent on how to help and for the teacher to have consistency and improve homework results, and of course for the child. I do see how homework helps reaffirm the knowledge obtained in the classroom, I also have the ability to see progress and it is a time I share with my kids

The answer to the headline question is a no-brainer – a more pressing problem is why there is a difference in how students from different cultures succeed. Perfect example is the student population at BU – why is there a majority population of Asian students and only about 3% black students at BU? In fact at some universities there are law suits by Asians to stop discrimination and quotas against admitting Asian students because the real truth is that as a group they are demonstrating better qualifications for admittance, while at the same time there are quotas and reduced requirements for black students to boost their portion of the student population because as a group they do more poorly in meeting admissions standards – and it is not about the Benjamins. The real problem is that in our PC society no one has the gazuntas to explore this issue as it may reveal that all people are not created equal after all. Or is it just environmental cultural differences??????

I get you have a concern about the issue but that is not even what the point of this article is about. If you have an issue please take this to the site we have and only post your opinion about the actual topic

This is not at all what the article is talking about.

This literally has nothing to do with the article brought up. You should really take your opinions somewhere else before you speak about something that doesn’t make sense.

we have the same name

so they have the same name what of it?

lol you tell her

totally agree

What does that have to do with homework, that is not what the article talks about AT ALL.

Yes, I think homework plays an important role in the development of student life. Through homework, students have to face challenges on a daily basis and they try to solve them quickly.I am an intense online tutor at 24x7homeworkhelp and I give homework to my students at that level in which they handle it easily.

More than two-thirds of students said they used alcohol and drugs, primarily marijuana, to cope with stress.

You know what’s funny? I got this assignment to write an argument for homework about homework and this article was really helpful and understandable, and I also agree with this article’s point of view.

I also got the same task as you! I was looking for some good resources and I found this! I really found this article useful and easy to understand, just like you! ^^

i think that homework is the best thing that a child can have on the school because it help them with their thinking and memory.

I am a child myself and i think homework is a terrific pass time because i can’t play video games during the week. It also helps me set goals.

Homework is not harmful ,but it will if there is too much

I feel like, from a minors point of view that we shouldn’t get homework. Not only is the homework stressful, but it takes us away from relaxing and being social. For example, me and my friends was supposed to hang at the mall last week but we had to postpone it since we all had some sort of work to do. Our minds shouldn’t be focused on finishing an assignment that in realty, doesn’t matter. I completely understand that we should have homework. I have to write a paper on the unimportance of homework so thanks.

homework isn’t that bad

Are you a student? if not then i don’t really think you know how much and how severe todays homework really is

i am a student and i do not enjoy homework because i practice my sport 4 out of the five days we have school for 4 hours and that’s not even counting the commute time or the fact i still have to shower and eat dinner when i get home. its draining!

i totally agree with you. these people are such boomers

why just why

they do make a really good point, i think that there should be a limit though. hours and hours of homework can be really stressful, and the extra work isn’t making a difference to our learning, but i do believe homework should be optional and extra credit. that would make it for students to not have the leaning stress of a assignment and if you have a low grade you you can catch up.

Studies show that homework improves student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college. Research published in the High School Journal indicates that students who spent between 31 and 90 minutes each day on homework “scored about 40 points higher on the SAT-Mathematics subtest than their peers, who reported spending no time on homework each day, on average.” On both standardized tests and grades, students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69% of students who didn’t have homework. A majority of studies on homework’s impact – 64% in one meta-study and 72% in another – showed that take home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement. Research by the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) concluded that increased homework led to better GPAs and higher probability of college attendance for high school boys. In fact, boys who attended college did more than three hours of additional homework per week in high school.

So how are your measuring student achievement? That’s the real question. The argument that doing homework is simply a tool for teaching responsibility isn’t enough for me. We can teach responsibility in a number of ways. Also the poor argument that parents don’t need to help with homework, and that students can do it on their own, is wishful thinking at best. It completely ignores neurodiverse students. Students in poverty aren’t magically going to find a space to do homework, a friend’s or siblings to help them do it, and snacks to eat. I feel like the author of this piece has never set foot in a classroom of students.

THIS. This article is pathetic coming from a university. So intellectually dishonest, refusing to address the havoc of capitalism and poverty plays on academic success in life. How can they in one sentence use poor kids in an argument and never once address that poor children have access to damn near 0 of the resources affluent kids have? Draw me a picture and let’s talk about feelings lmao what a joke is that gonna put food in their belly so they can have the calories to burn in order to use their brain to study? What about quiet their 7 other siblings that they share a single bedroom with for hours? Is it gonna force the single mom to magically be at home and at work at the same time to cook food while you study and be there to throw an encouraging word?

Also the “parents don’t need to be a parent and be able to guide their kid at all academically they just need to exist in the next room” is wild. Its one thing if a parent straight up is not equipped but to say kids can just figured it out is…. wow coming from an educator What’s next the teacher doesn’t need to teach cause the kid can just follow the packet and figure it out?

Well then get a tutor right? Oh wait you are poor only affluent kids can afford a tutor for their hours of homework a day were they on average have none of the worries a poor child does. Does this address that poor children are more likely to also suffer abuse and mental illness? Like mentioned what about kids that can’t learn or comprehend the forced standardized way? Just let em fail? These children regularly are not in “special education”(some of those are a joke in their own and full of neglect and abuse) programs cause most aren’t even acknowledged as having disabilities or disorders.

But yes all and all those pesky poor kids just aren’t being worked hard enough lol pretty sure poor children’s existence just in childhood is more work, stress, and responsibility alone than an affluent child’s entire life cycle. Love they never once talked about the quality of education in the classroom being so bad between the poor and affluent it can qualify as segregation, just basically blamed poor people for being lazy, good job capitalism for failing us once again!

why the hell?

you should feel bad for saying this, this article can be helpful for people who has to write a essay about it

This is more of a political rant than it is about homework

I know a teacher who has told his students their homework is to find something they are interested in, pursue it and then come share what they learn. The student responses are quite compelling. One girl taught herself German so she could talk to her grandfather. One boy did a research project on Nelson Mandela because the teacher had mentioned him in class. Another boy, a both on the autism spectrum, fixed his family’s computer. The list goes on. This is fourth grade. I think students are highly motivated to learn, when we step aside and encourage them.

The whole point of homework is to give the students a chance to use the material that they have been presented with in class. If they never have the opportunity to use that information, and discover that it is actually useful, it will be in one ear and out the other. As a science teacher, it is critical that the students are challenged to use the material they have been presented with, which gives them the opportunity to actually think about it rather than regurgitate “facts”. Well designed homework forces the student to think conceptually, as opposed to regurgitation, which is never a pretty sight

Wonderful discussion. and yes, homework helps in learning and building skills in students.

not true it just causes kids to stress

Homework can be both beneficial and unuseful, if you will. There are students who are gifted in all subjects in school and ones with disabilities. Why should the students who are gifted get the lucky break, whereas the people who have disabilities suffer? The people who were born with this “gift” go through school with ease whereas people with disabilities struggle with the work given to them. I speak from experience because I am one of those students: the ones with disabilities. Homework doesn’t benefit “us”, it only tears us down and put us in an abyss of confusion and stress and hopelessness because we can’t learn as fast as others. Or we can’t handle the amount of work given whereas the gifted students go through it with ease. It just brings us down and makes us feel lost; because no mater what, it feels like we are destined to fail. It feels like we weren’t “cut out” for success.

homework does help

here is the thing though, if a child is shoved in the face with a whole ton of homework that isn’t really even considered homework it is assignments, it’s not helpful. the teacher should make homework more of a fun learning experience rather than something that is dreaded

This article was wonderful, I am going to ask my teachers about extra, or at all giving homework.

I agree. Especially when you have homework before an exam. Which is distasteful as you’ll need that time to study. It doesn’t make any sense, nor does us doing homework really matters as It’s just facts thrown at us.

Homework is too severe and is just too much for students, schools need to decrease the amount of homework. When teachers assign homework they forget that the students have other classes that give them the same amount of homework each day. Students need to work on social skills and life skills.

I disagree.

Beyond achievement, proponents of homework argue that it can have many other beneficial effects. They claim it can help students develop good study habits so they are ready to grow as their cognitive capacities mature. It can help students recognize that learning can occur at home as well as at school. Homework can foster independent learning and responsible character traits. And it can give parents an opportunity to see what’s going on at school and let them express positive attitudes toward achievement.

Homework is helpful because homework helps us by teaching us how to learn a specific topic.

As a student myself, I can say that I have almost never gotten the full 9 hours of recommended sleep time, because of homework. (Now I’m writing an essay on it in the middle of the night D=)

I am a 10 year old kid doing a report about “Is homework good or bad” for homework before i was going to do homework is bad but the sources from this site changed my mind!

Homeowkr is god for stusenrs

I agree with hunter because homework can be so stressful especially with this whole covid thing no one has time for homework and every one just wants to get back to there normal lives it is especially stressful when you go on a 2 week vaca 3 weeks into the new school year and and then less then a week after you come back from the vaca you are out for over a month because of covid and you have no way to get the assignment done and turned in

As great as homework is said to be in the is article, I feel like the viewpoint of the students was left out. Every where I go on the internet researching about this topic it almost always has interviews from teachers, professors, and the like. However isn’t that a little biased? Of course teachers are going to be for homework, they’re not the ones that have to stay up past midnight completing the homework from not just one class, but all of them. I just feel like this site is one-sided and you should include what the students of today think of spending four hours every night completing 6-8 classes worth of work.

Are we talking about homework or practice? Those are two very different things and can result in different outcomes.

Homework is a graded assignment. I do not know of research showing the benefits of graded assignments going home.

Practice; however, can be extremely beneficial, especially if there is some sort of feedback (not a grade but feedback). That feedback can come from the teacher, another student or even an automated grading program.

As a former band director, I assigned daily practice. I never once thought it would be appropriate for me to require the students to turn in a recording of their practice for me to grade. Instead, I had in-class assignments/assessments that were graded and directly related to the practice assigned.

I would really like to read articles on “homework” that truly distinguish between the two.

oof i feel bad good luck!

thank you guys for the artical because I have to finish an assingment. yes i did cite it but just thanks

thx for the article guys.

Homework is good

I think homework is helpful AND harmful. Sometimes u can’t get sleep bc of homework but it helps u practice for school too so idk.

I agree with this Article. And does anyone know when this was published. I would like to know.

It was published FEb 19, 2019.

Studies have shown that homework improved student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results, and the likelihood to attend college.

i think homework can help kids but at the same time not help kids

This article is so out of touch with majority of homes it would be laughable if it wasn’t so incredibly sad.

There is no value to homework all it does is add stress to already stressed homes. Parents or adults magically having the time or energy to shepherd kids through homework is dome sort of 1950’s fantasy.

What lala land do these teachers live in?

Homework gives noting to the kid

Homework is Bad

homework is bad.

why do kids even have homework?

Comments are closed.

Latest from Bostonia

This sha alum handles fenway park’s celebrity artists, bu alum chompon boonnak runs mahaniyom, one of greater boston’s hottest thai restaurants, champion of indie films, china scholar merle goldman dies, cfa alum jonathan knight is head of games for the new york times, is our democracy at risk americans think so. bu experts talk about why—and the way forward, a commitment to early childhood education, reading list: alum bonnie hammer publishes 15 lies women are told at work —plus fiction, poetry, and short stories, one good deed: jason hurdich (cas’97) is uniting the deaf community, one cup at a time, space force general b. chance saltzman is a bu alum, using glamour for good: alum’s nonprofit organization brings clothes and beauty products to those in need, gallery: shea justice (cfa’93), oscar-nominated actor hong chau (com’01) stars in new action-comedy the instigators, alum’s new book recounts the battle for inclusion in boy scouts, feedback: readers weigh in on a bu superager, the passing of otto lerbinger, and alum’s book fat church, law alum steven m. wise, who fought for animal rights, dies, pups wearing custom-designed veterinary collars get star treatment in alum’s new coffee-table book, opening doors: ellice patterson (questrom’17), an alum’s new memoir recounts six decades of beatlemania, bu alum in paris keeping olympians’ minds sharp and healthy.

More From Forbes

Why homework doesn't seem to boost learning--and how it could.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Some schools are eliminating homework, citing research showing it doesn’t do much to boost achievement. But maybe teachers just need to assign a different kind of homework.

In 2016, a second-grade teacher in Texas delighted her students—and at least some of their parents—by announcing she would no longer assign homework. “Research has been unable to prove that homework improves student performance,” she explained.

The following year, the superintendent of a Florida school district serving 42,000 students eliminated homework for all elementary students and replaced it with twenty minutes of nightly reading, saying she was basing her decision on “solid research about what works best in improving academic achievement in students.”

Many other elementary schools seem to have quietly adopted similar policies. Critics have objected that even if homework doesn’t increase grades or test scores, it has other benefits, like fostering good study habits and providing parents with a window into what kids are doing in school.

Those arguments have merit, but why doesn’t homework boost academic achievement? The research cited by educators just doesn’t seem to make sense. If a child wants to learn to play the violin, it’s obvious she needs to practice at home between lessons (at least, it’s obvious to an adult). And psychologists have identified a range of strategies that help students learn, many of which seem ideally suited for homework assignments.

For example, there’s something called “ retrieval practice ,” which means trying to recall information you’ve already learned. The optimal time to engage in retrieval practice is not immediately after you’ve acquired information but after you’ve forgotten it a bit—like, perhaps, after school. A homework assignment could require students to answer questions about what was covered in class that day without consulting their notes. Research has found that retrieval practice and similar learning strategies are far more powerful than simply rereading or reviewing material.

One possible explanation for the general lack of a boost from homework is that few teachers know about this research. And most have gotten little training in how and why to assign homework. These are things that schools of education and teacher-prep programs typically don’t teach . So it’s quite possible that much of the homework teachers assign just isn’t particularly effective for many students.

Even if teachers do manage to assign effective homework, it may not show up on the measures of achievement used by researchers—for example, standardized reading test scores. Those tests are designed to measure general reading comprehension skills, not to assess how much students have learned in specific classes. Good homework assignments might have helped a student learn a lot about, say, Ancient Egypt. But if the reading passages on a test cover topics like life in the Arctic or the habits of the dormouse, that student’s test score may well not reflect what she’s learned.

The research relied on by those who oppose homework has actually found it has a modest positive effect at the middle and high school levels—just not in elementary school. But for the most part, the studies haven’t looked at whether it matters what kind of homework is assigned or whether there are different effects for different demographic student groups. Focusing on those distinctions could be illuminating.

A study that looked specifically at math homework , for example, found it boosted achievement more in elementary school than in middle school—just the opposite of the findings on homework in general. And while one study found that parental help with homework generally doesn’t boost students’ achievement—and can even have a negative effect— another concluded that economically disadvantaged students whose parents help with homework improve their performance significantly.

That seems to run counter to another frequent objection to homework, which is that it privileges kids who are already advantaged. Well-educated parents are better able to provide help, the argument goes, and it’s easier for affluent parents to provide a quiet space for kids to work in—along with a computer and internet access . While those things may be true, not assigning homework—or assigning ineffective homework—can end up privileging advantaged students even more.

Students from less educated families are most in need of the boost that effective homework can provide, because they’re less likely to acquire academic knowledge and vocabulary at home. And homework can provide a way for lower-income parents—who often don’t have time to volunteer in class or participate in parents’ organizations—to forge connections to their children’s schools. Rather than giving up on homework because of social inequities, schools could help parents support homework in ways that don’t depend on their own knowledge—for example, by recruiting others to help, as some low-income demographic groups have been able to do . Schools could also provide quiet study areas at the end of the day, and teachers could assign homework that doesn’t rely on technology.

Another argument against homework is that it causes students to feel overburdened and stressed.  While that may be true at schools serving affluent populations, students at low-performing ones often don’t get much homework at all—even in high school. One study found that lower-income ninth-graders “consistently described receiving minimal homework—perhaps one or two worksheets or textbook pages, the occasional project, and 30 minutes of reading per night.” And if they didn’t complete assignments, there were few consequences. I discovered this myself when trying to tutor students in writing at a high-poverty high school. After I expressed surprise that none of the kids I was working with had completed a brief writing assignment, a teacher told me, “Oh yeah—I should have told you. Our students don’t really do homework.”

If and when disadvantaged students get to college, their relative lack of study skills and good homework habits can present a serious handicap. After noticing that black and Hispanic students were failing her course in disproportionate numbers, a professor at the University of North Carolina decided to make some changes , including giving homework assignments that required students to quiz themselves without consulting their notes. Performance improved across the board, but especially for students of color and the disadvantaged. The gap between black and white students was cut in half, and the gaps between Hispanic and white students—along with that between first-generation college students and others—closed completely.

There’s no reason this kind of support should wait until students get to college. To be most effective—both in terms of instilling good study habits and building students’ knowledge—homework assignments that boost learning should start in elementary school.

Some argue that young children just need time to chill after a long day at school. But the “ten-minute rule”—recommended by homework researchers—would have first graders doing ten minutes of homework, second graders twenty minutes, and so on. That leaves plenty of time for chilling, and even brief assignments could have a significant impact if they were well-designed.

But a fundamental problem with homework at the elementary level has to do with the curriculum, which—partly because of standardized testing— has narrowed to reading and math. Social studies and science have been marginalized or eliminated, especially in schools where test scores are low. Students spend hours every week practicing supposed reading comprehension skills like “making inferences” or identifying “author’s purpose”—the kinds of skills that the tests try to measure—with little or no attention paid to content.

But as research has established, the most important component in reading comprehension is knowledge of the topic you’re reading about. Classroom time—or homework time—spent on illusory comprehension “skills” would be far better spent building knowledge of the very subjects schools have eliminated. Even if teachers try to take advantage of retrieval practice—say, by asking students to recall what they’ve learned that day about “making comparisons” or “sequence of events”—it won’t have much impact.

If we want to harness the potential power of homework—particularly for disadvantaged students—we’ll need to educate teachers about what kind of assignments actually work. But first, we’ll need to start teaching kids something substantive about the world, beginning as early as possible.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Education scholar Denise Pope has found that too much homework has negative effects on student well-being and behavioral engagement. (Image credit: L.A. Cicero)

A Stanford researcher found that too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter.

“Our findings on the effects of homework challenge the traditional assumption that homework is inherently good,” wrote Denise Pope , a senior lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and a co-author of a study published in the Journal of Experimental Education .

The researchers used survey data to examine perceptions about homework, student well-being and behavioral engagement in a sample of 4,317 students from 10 high-performing high schools in upper-middle-class California communities. Along with the survey data, Pope and her colleagues used open-ended answers to explore the students’ views on homework.

Median household income exceeded $90,000 in these communities, and 93 percent of the students went on to college, either two-year or four-year.

Students in these schools average about 3.1 hours of homework each night.

“The findings address how current homework practices in privileged, high-performing schools sustain students’ advantage in competitive climates yet hinder learning, full engagement and well-being,” Pope wrote.

Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school.

Their study found that too much homework is associated with:

* Greater stress: 56 percent of the students considered homework a primary source of stress, according to the survey data. Forty-three percent viewed tests as a primary stressor, while 33 percent put the pressure to get good grades in that category. Less than 1 percent of the students said homework was not a stressor.

* Reductions in health: In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems. The researchers asked students whether they experienced health issues such as headaches, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss and stomach problems.

* Less time for friends, family and extracurricular pursuits: Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were “not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills,” according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy.

A balancing act

The results offer empirical evidence that many students struggle to find balance between homework, extracurricular activities and social time, the researchers said. Many students felt forced or obligated to choose homework over developing other talents or skills.

Also, there was no relationship between the time spent on homework and how much the student enjoyed it. The research quoted students as saying they often do homework they see as “pointless” or “mindless” in order to keep their grades up.

“This kind of busy work, by its very nature, discourages learning and instead promotes doing homework simply to get points,” Pope said.

She said the research calls into question the value of assigning large amounts of homework in high-performing schools. Homework should not be simply assigned as a routine practice, she said.

“Rather, any homework assigned should have a purpose and benefit, and it should be designed to cultivate learning and development,” wrote Pope.

High-performing paradox

In places where students attend high-performing schools, too much homework can reduce their time to foster skills in the area of personal responsibility, the researchers concluded. “Young people are spending more time alone,” they wrote, “which means less time for family and fewer opportunities to engage in their communities.”

Student perspectives

The researchers say that while their open-ended or “self-reporting” methodology to gauge student concerns about homework may have limitations – some might regard it as an opportunity for “typical adolescent complaining” – it was important to learn firsthand what the students believe.

The paper was co-authored by Mollie Galloway from Lewis and Clark College and Jerusha Conner from Villanova University.

Media Contacts

Denise Pope, Stanford Graduate School of Education: (650) 725-7412, [email protected] Clifton B. Parker, Stanford News Service: (650) 725-0224, [email protected]

Time Spent on Homework and Academic Achievement: A Meta-analysis Study Related to Results of TIMSS

[el tiempo dedicado a la tarea y al rendimiento académico: un estudio metaanalítico relacionado con los resultados de timss], gulnar ozyildirim akdeniz university, konyaalti, antalya, turkey, https://doi.org/10.5093/psed2021a30.

Received 31 August 2020, Accepted 24 May 2021

Homework is a common instructional technique that requires extra time, energy, and effort apart from school time. Is homework worth these investments? The study aimed to investigate whether the amount of time spent on homework had any effect on academic achievement and to determine moderators in the relationship between these two terms by using TIMSS data through the meta-analysis method. In this meta-analysis study, data obtained from 488 independent findings from 74 countries in the seven surveys of TIMSS and a sample of 429,970 students was included. The coefficient of standardized means, based on the random effect model, was used to measure the mean effect size and the Q statistic was used to determine the significance of moderator variables. This study revealed that the students spending their time on homework at medium level had effect on their academic achievement and there were some significant moderators in this relationship.

La tarea es una técnica instructiva común que requiere tiempo extra, energía y esfuerzo aparte del horario escolar. ¿Vale la pena hacer estas inversiones? El objetivo del estudio era investigar si el tiempo dedicado a la tarea tenía algún efecto en el rendimiento académico y determinar los moderadores de la relación entre estos dos términos mediante el uso de datos TIMSS a través del método de metaanálisis. En este estudio de metaanálisis se incluyeron los datos obtenidos de 488 hallazgos independientes de 74 países en las siete encuestas de TIMSS y una muestra de 429,970 estudiantes. Se utilizó el coeficiente de medias estandarizadas, basado en el modelo de efecto aleatorio, para medir el tamaño medio del efecto y el estadístico Q para determinar la significación de las variables moderadoras. El estudio reveló el hecho de que los estudiantes que dedican su tiempo a la tarea en el nivel medio tiene efecto en su rendimiento académico y hubo algunos moderadores significativos de esta relación.

Palabras clave

Cite this article as: Ozyildirim, G. (2022). Time Spent on Homework and Academic Achievement: A Meta-analysis Study Related to Results of TIMSS. Psicología Educativa, 28 (1) , 13 - 21. https://doi.org/10.5093/psed2021a30

Copyright © 2024. Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid

• PlumX Metrics

Piaget y el desarrollo cognitivo

La Escala de Evaluación de las Competencias Emocionales: la Perspectiva Docente (D-ECREA)

Cuestionario de Comportamiento Infantil y Adolescente.Análisis Factorial Exploratorio en una Muestra de Escolares Cubanos

Estrategias para Mejorar la Comprensión Lectora: Impacto de un Programa de Intervención en Español

Las repercusiones de la Dislexia en la Autoestima, en el Comportamiento Socioemocional y en la Ansiedad en Escolares

Dificultades de Aprendizaje

Adaptación de la Escala de Satisfacción Académica en Estudiantes Universitarios Chilenos

Utilice estos enlaces para enviar un articulo a la Psicología Educativa

>Envío de manuscritos online >Guía para Autores (PDF)

ALERTA POR E-MAIL

¡GRACIAS! Tu solicitud ha quedado registrada

Avísame cuando se publique un nuevo número de la revista

Donec rutrum ligula vel sapien posuere dignissim. Aenean ante dolor, venenatis et semper nec, ultric

Phasellus ipsum neque, egestas ac pharetra quis, vulputate eu ante. Curabitur nec aliquam metus

La Revista de Psicología Educativa está distribuida bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObra Derivada 4.0 Internacional.com

La revista pertenece al Commite on Publication Ethics (COPE) www.publicationethics.org y se adhiere a sus principios y procedimientos.

Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y conocer sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede acceder a política de cookies para obtener más información.

Información de Protección de Datos

• ¿Quién es el responsable del tratamiento de sus datos? Todos los datos recogidos son de responsabilidad del Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid con NIF V83037937. El domicilio social del Colegio a estos efectos es Cuesta de San Vicente nº 4 - 6ª Planta, Madrid- España, teléfono 915419999 correo electrónico [email protected] . Para contactar con el delegado de protección de datos puedes dirigirte al correo electrónico [email protected]
• ¿Con qué finalidad tratamos sus datos? Gestión de comunicaciones que el colegio considere de interés relacionados con las revistas.
• ¿Por cuánto tiempo conservaremos sus datos? Solo conservaremos tu información de carácter personal en la medida en que la necesitamos a fin de poder utilizarla según la finalidad para la que ha sido recabada, y según la base jurídica del tratamiento de la misma de conformidad con la ley aplicable. Mantendremos tu información personal mientras exista una relación contractual y/o comercial, o mientras no ejerzas tu derecho de supresión, cancelación y/o limitación del tratamiento de los datos. En estos casos, mantendremos la información debidamente bloqueada, sin darle ningún uso, mientras pueda ser necesaria para el ejercicio o defensa de reclamaciones o pueda derivarse algún tipo de responsabilidad judicial, legal o contractual de su tratamiento, que deba ser atendida y para lo cual sea necesaria su recuperación.
• ¿Cuál es la legitimación para el tratamiento de sus datos? La base legal para el tratamiento de sus datos es consentimiento, tiene derecho a retirar el consentimiento cuando así lo desee, a través del enlace a pie de página de cada comunicación.
• ¿A qué destinatarios se comunicarán sus datos? No se cederán datos a terceros salvo obligación legal.
• ¿Cuáles son sus derechos cuando nos facilita sus datos? Tienes derecho a obtener confirmación sobre si en el Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos estamos tratando datos personales que les conciernan, o no. Las personas interesadas tienen derecho al acceso a los datos personales que nos haya facilitado, así como a solicitar su rectificación de los datos inexactos o, en su caso, solicitar su supresión cuando, entre otros motivos, los datos ya no sean necesarios para los fines recogidos. En determinadas circunstancias, los interesados podrán solicitar la limitación del tratamiento de sus datos, en dicho caso sólo se conservaran los datos para el ejercicio o la defensa de reclamaciones, así mismo tienen derecho a solicitar la portabilidad de sus datos. En determinadas circunstancias y por motivos relacionados con su situación particular, los interesados pueden oponerse al tratamiento de sus datos, en ese caso el Colegio dejará de tratar sus datos, salvo por motivos legítimos imperiosos o el ejercicio o la defensa de posibles reclamaciones. Puede hacerlo enviando una comunicación al correo electrónico [email protected] enviando solicitud junto con una fotocopia y/o copia escaneada del DNI del solicitante o mediante solicitud escrita y firmada dirigida al Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos, Cuesta San Vicente nº 4 6ª 28008 Madrid, (Protección de Datos), debiendo adjuntar fotocopia del DNI. Asimismo, te informamos que puedes presentar una reclamación ante la Agencia Española de Protección de datos si consideras que tras solicitarnos el ejercicio de alguno de esto derechos no estás de acuerdo con la forma de satisfacerlos https://www.agpd.es/ . Todo lo cual se informa en cumplimiento de la legislación orgánica vigente de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal y del Reglamento General de Protección de Datos (RGPD).

Join Our Discord Community!

daily dose of research

McMillan & Hearn

A summary overview of self-assessment and its usage in the classroom, including tendencies toward mastery and reflective thinking. Provides multiple stages of implementation, a lengthy amount of research studies, and highlights the benefits of its usage. Noted are the benefits to intrinsic motivation as a result of taking control of one’s learning.

featured contributor

Review: The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning

(An updated version of this piece is available at this link.)

The End of Homework by Etta Kralovec and John Buell offers a succinct and researched account of why homework does little to actually improve academic performance, and instead hurts a family’s overall well-being. Kralovec and Buell analyze and dissect homework studies over the last few decades, finding that most research supports their claims or, at-best, makes dubious claims on the affects of homework. Although written in 2000, The End of Homework makes arguments that are only strengthened today: homework is discriminatory toward the poor (and the wealth gap has grown), it separates families from their children (and families work longer hours, and homework assigned has increased), and academic results are mixed (and recent studies reflect this.)

At Human Restoration Project , one of the core systemic changes we suggest is the elimination of homework. Throughout this piece, I will include more recent research studies that add to this work. I believe that the adverse affects of homework are so strong that any homework assigned, outside of minor catching up or incredibly niche cases, does more harm than good.

Summarized within The End of Homework , as well as developmental psychologists, sociologists, and educators, are the core reasons why homework is not beneficial:

Homework is Inequitable

In the most practical terms, calls for teachers to assign more homework and for parents to provide a quiet, well-lit place for the child to study must always be considered in the context of the parents’ education, income, available time, and job security. For many of our fellow citizens, jobs have become less secure and less well paid over the course of the last two decades.

Americans work the longest hours of any nation . Individuals in 2006 worked 11 hours longer than their counterparts in 1979. In 2020, 70% of children live in households where both parents work. And the United States is the only country in the industrial world without guaranteed family leave. The results are staggering: 90% of women and 95% of men report work-family conflict . According to the Center for American Progress , “the United States today has the most family-hostile public policy in the developed world due to a long-standing political impasse.”

As a result, parents have much less time to connect with their children. This is not a call to a return to traditional family roles, or even to have stay-at-home parents. Rather, our occupational society is structured inadequately to allow for the use of homework, and Americans must change how labor laws demand their time. For those who work in entry level positions, such as customer service and cashiers, there is an average 240% turnover per year due to lack of pay, poor conditions, work-life balance, and mismanagement. Family incomes continue to decline for lower- and middle-class Americans, leaving more parents to work increased hours or multiple jobs. In other words, parents, especially poor parents, have less opportunities to spend time with their children, let alone foster academic “gains” via homework.

In an effort to increase engagement in homework, teachers have been encouraged to create interesting, creative assignments. Although this has good intentions, rigorous homework with increased complexity places more impetus on parents. As Gary Natrillo, an initial proponent of creative homework, stated later:

‘…not only was homework being assigned as suggested by all the ‘experts,’ but the teacher was obviously taking the homework seriously, making it challenging instead of routine and checking it each day and giving feedback. We were enveloped by the nightmare of near total implementation of the reform recommendations pertaining to homework…More creative homework tasks are a mixed blessing on the receiving end. On the one hand, they, of course, lead to higher engagement and interest for children and their parents. On the other hand, they require one to be well rested, a special condition of mind not often available to working parents…’

Time is a luxury to most Americans. With increased working hours, in conjunction with extreme levels of stress, many Americans don’t have the necessary mindset to adequately supply children with the attention to detail for complex homework. As Kralovec and Buell state,

To put it plainly, I have discovered that after a day at work, the commute home, dinner preparations, and the prospect of baths, goodnight stories, and my own work ahead, there comes a time beyond which I cannot sustain my enthusiasm for the math brain teaser or the creative story task.

Americans are some of the most stressed people in the world. Mass shootings, health care affordability, discrimination, sexual harassment, climate change, the presidential election, and literally: staying informed have caused roughly 70% of people to report moderate or extreme stress , with increased rates for people of color, LGBTQIA Americans, and other discriminated groups. 90% of high schoolers and college students report moderate or higher stress, with half reporting depression and lack of energy and motivation .

Perhaps the solution to academic achievement in America isn’t doubling down on test scores or increasing the work students do at home, but solving the underlying systemic inequities : the economic and discriminatory problems that plague our society? Kralovec and Buell note,

Citing the low test scores of American students has become a favorite cocktail party game. However, some scholars have offered a more nuanced explanation for the poor showing by U.S. students in international academic performance comparisons, suggesting that it may have more to do with high levels of childhood poverty and a lack of support for families in the United States than with low academic standards, shorter school days, and fewer hours spent on homework.

Finland, frequently cited as a model education system, enjoys some of the highest standards of living in the world:

• Finland’s life expectancy is 81.8 years, compare to the US’ 78.7 years and a notable difference exists in the US between rich and poor . Further, America’s life expectancy is declining, the only industrialized country with this statistic .
• Finland’s health care is rated best in the world and only spends $3,078 per capita, compared to $8,047 in the US.
• Finland has virtually no homelessness , compared to 500,000 homeless in the United States .
• Finland has the lowest inequality levels in the EU , compared to the United States with one of the highest inequality levels in the world . Research has demonstrated that countries with lower inequality levels are happier and healthier .

Outside of just convincing you to flat-out move to Finland, these statistics reflect that potentially — instead of investing hundreds of millions of dollars in initiatives to increase national test scores , such as homework strategies, curriculum changes, and nationwide “raising the bar” initiatives — the US should invest in programs that universally help our daily lives, such as universal healthcare and housing. The solution to test scores is rooted in solving America’s underlying inequitable society — shining a light on our core issues — rather than making teachers solve all of our community’s problems.

But Wait, Despite All This…Does Homework Even Work!?

‘Extensive classroom research of ‘time on task’ and international comparisons of year-round time for study suggest that additional homework might promote U.S. students’ achievement.’ This written statement by some of the top professionals in the field of homework research raises some difficult questions. More homework might promote student achievement? Are all our blood, sweat, and tears at the kitchen table over homework based on something that merely might be true? Our belief in the value of homework is akin to faith. We assume that it fosters a love of learning, better study habits, improved attitudes toward school, and greater self-discipline; we believe that better teachers assign more homework and that one sign of a good school is a good, enforced homework policy.

Numerous studies of homework reflect an inconsistent result. Not only does homework rarely demonstrate large, if any, academic gains for testing, there are many negative impacts on the family that are often ignored.

• Countries that assigned the least amount of homework: Denmark, Czech Republic, had higher test scores than those with the most amount of homework: Iran, Thailand .
• Quality of instruction, motivation, and ability are all correlated with student success in school. Yet homework may be marginal or counterproductive .
• Of all homework assigned, homework only saw marginal increases in math and science standardized testing , and had no bearing on grades.
• Homework added pressure and societal stress to those who already experienced the same at home , causing a further divide in academic performance (due to lack of time and financial stress.)

By bringing schoolwork home, the well-intentioned belief of promoting equity through high standards has the adverse affect of causing further inequity. Private and preparatory schools are notorious for extreme levels of homework assignment . Yet, many progressive schools assign no homework and achieve the same levels of college and career success . Again, the biggest predictor of college success has nothing to do with rigorous preparation, and everything to do with family income levels. 77% of students from high income families graduated from a highly competitive college, whereas 9% of students from low income families did the same .

School curriculum obsession in homework is likely rooted in studies that demonstrate increased test scores as a result of assigned homework. The End of Homework deciphers this phenomena:

Cooper’s work provides us with one more example of a problem that routinely bedevils all the sciences: the relationship between correlation and causality. If A and B happen simultaneously, we do not know whether A causes B or B causes A, or whether both phenomena occur casually together or are individually determined by another set of variables…Thus far, most studies in this area have amounted to little more than crude correlations that cannot justify the sweeping conclusions some have derived from them.

If other countries demonstrate educational success (albeit measured through standardized testing) with little to no assigned homework and limited school hours , shouldn’t we take a step back and analyze the system as a whole, rather than figure out better homework schemes?

A Reflection of Neoliberal Society

According to New York State’s Teacher of the Year in 1990:

‘[Schools] separate parents and children from vital interaction with each other and from true curiosity about each other’s lives. Schools stifle family originality by appropriating the critical time needed for any sound idea of family to develop — then they blame the family for its family to be a family. It’s like a malicious person lifting a photograph from the developing chemicals too early, then pronouncing the photographer incompetent.’

Education often equates learning with work. I have to stop myself from behaving like an economics analysist: telling students to quit “wasting time”, stating that the purpose of the lesson is useful for future earnings, seeing everything as prep for college and career (and college is ultimately just for more earnings in a career), and making blanket assumptions that those who aren’t motivated will ultimately never contribute to society, taking on “low levels” of work that “aren’t as important” as other positions.

Since the nineteenth century, developmental psychology has been moving away from the notion that children are nothing more or less than miniature adults. In suggesting that children need to learn to deal with adult levels of pressure, we risk doing them untold damage. By this logic, the schoolyard shootings of recent years may be likened to ‘disgruntled employee’ rampages.

This mentality is unhealthy and unjust. The purpose of education should be to develop purpose. People live happier and healthier lives as a result of pursuing and developing a core purpose. Some people’s purpose is related to their line of work, but there is not necessarily a connection. However, the primary goal stated by districts, states, and the national government of the education system is to make “productive members of society.” When we double down on economic principles to raise complex individuals, it’s no wonder we’re seeing such horrific statistics related to childhood .

Further, the consistent pressure to produce for economic gain raises generations of young people to believe that wealth is a measurement of success and that specific lines of work create happiness. Teachers and parents are told to make their children “work hard” for future success and develop “grit.” Although grit is an important indicator of overcoming obstacles , it is not developed by enforcing grit through authoritarian classrooms or meaningless, long tasks . In fact, an argument could be made that many Americans accept their dramatically poor work-life balance and lack of access to needs such as affordable health care by being brought up in a society that rewards neoliberal tendencies of “working through it” to “eventually achieve happiness.”

Kralovec and Buell state,

Many of us would question whether our fighting with our children for twelve years about homework could possibly foster good habits. In contrast, participating in the decisions of the household and collaborating with others on common chores, from cooking to cleaning to doing routine repairs, are important life skills that also require good work habits. For many children, these habits are never learned because homework gets in the way of that work.

Americans have more difficulty than ever raising children, with increasing demands of time and rising childcare costs . Children often need to “pick up the slack” and help taking care of the home. In fact, children with chores show completely positive universal growth across the board . When teachers provide more and more homework, they take away from the parents’ ability to structure their household according to their needs. As written in The End of Homework ,

Most of us find we do not have enough time with our children to teach them these things; our ‘teaching’ time is instead taken up with school-mandated subjects. We often wonder if we wouldn’t have less tension in our society over prayer in schools if our children had more time for religious instruction at home and for participation in church activities. When school is the virtually exclusive center of the child’s educational and even moral universe, it is not surprising that so many parents should find school agendas (with which they may or may not agree) a threat to their very authority and identity.

Of course, this is not to say that it is all the teacher’s fault. Educators face immense pressure to carry out governmental/school policies that place test scores at the forefront. Many of these policies require homework , and an educator’s future employment is centered on enacting these changes:

As more academic demands are placed on teachers, homework can help lengthen the school day and thus ensure ‘coverage’ — that is, the completion of the full curriculum that each teacher is supposed to cover during the school year…This in itself places pressure on teachers to create meaningful homework and often to assign large amounts of it so that the students’ parents will think the teacher is rigorous and the school has high academic standards. Extensive homework is frequently linked in our minds to high standards.

Therefore, there’s a connection to be made between “work”-life balance of children and the people who are tasked with teaching them. 8% of the teacher workforce leaves every year , many concerned with work-life balance . Perhaps teachers see an increased desire to “work” students in their class and at home due to the pressures they face in their own occupation?

We have little opportunity to enjoy recreation, community events, local politics, or family life. Our diminished possibilities in this regard in turn reinforce our reliance on wages and the workplace. And even the family time that remains after the demands of work and commuting are met is increasingly structured by the requirements of the workplace and school.

The more we equate work with learning, and the more we accept a school’s primary purpose to prepare workers, the less we actually succeed at promoting academics. Instead, we bolster the neoliberal tendencies of the United States to work hard, yet comparably to other countries’ lifestyle gains, achieve little. The United States must examine the underlying inequities of peoples’ lives, rather than focus on increasing schools’ workloads and lessening children’s free time for mythical academic gains that lead to little change. Teacher preparation programs and popular authors need to stop promoting “ interesting and fun ways to teach ‘x’! ” and propose systemic changes that radically change the way education is done, including systemic changes to society at large. Only then will the United States actually see improved livelihoods and a better education system for all.

read this next

take a listen

Join the Movement

Stay informed.

I think a lot of communities have a problem of too much competition, I guess. That they can't... when it gets to a point that they can't be happy for other people's accomplishments and that the only thing they can do is want to be better than the other person or the rest of them.

Where's this from?

The Enlightened Mindset

Exploring the World of Knowledge and Understanding

Welcome to the world's first fully AI generated website!

The Impact of Homework on Student Mental Health

By Happy Sharer

Introduction

Homework is a key part of the educational process. It is often seen as an essential part of learning and helping students to develop important skills. However, there is growing evidence that too much homework can have a negative effect on student mental health. This article will explore the impact of homework on student mental health, examining the correlation between workload and stress levels, analyzing the effects of too much homework on student anxiety, and understanding how homework can lead to depression in students.

Exploring the Impact of Homework on Student Mental Health

Homework has long been seen as an important part of the educational process, but it can also become a source of stress for students. A recent study by the American Psychological Association found that more than two-thirds of students reported feeling overwhelmed by their homework load. The study also found that students who felt overwhelmed were more likely to experience symptoms of depression and anxiety. It is clear that the amount of homework assigned to students can have a significant impact on their mental health.

Examining the Correlation Between Homework and Student Stress Levels

The amount of homework assigned to students can have a direct impact on their stress levels. Too much homework can lead to feelings of frustration and overwhelm, which can then lead to increased stress levels. A study published in the journal Developmental Psychology found that when students had more homework assignments, they experienced higher levels of stress. The study also found that students who had more homework assignments were more likely to report feeling overwhelmed and anxious.

It is also important to consider the relationship between homework and academic performance. Studies have suggested that too much homework can lead to decreased academic performance, which can then lead to increased stress levels. A study published in the Journal of Experimental Education found that when students had more homework, their performance on tests was lower than those with less homework. This suggests that too much homework can lead to increased stress levels, as students feel pressure to perform at a higher level.

In order to reduce homework-related stress, it is important for students to prioritize their work. Planning ahead and breaking down tasks into smaller, more manageable chunks can help students to feel more organized and in control. Taking regular breaks throughout the day can also help students to stay focused and motivated. Finally, it is important to ensure that students are getting enough sleep in order to maintain their energy levels and reduce stress.

Analyzing the Effects of Too Much Homework on Student Anxiety

Too much homework can also lead to increased anxiety levels in students. A study published in the journal Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review found that when students had more homework, they were more likely to experience symptoms of anxiety. The study also found that students with excessive amounts of homework were more likely to report feeling overwhelmed and unable to cope with the workload.

It is important to understand the psychological effects of too much homework on students. Excessive amounts of homework can lead to feelings of frustration and helplessness, which can then lead to increased anxiety levels. Furthermore, students may start to see homework as a burden rather than an opportunity to learn, which can lead to decreased motivation and further feelings of anxiety.

In order to reduce homework-related anxiety, it is important to set realistic goals and expectations. Setting achievable goals and deadlines can help students to stay focused and motivated. It is also important to ensure that students are getting enough rest and taking regular breaks throughout the day. Finally, it is important to talk to teachers and parents about any concerns or worries that students may have about their workload.

Understanding How Homework Can Lead to Depression in Students

Too much homework can also lead to depression in students. A study published in the journal Pediatrics found that when students had more homework, they were more likely to experience symptoms of depression. The study also found that students with excessive amounts of homework were more likely to report feeling overwhelmed, frustrated, and helpless.

It is important to understand the psychological effects of too much homework on students. Excessive amounts of homework can lead to feelings of hopelessness and failure, which can then lead to increased depression levels. Furthermore, students may start to see homework as a chore rather than an opportunity to learn, which can lead to decreased motivation and further feelings of depression.

In order to reduce homework-related depression, it is important to focus on developing positive coping skills. Taking time to relax and practice mindfulness can help students to manage their emotions and stay focused. It is also important to ensure that students are getting enough sleep and taking regular breaks throughout the day. Finally, it is important to talk to teachers and parents about any concerns or worries that students may have about their workload.

Investigating the Relationship Between Homework and Student Self-Esteem

Finally, it is important to consider the relationship between homework and student self-esteem. A study published in the journal Developmental Psychology found that when students had more homework, they were more likely to report feeling inadequate and inferior. The study also found that students with excessive amounts of homework were more likely to report feeling overwhelmed and helpless.

It is important to understand the psychological effects of too much homework on students. Excessive amounts of homework can lead to feelings of worthlessness and failure, which can then lead to decreased self-esteem. Furthermore, students may start to see homework as a burden rather than an opportunity to learn, which can lead to decreased motivation and further feelings of inadequacy.

In order to increase homework-related self-esteem, it is important to focus on developing positive self-talk. Taking time to recognize achievements and celebrate successes can help students to stay motivated and build confidence. It is also important to ensure that students are getting enough rest and taking regular breaks throughout the day. Finally, it is important to talk to teachers and parents about any concerns or worries that students may have about their workload.

In conclusion, it is clear that the amount of homework assigned to students can have a significant impact on their mental health. Too much homework can lead to increased stress levels, anxiety, depression, and decreased self-esteem. It is therefore important to ensure that students are not overloaded with homework and are given the opportunity to learn in a healthy environment. By reducing the amount of homework assigned to students, we can help them to develop important skills without compromising their mental wellbeing.

(Note: Is this article not meeting your expectations? Do you have knowledge or insights to share? Unlock new opportunities and expand your reach by joining our authors team. Click Registration to join us and share your expertise with our readers.)

Hi, I'm Happy Sharer and I love sharing interesting and useful knowledge with others. I have a passion for learning and enjoy explaining complex concepts in a simple way.

Related Post

Jack hanna keto gummies: real reviews, price, how much exercise does a border collie need a comprehensive guide, a comprehensive guide to the ornish diet: reshaping your health and well-being, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Expert Guide: Removing Gel Nail Polish at Home Safely

Trading crypto in bull and bear markets: a comprehensive examination of the differences, making croatia travel arrangements, make their day extra special: celebrate with a customized cake.

• Sign up and Get Listed

Be found at the exact moment they are searching. Sign up and Get Listed

• For Professionals
• Worksheets/Resources
• Get Help 
• Learn 
• For Professionals 
• About 
• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Marriage Counselor
• Find a Child Counselor
• Find a Support Group
• Find a Psychologist
• If You Are in Crisis
• Self-Esteem
• Sex Addiction
• Relationships
• Child and Adolescent Issues
• Eating Disorders
• How to Find the Right Therapist
• Explore Therapy
• Issues Treated
• Modes of Therapy
• Types of Therapy
• Famous Psychologists
• Psychotropic Medication
• What Is Therapy?
• How to Help a Loved One
• How Much Does Therapy Cost?
• How to Become a Therapist
• Signs of Healthy Therapy
• Warning Signs in Therapy
• The GoodTherapy Blog
• PsychPedia A-Z
• Dear GoodTherapy
• Share Your Story
• Therapy News
• Marketing Your Therapy Website
• Private Practice Checklist
• Private Practice Business Plan
• Practice Management Software for Therapists
• Rules and Ethics of Online Therapy for Therapists
• CE Courses for Therapists
• HIPAA Basics for Therapists
• How to Send Appointment Reminders that Work
• More Professional Resources
• List Your Practice
• List a Treatment Center
• Earn CE Credit Hours
• Student Membership
• Online Continuing Education
• Marketing Webinars
• GoodTherapy’s Vision
• Partner or Advertise
• GoodTherapy Blog >

Fighting a Losing Battle: Too Much Homework Can Interfere with Learning

Understanding Learning

Our brains are programmed to learn things that are interesting to us and relevant to our lives. You’re more likely, for example, to remember where the aggressive dog who always chases children lives than you are to remember the color pattern on your neighbor’s shirt. Children in particular are primed to learn things that help them better function in their environment. Unfortunately, homework doesn’t pass this test. The overwhelming majority of homework assignments force children to sit down and memorize facts rather than experience their world. Not only does this make information more difficult to learn; it can also decrease your child’s motivation to learn. When learning is made miserable, children associate the thing they’re learning with misery and want to avoid it. This is why tactics such as forced silent reading time or flashcards rarely help children learn math and vocabulary.

The Stressed Brain

Even when homework is well-designed and does foster learning, too much of it can be damaging. Children who have more than one hour of homework each night overwhelmingly report that they feel stressed about their ability to complete their work. Over time, this stress can create real problems for a developing brain. When we are under stress, the brain produces cortisol , which lowers immune function and processing speed. On a short-term basis, cortisol can help us deal with stress. But when the brain is constantly releasing cortisol, development and learning can slow. This is especially damaging for children, whose brains are rapidly laying down neural connections. Even more troubling, excessive doses of cortisol can damage the hippocampus, which plays an important role in memory, inhibition, and spatial reasoning.

Fewer Activities

The value of friendships , extracurricular activities, and relaxation time to children’s intellectual and emotional development has been extensively documented. When homework is overwhelming, however, children are less likely to have the opportunity to participate in these activities. Thus even a child who is left unfazed by excessive homework or who excels in school may suffer as a result of excessive homework because he’s unable to engage in the activities that can help him become a well-rounded adult.

A Better Approach to Homework

Homework can help bridge the gap between home and school, encourage independent learning, and give children who find school stressful an opportunity to learn at home. So what are the characteristics of “good” homework assignments? They include:

• Activities that encourage students to interact with their environment
• Activities that give students flexibility to focus on things they are interested in
• Activities that make learning relevant instead of flashcards and drills
• Reasonable amounts of time spent on homework—no more than one hour for young children and no more than two hours for high schoolers
• Activities that can be completed at home without substantial cost or the purchase of lots of supplies

When choosing a school or classroom for your child, ask about homework and advocate on your child’s behalf when homework becomes excessive. Your child’s stressed mind will thank you, and your child just may end up learning more.

References:

• Gerhardt, S. (2004). Why love matters: How affection shapes a baby’s brain. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
• Harwood, R., Miller, S. A., Vasta, R. (2008). Child psychology: Development in a changing society. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Eyer, D. E. (2004). Einstein never used flash cards: How our children really learn–and why they need to play more and memorize less. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.

© Copyright 2012 GoodTherapy.org. All rights reserved.

The preceding article was solely written by the author named above. Any views and opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by GoodTherapy.org. Questions or concerns about the preceding article can be directed to the author or posted as a comment below.

Please fill out all required fields to submit your message.

Invalid Email Address.

Please confirm that you are human.

• 22 comments

Leave a Comment

This entire school year I have been so frustrated with the amount of homework that my kids are consistently bringing home from school. It kind of makes me question what they are actually doing at school to have this much work to still have to bring home and work on at night. When I ask the teachers they just say it is to reinforce what they are teaching that day. But really? This is hour upon hour of work- the experts say that we need more family time together, but if most families are like ours, it is a struggle to get everything completed in the day, much less feel like we can have any quality down time together. What are we to do?

As a teacher I understand that sometimes parents feel even more overwhelmed by the homework than the students do. But I have to ask that you support us, we are not doing this to punish the students but instead to help them hold onto a concept that we have talked about in class that day.

I would never intentionally give more work to a class than I thought that they could handle, and I welcome any and all conversation with parents when they express that concern.

What bothers me though is when parents bad mouth the teachers and tell the students that they don’t have to do all of that work. That is not fair to the student nor is it fair to the rest of the class who really does manage to get all of their work done. I try to be as productive as possible in class but there are some days when we can’t get it all done and that necessitates the children having to bring home some work to complete.

Suffering parent

As a parent myself, there is no way that a few hours of homework is acceptable. They should be getting their work done in class with the help of their teachers, not bringing all of their work home to do. Home is not a place to make up time lost in class! Twenty minutes tops for a good review is okay. I agree with that. At the same time, that doesn’t mean hours. It’s absolutely unacceptable.

remember having to do tons of homework in high school.things must have only gotten worse ;)

but really,along with seeing what excessive homework does to us,we also need to look at why homework is only increasing.

if you ask me that well it could be because teachers are facing a lot of stress to deliver and they tend to give too much work to ensure the students do work.its like a doctor giving too many doses of a drug to ensure you are cured but in fact it is bad for you.

I think it’s the teachers who need to be reading this, not the parents. Parents know that most of the time their kids are being given way too much to have to do at home. I think that the real diconnect comes with the teachers. Of course if the students get the subject then the work won’t take that long to complete. But if a student is really struggling, this can be hours of homework horror for them.

When I can’t come home and have a concersation with my child because he or she has too much homework to take a break and sit with me for a few minutes, that’s a problem. That’s exactly what is goin on with my son this year. He is in the 10th grade and has barely had time to enjoy himself at all this year because of the amount of homework that he has on a daily basis. Now he is not the best student in school but he tries awfully hard and it makes me angry to think of how much time he gives on this work and yet I don’t necessarily see anyone giving back. I think that if the kids are working this hard then the teachers should at least reciprocate and give him a pat on the back every now and then for being such a hard worker.

Now a days the study competition increases day by day by increasing of progress in all things and today’s age of student have to work out so much on their studies so for the students help there are so much sources of help in studies are being introduce like online study which is easy to subscribe and get help from that.

I am so stressed! I am getting more than 7 pieces of homework each night + studying. Please help!

to help kids for losing homework to record it in phones or anything to keep crack on when kids lose homework.

Who is the author?

I am a high school student and I believe that homework should be required but an extra credit work and that all the grading should be on class participation and class work

high school student

I am a student and I get 4-7 hours of homework per night but I also am doing duke of ed ,scouts and cycling and that takes up most of my time . so I am getting in trouble for not completing homework and not getting enough sleep.as much as homework might help me I still get to much and don’t have time to have a normal teen life.

nun of yuz bisnus

i hate homework

My Spanish teacher who will remain undernamed as X gives excessive Homework. Today is Tuesday, and he says, he wants us to write 0 to 31, then 0 to 100, then 0 to 10000, and finally 0 to 200000 by next week Monday. How excessive and stressful is that.

these really help my techers dont give me and my class mates homework anymore thx

i dont know why children waste time on that like it´s so stesful when i was a kid i forgot what i needed to do because of all the homework and pakeges i needed to do every night

i am getting onlline homework, but i like homework. onlline scholl is just what i need:) its fun:) but not to much cause it ca be dameging:)

homework is pointless just doing hours and hours of review homework should not exist homework is idiotic

Although homework is a waste of time…it’s not like we have a choice, if we don’t get homework done we fail classes.

Homework is so hard and stressful that as soon as my parents tell me to do homework, I knew I was gonna get a headache.

I hate homework! It’s useless because it’s practically the same thing you learned in school, and it’s stressful!

By commenting you acknowledge acceptance of GoodTherapy.org's  Terms and Conditions of Use .

* Indicates required field.

Search Our Blog

Browse by category.

• Uncategorized
• GoodTherapy.org Announcements
• Find Therapist
• For Therapists by Therapist
• FAQ/What to Expect in Therapy
• Personal Growth
• Self-Concept
• Myths in Therapy
• Topic Expert Roundup
• Women's Issues
• Sex/Sexual Concerns
• Grief and Loss
• social media

Notice to users

Perceived parental involvement and student engagement with homework in secondary school: The mediating role of self-handicapping

• Published: 30 April 2021
• Volume 42 , pages 4350–4361, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• José Carlos Núñez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9187-1201 1 ,
• Carlos Freire   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6252-4016 2 ,
• María del Mar Ferradás   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9716-8306 2 ,
• Antonio Valle   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8160-9181 2 &
• Jianzhong Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0269-4590 3 , 4  

1794 Accesses

11 Citations

Explore all metrics

Research in the field of homework has confirmed the significant association between students’ perceptions of their parents’ involvement and their motivation and engagement with these tasks. In this study we analyzed the possible mediating role of self-handicapping strategies in the relationship between perceptions of parental support (content-oriented and autonomy-oriented support) when doing homework and the students’ behavioral engagement (time spent, effort made, amount of homework done, level of procrastination). The participants were 643 students in compulsory secondary education (between 7th and 10th grade). The results showed that the lower the perceptions of support from parents when doing homework, the greater the students’ use of self-handicapping strategies and the worse their behavioral engagement (less effort, less amount of homework done, more procrastination) and vice versa. These findings seem to indicate that self-handicapping is a motivational strategy that would partially explain students’ poor behavioral engagement with homework in the absence of parental support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students.

Predicting different types of parental involvement in children’s homework: the role of parent motivational beliefs and parent affect

Perceived parental psychological control and learned helplessness: the role of school self-efficacy, data availability.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Akar, H., Dogan, Y. B., & Üstüner, M. (2018). The relationships between positive and negative perfectionisms, self-handicapping, self-efficacy and academic achievement European Journal of Contemporary Education, 7(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2018.1.7

Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey y G. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 169–202). Academic Press.

Barutçu Yıldırım, F., & Demir, A. (2020). Self-handicapping among university students: The role of procrastination, test anxiety, self-esteem, and self-compassion. Psychological Reports, 123 (3), 825–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118825099 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bembenutty, H. (2011). Meaningful and maladaptive homework practices. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22 (3), 448–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200304 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Boon, H. J. (2007). Low and high-achieving Australian secondary school students: Their parenting, motivations and academic achievement. Australian Psychologist, 42 (3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060701405584 .

Cano, F., Martin, A. J., Ginns, P., & Berbén, A. B. G. (2018). Students’ self-worth protection and approaches to learning in higher education: Predictors and consequences. Higher Education, 76 (1), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0215-0 .

Clarke, I. E., & MacCann, C. (2016). Internal and external aspects of self-handicapping reflect the distinction between motivations and behaviors: Evidence from the self-handicapping scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 100 , 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.080 .

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform . Cambridge University Press.

De Castella, K., Byrne, D., & Covington, M. V. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (3), 861–880. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032464 .

Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Neumann, M., Niggli, A., & Schnyder, I. (2012). Does parental homework involvement mediate the relationship between family background and educational outcomes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37 (1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.09.004 .

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34 (3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3 .

Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J., & Fan, X. (2017). Homework and students' achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015. Educational Research Review, 20 , 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003 .

Froiland, J. M. (2014). Inspired childhood: Parents raising motivated, happy, and successful students from preschool to college. Amazon.

Froiland, J. M. (2018). The intrinsic learning goals of elementary school students, in their own words. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1-21 , 0022167818763923.

Google Scholar  

Froiland, J. M. (2020). A comprehensive model of preschool through high school parent involvement with emphasis on the psychological facets. School Psychology International., 42 , 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034320981393 .

Froiland, J. M., & Davison, M. L. (2014). Parental expectations and school relationships as contributors to adolescents’ positive outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 17 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9237-3 .

Gonida, E. N., & Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: Relations with parent and student achievement-related motivational beliefs and achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12039 .

Graham, S. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 , 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101861 .

Greaven, S. H., Santor, D. A., Thompson, R., & Zuroff, D. C. (2000). Adolescent self-handicapping, depressive affect, and maternal parental styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29 (6), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026499721533 .

Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed mindsets: New research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88 , 1849–1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12955 .

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis . A regression based approach: Guilford Press.

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45 (3), 740–763. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for windows, version 22.0 . IBM Corp.

Jensen, L. E., & Deemer, E. D. (2020). Attachment style and self-handicapping: The mediating role of the imposter phenomenon. Social Psychology of Education, 23 , 1259–1276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09580-0 .

Jiang, Y., & Kleitmen, S. (2015). Metacognition and motivation: Links between confidence, self-protection and self-enhancement. Learning and Individual Differences, 37 , 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.025 .

Jones, E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4 (2), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727800400205 .

Jungert, T., Levine, S., & Koestner, R. (2020). Examining how parent and teacher enthusiasm influences motivation and achievement in STEM. Journal of Educational Research, 113 (4), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1806015 .

Karbach, J., Gottschling, J., Spengler, M., Hegewald, K., & Spinath, F. M. (2013). Parental involvement and general cognitive ability as predictors of domain specific academic achievement in early adolescence. Learning and Instruction, 23 , 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.09.004 .

Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. (2005). The role of mother's use of control in children's perfectionism: Implications for the development of children's depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality, 73 , 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00303.x .

Kowalski, M., & Froiland, J. M. (2020). Parent perceptions of elementary classroom management systems and their children’s motivational and emotional responses. Social Psychology of Education, 23 , 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09543-5 .

Leary, M. R., & Shepperd, J. A. (1986). Behavioral self-handicapping vs. self-reported handicaps: A conceptual note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1265–1268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1265 .

Leondari, A., & Gonida, E. (2007). Predicting academic self-handicapping in different age groups: The role of personal achievement goals and social goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (3), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X128396 .

Lyddon, W. J., Bradford, E., & Nelson, J. P. (1993). Assessing adolescent and adult attachment: A review of current self-report measures. Journal of Counselling & Development, 71 (4), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1993.tb02654.x .

Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (2), 133–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00010.x .

Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Guo, J., Arens, A. K., & Murayama, K. (2016). Breaking the double-edged sword of effort/trying hard: Developmental equilibrium and longitudinal relations among effort, achievement, and academic self-concept. Developmental Psychology, 52 (8), 1273–1290. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000146 .

Martin, A. J. (2010). Building classroom success: Eliminating academic fear and failure . Bloomsbury Publishing.

Matteucci, M. C. (2017). Attributional retraining and achievement goals: An exploratory study on theoretical and empirical relationship. European Review of Applied Psychology, 67 (5), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2017.08.004 .

Moé, A., Katz, I., & Alesi, M. (2018). Scaffolding for motivation by parents, and child homework motivations and emotions: Effects of a training programme. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (2), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12216 .

Moé, A., Katz, I., Cohen, R., & Alesi, M. (2020). Reducing homework stress by increasing adoption of need-supportive practices: Effects of an intervention with parents. Learning and Individual Differences, 82 , 101921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101921 .

Murray, C. B., & Warden, M. R. (1992). Implications of self-handicapping strategies for academic achievement: A reconceptualization. Journal of Social Psychology, 132 (1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1992.9924685 .

Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A., & Epstein, J. L. (2015). Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: Differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students. Metacognition and Learning, 10 (3), 375–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5 .

Núñez, J. C., Pascual, S., Suárez, N., & Rosário, P. (2021). Perceived parental involvement and children’s homework engagement at the end of primary education: A cluster analysis. Journal of Psychology and Education, 16 (1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.23923/rpye2021.01.204 .

Olivari, M. G., Cucci, G., Bonanomi, A., Tagliabue, S., & Confalonieri, E. (2018). Retrospective paternal and maternal parenting styles, regulatory self-efficacy and adolescent risk taking. Marriage & Family Review, 54 (3), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2017.1403990 .

Perry, R. P., Hall. N. C. & Ruthig, I C (2005) Perceived (academic) control and scholastic attainment in higher education. In J. Smart (Ed.). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 20, pp. 363–436). Springer.

Pinquart, M., & Gerke, D. C. (2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28 (8), 2017–2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01417-5 .

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. L. (2006). Motivación en contextos educativos. Teoría, investigación y aplicaciones (2ª ed.) . Prentice-Hall.

Prakhov, I., Kotomina, O., & Sazhina, A. (2020). Parental involvement and the educational strategies of youth in Russia. International Journal of Educational Development, 78 , 102252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102252 .

Pychyl, T. A., Coplan, R. J., & Reid, P. A. M. (2002). Parenting and procrastination: Gender differences in the relations between procrastination, parenting style and self-worth in early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 33 (2), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00151-9 .

Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22 (2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200202 .

Regueiro, B., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., Rodríguez, S., & Suárez, N. (2017). Cambios en la implicación en los deberes escolares a lo largo de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria [Changes involvement in homework throughout compulsory secondary education]. Cultura y Educación, 29 , 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2017.1306988 .

Reis, I. G., & Peixoto, F. (2013). "My parents just criticize me" - relationship between parenting practices (perfectionism and critical) and self-esteem, academic self-concept, motivation and the use of self-handicapping strategies. Análise Psicológica, 31 (4), 343–358.

Ricard, N. C., & Pelletier, L. G. (2016). Dropping out of high school: The role of parent and teacher self-determination support, reciprocal friendships and academic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44-45 , 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.12.003 .

Rothbaum, F., Morling, B., & Rusk, N. (2009). How goals and beliefs lead people into and out of depression. Review of General Psychology, 13 (4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017140 .

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness . Guilford Publications.

Schwinger, M., Wirthwein, L., Lemmer, G., & Steinmayr, R. (2014). Academic self-handicapping and achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 (3), 744–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035832 .

Song, J., Bong, M., Lee, K., & Kim, S.-i. (2015). Longitudinal investigation into the role of perceived social support in adolescents’ academic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (3), 821–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000016 .

Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent – Adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00001 .

Thomas, V., Muls, J., De Backer, F., & Lombaerts, K. (2020). Middle school student and parent perceptions of parental involvement: Unravelling the associations with school achievement and wellbeing. Educational Studies, 46 (4), 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1590182 .

Thompson, T. (2004). Failure-avoidance: Parenting, the achievement environment of the home and strategies for reduction. Learning and Instruction, 14 (1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.005 .

Török, L., Szabó, Z. P., & Tóth, L. (2018). A critical review of the literature on academic self-handicapping: Theory, manifestations, prevention and measurement. Social Psychology of Education, 21 , 1175–1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9460-z .

Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: The role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learning and Instruction, 19 , 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001 .

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 , 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438 .

Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009061303214 .

Want, J., & Kleitman, S. (2006). Imposter phenomenon and self-handicapping: Links with parenting styles and self-confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (5), 961–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.005 .

Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30 (1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001 .

Xu, J. (2006). Gender and homework management reported by high school students. Educational Psychology, 26 , 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500341023 .

Xu, J. (2010). Predicting homework time management at the secondary school level: A multilevel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.001 .

Xu, J. (2011). Homework completion at the secondary school level: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 104 , 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003636752 .

Xu, J., Fan, X., Du, J., & He, M. (2017). A study of the validity and reliability of the parental homework support scale. Measurement, 95 , 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.09.045 .

Xu, J., Du, J., Wu, S., Ripple, H., & Cosgriff, A. (2018). Reciprocal effects among parental homework support, effort, and achievement? An empirical investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02334 .

Yu, J., & McLellan, R. (2019). Beyond academic achievement goals: The importance of social achievement goals in explaining gender differences in self-handicapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 69 , 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.010 .

Yu, J., & McLellan, R. (2020). Same mindset, different goals and motivational frameworks: Profiles of mindset-based meaning systems. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62 , 101901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101901 .

Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. F. (2005). Costs of self-handicapping. Journal of Personality, 73 (2), 411–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00314.x .

Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects on coping, academic performance, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1619–1628. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1619 .

Download references

This work was partially funded by the European Regional Development Funds (European Union and Principality of Asturias) through the Science, Technology and Innovation Plan (FC-GRUPIN-IDI/2018/000199), and the research project EDU2017–82984-P (MEIC).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain

José Carlos Núñez

Faculty of Educational Studies, University of A Coruña, Elviña Campus, 15071, A Coruña, Spain

Carlos Freire, María del Mar Ferradás & Antonio Valle

Mississippi State University, Starkville, USA

Jianzhong Xu

University of Macau, Macau, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María del Mar Ferradás .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Consent to Participate

Written informed consent was obtained from the school authorities, parents, and students.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Núñez, J.C., Freire, C., Ferradás, M.d.M. et al. Perceived parental involvement and student engagement with homework in secondary school: The mediating role of self-handicapping. Curr Psychol 42 , 4350–4361 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01791-8

Download citation

Accepted : 21 April 2021

Published : 30 April 2021

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01791-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Perceived parental support
• Self-handicapping
• Personal worth
• Student behavioral engagement
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Nearly one-in-five teens can’t always finish their homework because of the digital divide

Some 15% of U.S. households with school-age children do not have a high-speed internet connection at home, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of 2015 U.S. Census Bureau data. New survey findings from the Center also show that some teens are more likely to face digital hurdles when trying to complete their homework.

School-age children in lower-income households are especially likely to lack broadband access. Roughly one-third of households with children ages 6 to 17 and whose annual income falls below $30,000 a year do not have a high-speed internet connection at home, compared with just 6% of such households earning $75,000 or more a year. These broadband disparities are particularly pronounced for black and Hispanic households with school-age children – especially those with low household incomes. (The overall share of households with school-age children lacking a high-speed internet connection in 2015 is comparable to what the Center found in an analysis of 2013 Census data.)

This aspect of the digital divide – often referred to as the “homework gap” – can be an academic burden for teens who lack access to digital technologies at home. Black teens, as well as those from lower-income households, are especially likely to face these school-related challenges as a result, according to the new Center survey of 743 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 conducted March 7–April 10, 2018.

At its most extreme, the homework gap can mean that teens have trouble even finishing their homework. Overall, 17% of teens say they are often or sometimes unable to complete homework assignments because they do not have reliable access to a computer or internet connection.

This is even more common among black teens. One-quarter of black teens say they are at least sometimes unable to complete their homework due to a lack of digital access, including 13% who say this happens to them often. Just 4% of white teens and 6% of Hispanic teens say this often happens to them. (There were not enough Asian respondents in this survey sample to be broken out into a separate analysis.)

Teens also differ by income level when it comes to completing assignments: 24% of teens whose annual family income is less than $30,000 say the lack of a dependable computer or internet connection often or sometimes prohibits them from finishing their homework, but that share drops to 9% among teens who live in households earning $75,000 or more a year.

Other times, teens who lack reliable internet service at home say they seek out other locations to complete their schoolwork: 12% of teens say they at least sometimes use public Wi-Fi to complete assignments because they do not have an internet connection at home. Again, this problem is more prevalent for black or less affluent teens. Roughly one-in-five black teens (21%) report having to at least sometimes use public Wi-Fi for this reason, including 10% who say they often do so. And teens whose family income is below $30,000 a year are far more likely than those whose annual household income is $30,000 or higher to say that they do this (21% vs. 9%).

Lastly, 35% of teens say they often or sometimes have to do their homework on their cellphone. Although it is not uncommon for young people in all circumstances to complete assignments in this way, it is especially prevalent among lower-income teens. Indeed, 45% of teens who live in households earning less than $30,000 a year say they at least sometimes rely on their cellphone to finish their homework.

These findings reflect a broader discussion about the digital divide’s impact on America’s youth. Numerous policymakers and advocates have expressed concern that students with less access to certain technologies may fall behind their more digitally connected peers. There is some evidence that teens who have access to a home computer are more likely to graduate from high school when compared with those who don’t.

The Center’s survey of teens does show stark differences in teens’ computer access based on their household income. A quarter of teens whose family income is less than $30,000 a year do not have access to a home computer, compared with 4% of those whose annual family income is $75,000 or more.

Note: See full topline results and methodology here (PDF). 

• Age & Generations
• Digital Divide
• Economic Inequality
• Education & Learning Online
• Teens & Tech
• Teens & Youth

Monica Anderson is a director of research at Pew Research Center .

Andrew Perrin is a former research analyst focusing on internet and technology at Pew Research Center .

U.S. adults under 30 have different foreign policy priorities than older adults

Across asia, respect for elders is seen as necessary to be ‘truly’ buddhist, teens and video games today, as biden and trump seek reelection, who are the oldest – and youngest – current world leaders, how teens and parents approach screen time, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

“i feel enthusiastic, when the homework is done well”: teachers’ emotions related to homework and their antecedents.

• 1 Institute of School and Profession, University of Teacher Education St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland
• 2 Department of Educational Science and School of Education, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
• 3 Institute of Educational Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Emotions are an important factor influencing teaching behavior and teaching quality. Previous studies have primarily focused on teachers’ emotions in the classroom in general, rather than focusing on a specific aspect of teaching such as homework practice. Since emotions vary between situations, it can be assumed that teachers’ emotions also vary between the activities that teachers perform. In this study, we therefore focus on one specific teacher activity in our study, namely homework practice. We explore teachers’ emotions in homework practice and their antecedents. Methodologically, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 Swiss secondary school teachers teaching German and analysed using structuring qualitative content analysis. The results show that teachers experience a variety of positive and negative emotions related to homework practice, with positive emotions predominating. According to the teachers’ reflections, the antecedents of their emotions could be attributed to the context (e.g., conditions at home), teacher behavior and (inner) demands (e.g., perceived workload) and student behavior (e.g., learning progress). Implications for teacher education and training are discussed.

1. Introduction

Schutz and Lanehart (2002) emphasized that “emotions are intimately involved in virtually every aspect of the teaching and learning process and, therefore, an understanding of the nature of emotions within the school context is essential” (p. 67). Since then, research on emotions in education has steadily increased and includes empirical studies on the emotions of students, teachers, as well as parents (e.g., Dettmers et al., 2011 ; DiStefano et al., 2020 ; Burić and Frenzel, 2021 ). The results regarding the teacher uniformly show that they experience a variety of emotions while teaching ( Hargreaves, 1998 ; Sutton and Wheatley, 2003 ; Mevarech and Maskit, 2015 ), which have been identified as significant factors that influence teaching behavior, and consequently, teaching quality and student outcomes ( Frenzel et al., 2009b ; Hagenauer and Hascher, 2018 ; Frenzel et al., 2021 ). Moreover, recognizing, understanding, and expressing these emotions are crucial for teachers’ well-being ( Hagenauer and Hascher, 2018 ; Dreer, 2021 ; Hascher and Waber, 2021 ).

Previous studies have focused predominantly on teachers’ emotions during teaching as broadly defined (e.g., Chen, 2019 ), rather than on a specific facet of teaching practice. Such an approach is valuable because it generates insights into how teaching in general is experienced emotionally by teachers and how these emotions in turn affect students ( Frenzel et al., 2021 ). However, research has shown that students’ emotions vary depending on the subject ( Goetz et al., 2006 , 2010 ) or activity they are engaged in (e.g., emotions in learning, emotions during exams, emotions during homework etc.; Pekrun et al., 2002 ; Goetz et al., 2012 ). The same can be assumed for teachers. The effect of context and situation on emotions is increasingly coming to the fore of academic research (for example, Pekrun and Marsh, 2022 ). In our study, we therefore zoom even more precisely into the different activities or tasks a teacher is required to perform to examine their emotional experience more closely in connection with a very specific activity: namely, homework practice. In this study, homework practice means teachers’ various actions related to homework. It includes planning, assigning, but also checking, giving feedback or integrating homework into the lesson.

We have chosen to focus on the activity of homework practice as homework in schools has been a topic of controversial discussion for decades, especially with regard to its effectiveness and quality ( Baş et al., 2017 ; Fan et al., 2017 ). Homework practice has now been brought even more into focus by the COVID-19 pandemic, as homework also promotes core student skills, such as self-regulated learning ( Pelikan et al., 2021 ). It can be assumed that teachers who experience homework practice positively and implement it with motivation also achieve a higher quality of the homework. Previous research clearly points to the association between teachers’ emotions and teaching quality (e.g., Becker et al., 2015 ). Even though emotions are considered relevant as part of teachers’ professional competence ( Frenzel et al., 2021 ), there is currently a lack of empirical evidence on which emotions teachers experience in homework practice and what triggers them. This is the focus of the present study. Based on an exploratory approach, arising from the limited empirical findings on this topic to date, we examine which emotions teachers experience in relation to homework practice and their antecedents. We adopt Cooper’s (1989) definition of homework as a task that a teacher gives to students to complete out of school. However, the homework process we are interested in as an emotion-triggering source of teachers’ emotions should be thought of more broadly and ranges from planning homework to assigning and correcting it and giving feedback. Therefore, it is not only about activities that the teacher does for themselves (e.g., planning homework), but also about the teacher–student interactions that occur in the course of the homework process, for example, when teachers give feedback to students or discuss homework together in class.

2. Teachers’ emotions

2.1. definition of emotions and teachers’ emotions.

Emotions are multidimensional constructs that consist of (1) affective, (2) physiological, (3) cognitive, (4) expressive, and (5) motivational components ( Kleinginna and Kleinginna, 1981 ; Scherer, 2005 ; Shuman and Scherer, 2014 ). Emotions have what Frenzel et al. (2015) call a “felt core”— the tangible experience of feeling (p. 202). When people experience emotions, the body often reacts as well. For example, the experience of fear can result in an increased heart rate or a change in breathing rate or pattern ( Frenzel et al., 2015 , p. 202). Emotional experiences also impact thoughts, such as when fear leads to thoughts about consequences. Emotions can be perceived by the outside world through the expressive component. For example, fear can be expressed verbally or non-verbally, such as through a worried face. Finally, the motivational component ensures that appropriate action is taken. Fear often leads to avoidance behavior.

According to Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2012 , p. 261; see also Pekrun et al., 2023) , emotions can be described and differentiated according to their valence and activation. In terms of valence, a distinction can be made between positive (e.g., joy) and negative (e.g., anger). Valence in this context is related to the subjective experience of the teacher. Positive emotions are classified as those that are experienced as pleasant by the teacher, whereas negative emotions are defined as those experienced as unpleasant. Both negative and positive emotions can be functional or dysfunctional (for a critical discussion see An et al., 2017 ). In addition, there are physiologically activating or deactivating states. Excitement is activating, whereas relaxation is usually deactivating. These two aspects are crucial for understanding the actions that arise from emotions, as in the case of teachers who experience emotions in the classroom and act accordingly.

Teachers’ emotions have increasingly become objects of study in recent years. Frenzel (2014) proposed a reciprocal model of the causes and effects of teachers’ emotions when teaching in class. It illustrates how teachers’ emotions are triggered and influenced by and affect the teaching process. The basic assumptions of the model are based on an appraisal-theoretical understanding of emotions ( Ellsworth and Scherer, 2003 ). Appraisal theory explains why the same external experience may not lead to the same emotional responses in all individuals; it is not the experience itself that evokes the emotion, but the subjective appraisal made by the individual ( Sutton and Wheatley, 2003 ). For teachers, this appraisal is based on four aspects of teacher goals: (1) cognitive, (2) motivational, (3) social, and (4) relational ( Frenzel et al., 2009b ; Frenzel, 2014 ). Based on their perceptions of learners’ behavior on these four dimensions, teachers assess whether they have achieved or will achieve these goals. The outcome of this assessment process determines the teachers’ emotional response. For example, if a teacher perceives students’ engagement as high, it is likely that the teacher will experience positive emotions (e.g., enjoyment) as the students’ behavior is interpreted as goal conducive. These emotions then influence the teacher’s classroom behavior (i.e., cognitive activation, classroom management, social support). For example, teachers who experience positive emotions can build trusting relationships with their students. These instructional behavior factors affect students’ achievement, motivation, behavior in class, and relationship with the teacher. Thus, student and teacher behavior in the classroom is both the cause and effect of the teacher’s emotional experiences. This reciprocal relationship between teacher and student emotions has been empirically confirmed in a variety of studies ( Frenzel et al., 2009a , b ; Becker et al., 2014 ; Keller and Lazarides, 2021 ). It is expected that students’ homework behavior on the different dimensions is related to teachers’ homework-related emotions as well. It seems plausible, for example, that students who are committed to doing their homework trigger positive emotions in teachers because teachers then feel confirmed in their effectiveness and consider their goals to have been achieved. However, there are no specific empirical findings for homework practice so far.

2.2. Antecedents of teachers’ emotions—empirical findings

Teachers experience emotions for a variety of reasons related to achieving or not achieving their goals ( Sutton and Wheatley, 2003 ; Sutton, 2007 ; Frenzel, 2014 ). They experience joy in the classroom when students are motivated ( Becker et al., 2015 ; Burić and Frenzel, 2021 ), engaged ( Prawatt et al., 1983 ; Epstein and van Voorhis, 2012 ; Hagenauer et al., 2015 ; Chang, 2020 ), interested ( Frenzel et al., 2008 ), disciplined ( Hagenauer et al., 2015 ; Frenzel et al., 2020 ) or simply happy ( Chang, 2020 ; Keller and Lazarides, 2021 ). According to Frenzel et al. (2008) and Keller and Lazarides (2021) , joy is the emotion most commonly reported by teachers. When students are successful or interactive, teachers experience positive emotions ( Sutton, 2005 ; Wu and Chen, 2018 ; Chang, 2020 ) regardless of the students’ abilities ( Prawatt et al., 1983 ). In addition, they feel pride when a student with low abilities suddenly begins to try very hard ( Prawatt et al., 1983 ).

However, student engagement and discipline are also significant predictors of negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, and frustration ( Prawatt et al., 1983 ; Georgiou et al., 2002 ; Sutton and Wheatley, 2003 ; Sutton, 2005 ; Becker et al., 2014 ; Hagenauer et al., 2015 ; Frenzel et al., 2020 ). Anger is mainly evoked when students misbehave, do not participate, or are inattentive or unmotivated ( Sutton, 2007 ; Hagenauer et al., 2015 ). It also arises when teachers attribute students’ academic failures to inadequate effort ( Reyna and Weiner, 2001 ). The level of discipline has a significantly negative correlation with fear ( Frenzel et al., 2008 ). Surprise occurs when low-ability students who make little effort nevertheless succeed or high-ability students who exert a lot of effort fail ( Prawatt et al., 1983 ).

The relationships between students and teachers are also associated with emotions. When teachers feel connected to their students, they experience joy. If these relationships cannot be established, anger and anxiety are more likely to arise ( Hagenauer et al., 2015 ). In addition, social relations outside the classroom—such as those with colleagues or parents—can also lead to emotional responses ( Sutton and Wheatley, 2003 ; Sutton, 2005 ; Wu and Chen, 2018 ). Teachers feel pleasant emotions when they succeed in working with their colleagues, receive support from school leaders, or experience recognition from parents ( Chen, 2019 ). In contrast, unpleasant emotions can result if they experience competition with their colleagues, receive little support from the administration, or interact with uncooperative parents ( Sutton, 2005 ; Chen, 2019 ).

In conclusion, the main sources which trigger teachers’ emotions proposed in the model on teachers’ emotions ( Frenzel, 2014 ) have been confirmed empirically by various studies in different countries. However, it remains an open question whether these particular sources are also at the core of teachers’ emotions related to homework.

3. Homework

Homework has a long tradition worldwide and is a relevant practice in many schools. As already outlined in the introduction, it is defined as assignments given by a teacher for students to complete outside of school ( Cooper, 1989 ).

To date, much of the research on homework has focused on its didactic–methodological function (e.g., Fernández-Alonso et al., 2019 ). For example, researchers have investigated whether the additional learning time gained through homework impacts student performance (e.g., Rosário et al., 2018 ). In addition, research has analysed whether homework supports self-regulated learning by helping students acquire learning strategies ( Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2008 ). Another aspect that has been considered is whether homework functions as an equalizer or reinforces inequality because students have different degrees of support at home ( Dettmers et al., 2019 ). Additionally, researchers have investigated the influence of homework on the development of students’ interest ( Trautwein et al., 2001 ).

Although the aforementioned research has produced different findings, it is the consensus that doing homework alone does not necessarily provide benefits, but that the quality of homework is decisive in determining whether students benefit from it ( Trautwein et al., 2001 , 2002 ; Flunger et al., 2015 ; Rodríguez et al., 2019 ). Previous studies have shown that quality homework can positively influence the learner’s behavior and achievement ( Trautwein et al., 2002 , 2006 ; Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007 , 2009 ; Dettmers et al., 2010 ; Rosário et al., 2018 ). Moreover, a student’s motivation to complete homework is positively related to its perceived quality ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ; Trautwein and Lüdtke, 2007 ; Rosário et al., 2018 ; Xu et al., 2021 ; Xu, 2022 ). For example, Rosário et al. (2018) found that when students perceive their homework to be high quality, they try harder, complete homework more often, perform better on assignments, and get higher grades in mathematics. However, the topic of homework is still controversial and opinions about the sense or even meaninglessness of homework are diverse ( Cooper et al., 2006 ; Fan et al., 2017 ). Due to these controversies, the topic can also be considered “emotional,” be it that homework often leads to conflicts between students and their parents ( Forsberg, 2007 ; Dumont et al., 2012 ) or that homework can also trigger emotions in the teacher–student interaction, for example, when students do not complete their homework (see Hagenauer et al., 2015 for teacher-student interaction).

Studies on students’ emotions during homework show that they are influenced by perceived homework quality and by parental homework support ( Trautwein et al., 2009a , b ; Dettmers et al., 2011 ). For example, negative emotions arise when perceived homework quality is low or parental homework help is perceived as controlling and can have a negative impact on homework effort and performance ( Else-Quest et al., 2008 ; Trautwein et al., 2009a , b ; Dettmers et al., 2011 ). Trautwein et al. (2009b) also found that negative emotions are negatively related to homework effort and French performance. However, they were also able to show that performance can predict subsequent negative emotions in homework. Regarding the parents, it was found that the emotions of the parents (e.g., about a subject) influence their homework support, but also have an influence on the emotions of the students ( Moè and Katz, 2018 ; DiStefano et al., 2020 ). Hence, while there are some studies on students’ emotions ( Knollmann and Wild, 2007 ; Trautwein et al., 2009a ; Dettmers et al., 2011 ) and parents’ emotions ( Moè and Katz, 2018 ; DiStefano et al., 2020 ), research on teachers’ emotions pertaining to homework practice is lacking.

4. The present study

Many studies have investigated the emotions teachers experience while teaching ( Sutton and Wheatley, 2003 ; Frenzel, 2014 ; Fried et al., 2015 ; Frenzel et al., 2021 ). However, there has been little research to date that focuses on specific activities of teaching. The present study focuses on the homework process. Based on Frenzel’s (2014) model, it can be assumed that the quality of homework is influenced by the teachers’ emotions. For example, positive emotions, such as joy triggered by students who are highly engaged in homework, may cause teachers to put in the effort to assign differentiated homework. This is likely to further enhance the students’ motivation and engagement. Thus, perceived student engagement and motivation may function as a significant cause of a teacher’s emotions related to homework. So far, however, there is no empirical evidence on the antecedents of teachers’ emotions and experienced teachers’ emotions themselves in the homework process.

To this end, in the present study we explored the following main research questions:

1. Which emotions do teachers experience related to German language homework (the language of instruction and the students’ native language), and (2) what are their antecedents?

This zooming in on a specific activity of teachers is timely, as the high context specificity of emotions and consequently the variations of emotions between contexts and situations are increasingly seen as being relevant for empirical research in the field. While there is already a great deal of empirical evidence on teachers’ emotions while teaching in general and their relations to students (e.g., Frenzel et al., 2021 ), our study extends previous research efforts by taking a closer look at a specific activity of teachers – homework practice and its emotional potential for teachers—and thereby also taking the context specificity of teachers’ emotions into account.

5.1. Participants

A total of 23 secondary school teachers from the canton of Bern in Switzerland participated in this study. The conditions for participation were that they had been in the teaching profession for at least 3 years and taught German (which is the language of instruction and a primary subject in the area). The subject German was chosen as it is one of the main subjects in Swiss secondary schools. Homework and its control can be very time-consuming for teachers, as essays have to be corrected in addition to other forms of assignments. In addition, it was important for us that the teachers already had sufficient professional experience so that they could report from their broad experience.

We first contacted all secondary schools in the canton of Bern to recruit teachers who were willing to participate in interviews. There are five different school models in Bern, which differ in terms of permeability (see Figure 1 ). In Model 1 , the students of the high-track secondary level (Sekundarschule) and the low-track secondary level (Realschule) are taught separately in different school buildings. In Model 2 , the two tracks are taught separately but in the same school building (i.e., there are separate high-track and low-track classes in the same building). In Model 3a , students in the low- and high-track levels are taught separately in most subjects; however, in the main subjects (mathematics, German, French), they are grouped according to their ability levels. In Model 3b, core classes are mixed, while the three main subjects are taught in ability-level groups. In Model 4 , all subjects are taught in mixed levels and classes are only differentiated internally.

Figure 1 . School models in the canton of Bern.

Of the teachers interviewed, two teachers were from Model 1, three teachers were from Model 2, 12 teachers were from Model 3a, four teachers were from Model 3b, and two teachers were from Model 4. This distribution accurately reflects the distribution of teachers among the different models in the canton of Bern. Model 3a is the most frequently implemented (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Demographics of the participants.

Of the 23 teachers interviewed, 12 were female (52.2%) and 11 were male (47.8%). One teacher was under 30 years old, 11 were between 30 and 40 years old, eight were between 41 and 50 years old and three were over 50 years old. The teachers also differed in terms of professional experience. Two had been in the teaching profession for less than 5 years, five for 5–10 years, seven for 11–15 years, six for 16–20 years and three for over 20 years (see Table 1 ).

5.2. Interviews and procedure

As teachers’ emotions related to homework practices are relatively unexplored, a qualitative–explorative approach was chosen to answer the proposed research questions. In addition, a short questionnaire was used to collect demographic information and the teachers’ positive and negative affect related to homework practice.

5.2.1. Interviews

We conducted semi-structured interviews based on an interview guide that lasted between 28 and 69 min. The interview guide had been previously piloted with two teachers. These interviews showed that the questions were easy to understand but that the interviewees found it difficult to identify emotions on their own.

Consent to use the data was obtained from the participants. In addition, they were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time and were assured that their personal information and data would be kept confidential. Interviews were conducted by the principal investigator in person or via Zoom (because of the COVID-19 pandemic). An informal conversational style was used to encourage respondents to speak openly about their experiences. They were also told that their experiences were important and that, therefore, there were no right or wrong answers; this was intended to ensure that they would proffer information as freely and openly as possible.

During the interviews, the teachers were asked to report on situations related to the homework process that had evoked emotions in them. They were asked to name the emotion and describe the situation that caused it (Main interview question: In which situations related to homework do you experience positive feelings? What kind of feeling? Can you tell me more about it? In which situations do you experience negative feelings? What kind of feeling? Can you tell me more about it? ). Based on the test interviews, during a second step, the teachers were presented with a list of specific emotions (which were also later addressed in the short questionnaire) and asked to read them. If they had experienced the emotion and had not yet mentioned it, they were asked to explain a situation that had triggered this emotion (Main interview question: You have now already reported on various emotions in the homework process. I will show you a selection of emotions now. Read through the emotions briefly. Perhaps you will notice that you have experienced one or two of them in connection with your homework practice. I would ask you to tell me a bit more about it ).

5.2.2. Teachers’ positive and negative affect

After the interviews, the teachers filled out a short questionnaire which consisted of demographic information and the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS, Breyer and Bluemke, 2016 ; German version). The PANAS scales were applied to provide a preliminary quantifying description of the teachers’ emotions related to their homework practice in addition to the thick and contextualized descriptions resulting from the interviews. The teachers had to answer the following question in terms of different emotions (e.g., active): “ When you think about your previous homework practice, how do you feel about it in general? ” The PANAS consists of ten positive and ten negative emotional states. Additional emotions that were considered relevant to homework were added: satisfied, disappointed, relaxed, frustrated, relieved, confident, hopeless, stressed, empathic, grateful, hopeful, bored, sad, pity, embarrassed, guilty conscience, disgusted, admiring, and envious (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The teachers assessed the intensity with which they felt each emotion using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).

5.3. Data analysis

The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Fuss and Karbach (2019) and Kuckartz (2010) identified obligatory and pre-defined transcription rules. All transcripts conformed to these rules. Personal information provided by the participants was anonymised in the transcripts. The interviews were analysed utilizing the software MAXQDA based on the qualitative content analysis structure defined by Mayring (2017) . A coding frame was developed consisting of several main categories and subcategories that structured the material. First, the interview material was coded based on Frenzel’s (2014) teachers’ emotions model. They classified the students’ behavior on cognitive, motivational, and social levels as relevant antecedents of the teachers’ emotions. All other key categories and sub-categories pertaining to the triggers of the teachers’ emotions that were part of the coding frame emerged inductively from the material. In terms of specific emotions, the emotional states from the PANAS scales were used as deductive categories. Other emotions, such as feeling insecure, emerged from the interviews, so further inductive categories were formed during the coding process. These categories and the overall coding frame were discussed several times with a second researcher. The full coding frame is available from the researchers on request. Extensive extracts from the coding frame are depicted in the results section in Tables 2 – 4 .

Table 2 . Antecedents of teachers’ emotions related to context.

Table 3 . Antecedents of teachers’ emotions related to teachers’ behavior and (inner) demands.

Table 4 . Antecedents of teachers’ emotions related to student behavior.

For the final coding frame, each category was described and assigned a representative anchor example. In relation to the research questions, the coding scheme included 21 categories of positive emotions and 27 categories of negative emotions. A total of 116 codes in the positive emotion categories and 133 codes in the negative emotion categories were developed. The coding scheme also included 25 antecedents, 20 of which were divided into positive and negative. The exceptions were categories that were considered to be positive or negative per se (e.g., lies/excuses). There were 373 codes in the antecedent categories.

To ensure intercoder reliability, a second independent researcher who was not involved in the research project but who has expertise in the field coded a randomly selected interview using the final coding scheme. The codes were discussed with the second researcher. After a consensus was reached, the independent researcher coded four more randomly selected interviews. These were used to calculate intercoder reliability via the corrected Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, as suggested by Brennan and Prediger (1981) . The intercoder reliability as a measure of the coding consistency was good, suggesting consistency in the coding process (κ = 0.78; Landis and Koch, 1977 ).

In the following sections, the results of the study are reported. First, the emotions reported in the short questionnaire are presented, which is followed by the antecedents and associated emotions reported in the interviews. We will describe the dimensions/categories in detail and complement this description with frequencies (i.e., How many teachers mentioned each category). This procedure—the combination of detailed description and the indication of frequencies—is a common strategy for presenting results when using qualitative content analysis ( Schreier, 2012 ).

6.1. Which emotions do teachers experience in relation to their homework practice?

Findings from the PANAS scales revealed that the teachers experienced a variety of positive and negative emotions related to homework. Positive emotions dominated over negative emotions ( M positive emotions  = 2.69; M negative emotions  = 1.40) (see Figure 2 and Supplementary Table S1 ).

Figure 2 . Mean values of positive and negative teacher emotions in relation to the homework practice (1 = low occurrence; 5 = high occurrence).

To cross-validate these findings, the teachers were also asked in the interviews whether positive or negative emotions dominate from their perspective. In line with the quantitative findings, most of the teachers interviewed ( n  = 15) claimed that positive emotions were dominant. When prompted to elaborate, they clarified that they have a positive attitude toward homework and strive to implement high-quality homework practices. In addition, they reported that they do not receive negative feedback from students or parents on their homework practices, suggesting that they are satisfied. In contrast, negative emotions dominated among some teachers ( n  = 6). They argued that homework has the potential to cause negative outcomes such as conflicts with parents, stress, or students feeling overloaded. Finally, two teachers were unsure whether positive or negative emotions dominate, reflecting an ambivalent attitude toward homework.

Looking at the distinct emotions in detail, the teachers mentioned a high variation of positive and negative emotions that are triggered by their homework practice. Specifically, for the positive emotions, they reported feeling hopeful, excited, relieved, empathic, admiration, confident, determined, interested, enthusiastic, inspired, satisfied, proud, fulfilling, and relaxed. In terms of negative emotions, they reported feeling stressed, pity, sad, ineffective, overwhelmed, frustrated, guilty, including having a guilty conscience, ashamed, upset, insecure, disappointed, annoyed, scared, irritable, helpless, perplexed, hopeless, inadequate, and bored. In the following section, these distinct emotions are related to their antecedents.

6.2. What are the antecedents of teachers’ emotions related to their homework practice?

Based on the interview findings, triggers of teachers’ emotions were identified and grouped into three categories: context (Section 6.2.1), teacher behavior and (inner) demands (Section 6.2.2), and student behavior (Section 6.2.3).

6.2.1. Context

Various contextual factors that trigger emotional responses were mentioned (see Table 2 ). They related to the school environment, the students’ home environments, or the teacher’s own socialization experiences (i.e., their prior experiences with homework).

With regard to the school environment, the teachers reported that they feel relieved that they have access to digital tools . Emotions were also evoked in teachers because they have an/no obligation or the/no possibility of assigning homework . One teacher stated that she is relieved to have the opportunity to assign homework occasionally as this allows her to cover content for which there is too little time in class. Another teacher reported stress because he would like to assign more homework but does not have the opportunity because the students would be overwhelmed.

The teachers seldom mentioned factors related to the students’ home environments in the interviews. However, on some occasions, these conditions did evoke emotions. More concretely, some teachers reported that they feel empathy or pity when students do not have a suitable place at home to work and concentrate . In addition, conflicts between parents and students caused by homework evoked negative emotions in teachers. Regarding positive emotions, the teachers claimed to feel admiration when underachieving students or those who receive little support at home nevertheless work hard to complete their homework.

Finally, the teachers’ own socialization evoked emotions in them. One teacher said he felt sorry for the students because he did not like doing homework himself. In contrast, two teachers reported that they had enjoyed doing homework in their own school years , one particularly emphasizing the subject German because he was especially good at it.

6.2.2. Teacher behavior and (inner) demands

Different aspects of the teacher’s own behavior and (inner) demands triggered emotional responses (see Table 3 ). For one teacher, her demands and idealism led to a guilty conscience and a feeling of being ineffective and powerless. Several teachers reported feeling frustrated or stressed when the workload (e.g., correcting or preparation) is too high. Only one teacher experienced positive emotions, as she avoided giving homework to keep her workload low:

“I am really a bit wary of giving homework that gives me personally a lot of work.” (11, pos. 50)

The amount of homework assigned by the teachers evoked various emotions. First, the teachers reported feeling relieved when they do not have to assign a lot of homework to students—for example, when the students work productively in class, or when additional homework is unnecessary as the learning objectives have already been reached. Second, some of the teachers reported feeling guilty, ashamed, or pity when they assign homework to students who already have assignments from other teachers or have to study for tests.

The teachers reported experiencing positive emotions when the assigned work is completed well and thus, they can give positive feedback . However, negative emotions such as a guilty conscience can arise if they have to give negative feedback.

The teachers further reported that they are hopeful, excited, and enthusiastic when they assign homework that is perceived as high quality and which they have planned thoroughly. On the contrary, they mentioned experiencing a guilty conscience when they realize that they have put in little effort and/or time to prepare the homework. One teacher reported that she is often inspired by students to create new assignments .

Insecurities can arise during planning if the meaningfulness of homework is questioned. Teachers who doubt this frequently reported feelings of guilt. However, when they give homework that they believe is meaningful, they feel determined and interested. When teachers succeed in integrating homework into the lesson and it leads to discussions, they experience positive emotions such as interest, joy, enthusiasm, or inspiration. In contrast, they reported feeling guilty when they do not integrate homework into the lesson.

“It has also happened that you have done something […] and then you have not reacted at all, so that was – that was not sensible. Then you are really (.) guilty.” (06, pos. 75)

6.2.3. Student behavior

The students’ homework-related behavior triggered the broadest range of emotions in the teachers, defined in terms of the cognitive, motivational, and socio-emotional goals described in the Frenzel (2014) model (see Table 4 ). The teachers did not describe student behavior related to relational goals.

Cognitive goals were closely linked to learning progress and perceived success. Homework that does not lead to improved learning performance is likely to cause frustration, disappointment, and anger. One teacher reported experiencing a guilty conscience when particularly diligent students who complete their homework are still not successful. However, when learning goals are achieved, the teachers frequently reported feeling excited, enthusiastic, and satisfied. When students who have difficulties with the content succeed, teachers have indicated that they are enthusiastic, proud, and relieved.

In addition to the learning process and progress, the students’ learning outcomes (results/products) caused an array of emotions in the teachers. If the students do not meet the teachers’ expectations, disappointment or anger is likely to arise. The teachers reported being annoyed, frustrated, or upset when the students’ mistakes are repeated , or they have to repeat their instructions several times. However, more teachers reported positive emotions related to student outcomes, including joy, enthusiasm, admiration, pride, satisfaction, and interest.

As described in the model on teachers’ emotions ( Frenzel, 2014 ), teachers also pursue motivational goals during instruction, which becomes salient in relation to homework practice. The teachers frequently mentioned that the students’ initiative, interest, and ambition trigger positive emotions in them. For example, the teachers reported that they feel satisfaction, fulfillment, or joy when students voluntarily engage in school-related tasks at home or show interest in the content that has been discussed at school. However, if the students lack motivation, frustration can occur.

The teachers also reported feeling disappointed and upset as a result of a lack of student engagement . Conversely, high student engagement goes hand in hand with joy, enthusiasm, satisfaction, fulfillment, admiration, and pride. One teacher reported that he feels hopeful and confident when he notices that a formerly disinterested student suddenly develops motivation and engagement.

In addition, the teachers revealed that their emotions are strongly related to those of their students , suggesting emotion transmission effects. Teachers indicated they feel guilty when students’ emotions about homework are negative. One teacher reported that he sometimes gets upset with himself when he overloads his students with homework. Positive emotions among students corresponded with emotions such as joy or enthusiasm in teachers.

Finally, teachers reported that they experience emotions related to the students’ achievement of social goals. Students are responsible for fulfilling their role as learners by behaving in a socially appropriate manner and in accordance with the norms and standards of their respective learning environment.

Most of the teachers’ negative emotions were triggered by homework that is not handed in by students. Teachers reported feeling anger and stress because they cannot progress in class. They feel frustrated, disappointed, upset, irritable, perplexed, helpless, and even hopeless when the same students repeatedly fail to complete homework. In addition, some teachers confessed to feeling insecure and incompetent because, from their perspective, they have failed to establish a positive homework culture.

“Yes, being hopeless is sometimes a bit difficult, but when there are really students who don't succeed in this subject or in that subject and maybe not even in German, then maybe sometimes the question is: How could we tackle this now?” (03, pos. 58)

One teacher reported that he feels empathic when a student does not do homework due to a difficult situation at home; he then works with the pupil to seek a solution. Another teacher reported that she feels bored when the same situation occurs repeatedly. Unfinished homework can lead to conflicts at school between teachers and students, which cause negative feelings.

Two closely related phenomena are cheating on or copying homework , which is interpreted as a failure to meet social goals. The same is true of students who lie or make excuses , which also evoke negative emotions among teachers. The particular emotion that is triggered depends on who is considered responsible for the behavior. When teachers are blamed, they are likely to feel insecure; however, when teachers do not attribute the behavior to themselves but regard the students as responsible, they experience anger (directed toward the students).

Homework completion evokes positive emotions in teachers because it demonstrates that students are meeting social goals. Teachers reported being happy when homework is done, although experiences differed. One teacher reported that she feels confident that when students do not do their homework, it is usually for a good reason and not due to a general rejection of homework.

Similarly, when students take responsibility and succeed in organizing themselves, teachers mentioned feeling relaxed, satisfied, and excited. In contrast, the teachers reported that they feel pity and frustration when the students do not take responsibility and organize themselves to complete their homework.

Finally, feedback from students triggered emotions in teachers, with positive feedback leading to positive emotions and negative feedback leading to negative emotions, such as frustration in one teacher. One teacher reported that she can also be irritable when she receives negative feedback that is not justified.

To conclude and summarize the results related to our main research question, the teachers reported various positive and negative emotions and the factors that trigger them. These features are illustrated in a conceptual model of teachers’ emotions related to homework practices (see Figure 3 ).

Figure 3 . Model of the antecedents of teachers’ emotions related to homework.

7. Discussion

The overall aim of this study was to investigate the emotions triggered in teachers by homework-related issues. It was found that for the majority of teachers, positive emotions dominated negative emotions. A positive emotional pattern in teachers when teaching was also found in the majority of previous studies ( Keller et al., 2014 ; Anttila et al., 2016 ). Nevertheless, when prompted to identify specific situations which triggered an emotional response, the teachers mentioned just as many negative situations as positive ones. Many different triggers of teachers’ emotions were mentioned and described, which were categorized according to contextual conditions, teachers’ behavior and (inner) demands, and students’ behavior.

In line with previous research and the theoretical model of teachers’ emotions ( Frenzel, 2014 ), the present study underlines the importance of the students’ cognitive, motivational, and socio-emotional behavior. More concretely, teachers reported that they experience joy when they perceive or experience students as motivated, engaged, interested, and disciplined e.g., (see also Chang, 2020 ). In contrast, they explained that they feel frustration or anger when students are not engaged or disciplined e.g., (see also Becker et al., 2015 ). It was also confirmed that teachers experience positive emotions when they observe students making progress e.g., (see also Wu and Chen, 2018 ). In line with Prawatt et al. (1983) , this study found that teachers experience joy as a result of their students’ achievements and outcomes. Additionally, previous studies ( Becker et al., 2014 ; Frenzel et al., 2021 ; Keller and Lazarides, 2021 ) have shown that the teachers’ emotions are related to those of the students—identified as the emotion transfer effect, which was also reflected in the present study. Consistent with Chen (2019 , 2020) , this study further showed that negative emotions arise in teachers when students do not take responsibility for their learning; a central goal of self-regulated learning environments, which gained additional attention during the COVID-19 pandemic when students had to cope with distance learning ( Berger et al., 2021 ).

In addition to the many findings that align with prior research on teachers’ emotions and the factors that trigger them, the study also produced some unexpected results. First, the teachers did not report the emotions of anxiety. This may be due to the fact that inexperienced teachers were excluded from the study; previous studies have found that inexperienced teachers and student teachers experience more anxiety than experienced teachers ( Sutton and Wheatley, 2003 ; Chang, 2009 ). The results so far also indicate that anxiety is mainly experienced with regard to classroom management (for example, Oral, 2012 for student teachers). This is less relevant in the context of homework practice. However, it could have been assumed that teachers may be anxious about correcting homework and giving feedback to students, because, for example, correcting essays is a rather complex task. However, this assumption was not confirmed in the present data. In this case, teaching experience could have played a moderating role.

Second, the students’ relational behavior was not stressed as an important factor influencing the teachers’ emotions. In this regard, the data collection method may have played a role. Previous studies have revealed that relational behavior is an important antecedent of teachers’ emotions when measured by a questionnaire, but it is stressed less often when teachers are asked directly about concrete, emotion-laden situations (e.g., Hagenauer and Hascher, 2018 ). Therefore, relational aspects may be less explicit than, for example, socio-emotional behaviors and thus, harder to explicitly describe and reflect on. However, recent research has shown the importance of teacher–student relationships in behavior and well-being ( Roorda et al., 2011 ; Spilt et al., 2011 ). Consequently, the perception that high-quality, goal-oriented homework is likely to affect the quality of teacher–student relationships ( Wentzel, 2012 ; Wettstein and Raufelder, 2021 ) should not be ignored. Future research may use additional methods (e.g., intensive longitudinal methods such as diaries or experience sampling) to explore this link in depth ( Goetz et al., 2016 ).

Third, concerning the factors that trigger emotions, the results show, in accordance with Frenzel’s model on teachers’ emotions ( Frenzel, 2014 ) that the emotions related to homework practice are also triggered primarily by the behavior of the students. This implies that the model can also be applied well to the specific area of a teachers’ responsibility, namely homework practice. Yet, the results also show that teacher-determined and contextual factors are responsible for teachers’ emotions as well. These findings underscore that teachers set high standards for their professional practices. Depending on their evaluation of whether they meet the standards (e.g., by assigning differentiated homework) or not (e.g., by assigning too much homework), they experience either positive or negative emotions. Thus, teachers evaluate their students’ behavior and critically evaluate their own professional behavior simultaneously. This finding supports the idea that the teaching profession demands high moral standards—both in general ( De Ruyter and Kole, 2010 ) and in terms of homework practices—which leads to guilt among teachers who feel they do not meet them.

Furthermore, the findings also show that the wider context needs to be considered when discussing the emotional value of homework practices. This is reasonable, as contextual factors (e.g., the [lack of] support at home) influence whether teachers can achieve their goals. Previous research has repeatedly shown that how parents support their children is significantly related to homework behavior and student achievement ( Pomerantz and Eaton, 2001 ; Moroni et al., 2015 ). However, school-level (e.g., a place to do homework at school) and system-level contextual factors (e.g., the number of lessons per week) also influence homework practices and ultimately affect teachers’ emotions.

7.1. Strengths, limitations, and future research

Based on an explorative approach, the present study has shown that teachers’ emotions can also be examined context-specifically for the teacher’s area of responsibility “homework practice.” Following the results, the model of teachers’ emotions ( Frenzel, 2014 ), which specifies the antecedents of teachers’ emotions, can be transferred to teachers’ emotions related to homework practice, but additionally, it should be extended to include further antecedents at the teachers’ level and at the context level. Through the exploratory approach the diversity of teachers’ emotions in the homework process could be illustrated and the diverse antecedents of these emotions could be identified in depth.

Still, from an exploratory perspective, the study has some limitations as well. First, the findings represent the experiences of secondary teachers from the canton of Bern. By purposively selecting these cases, we have tried to obtain a selection that is as comprehensive as possible in terms of the school models existing in the canton of Bern. Nevertheless, further quantitative studies need to follow. These studies could test possible differences in the emotional experiences of teachers working in different school models. In our small-scale study, these group differences could not be reliably explored. In addition, further studies based on different samples in different contexts are needed, which would allow a generalization of the results beyond the Swiss (Bernese) context. If such quantitative studies are conducted, when developing measurement instruments, consideration should be given to mapping the diversity of the emotional experiences of teachers. Classical instruments, such as the Teacher Emotions Scales (TES; Frenzel et al., 2016 ) which were developed for teaching in general, may fall short when it comes to the specific context of homework practice. Even if anxiety, anger, and enjoyment (i.e., the core emotions of the TES) are relevant teachers’ emotions related to homework practice, other emotions, such as satisfaction, disappointment, stress, or guilt (including having a guilty conscience) should also be considered in such measurement instruments. Furthermore, the link between teachers’ emotions and homework quality needs further exploration. As a reciprocal relationship can be assumed, a complex longitudinal design needs to be applied. Second, the teachers’ emotions were measured retrospectively. It can be assumed that the teachers mainly described situations that were either very close in time or in which the emotions were experienced intensely ( Heuer and Reisberg, 1992 ). Future studies should therefore also use situational measurements (e.g., experience sampling methods). Another limitation is that the results were based on self-reporting. This can lead to bias; for example, the teachers may have answered in a socially desirable way. We countered this effect by ensuring full anonymity and by creating a trusting environment during the interviews. It must also be mentioned that the subjective assessment of emotions is still a valid way to capture the affective core of emotions, i.e., the subjective feeling that cannot be observed. Nevertheless, if a multicomponent approach to emotions is pursued, future studies can, for example, use further data collection methods, such as physiological measures accounting for the physical arousal of emotions. Finally, it should be noted that the teachers were explicitly asked about their emotions in connection with homework. This has the advantage that teachers have purposefully reflected on their emotions and their antecedents. However, such an approach presupposes a conscious reflection on emotions by the teachers. Another pre-assumption of this study was that emotions occur in the homework process, which is why we opted for the explicit approach to explore teachers’ emotions. For future research, it would be interesting to complement these explicit approaches to capturing emotions with implicit approaches by attempting to reconstruct teachers’ emotional experiences through, for example, narrative interviews.

7.2. Conclusion and practical implications

This study has provided a first insight into the emotional experiences of Swiss secondary teachers teaching German during the homework process and has also identified the multiple influencing conditions of these emotions. On a theoretical level, the results of this study extend the research findings on teachers’ emotions by focusing on homework practices as a specific area of action in the classroom. They enable Frenzel’s (2014) model of teachers’ emotions in the classroom to be differentiated by focusing on this specific aspect of teaching. Overall, the results clearly showed that the homework process is definitely experienced emotionally by teachers. Even though homework is done by students at home, it is still the students and their behavior that are the most emotionally relevant source for teachers’ emotions. This result is due to the fact that the homework process also includes significant teacher–student interactions in class (e.g., homework return and discussion), as well as the fact that student behavior is also visible in the quality of homework completion. Teachers, for example, are happy about the students’ learning progress that they diagnose from the homework, or they are annoyed when the students do not put in enough effort or cheat on homework. However, the demands that teachers place on themselves are also often sources of their emotions (e.g., “inner demands”), and contextual factors also influence their emotional experience (e.g., experiencing pity due to unfavorable conditions at home).

From a practical point of view, the results provide some implications for teacher education and training in Switzerland. First and foremost, pre-service teachers should acquire basic knowledge about the development of emotions and their influence on teaching and learning. In-service teachers should also be sensitized to this through professional development programs. For example, a training program developed by Carstensen et al. (2019) focusses specifically on fostering teachers’ socio-emotional competencies. If teachers develop socio-emotional competencies, they are more likely to recognize automatic patterns of action that occur due to their own emotions and thus will be better able to interrupt negative spirals that can arise from them. This could have a positive impact on the quality of the homework they assign and subsequently the behavior of the students. Teachers who can regulate their emotions appropriately (e.g., by applying cognitive reappraisal when students do not hand in their homework) are less likely to let their emotional reactions interfere with their professional teaching behavior.

These skills also have an impact on building and maintaining meaningful teacher–student relationships ( Carstensen et al., 2019 ), which positively influence the students’ engagement and achievement ( Roorda et al., 2011 ). Previous research has shown that cheating amongst university students is lower when the instructor is evaluated positively ( Stearns, 2001 ) in terms of teacher–student relationships and enthusiasm ( Orosz et al., 2015 ). Building on these findings, meaningful teacher–student relationships might decrease the triggers of negative teachers’ emotions, as students who are satisfied with their teachers are less likely to cheat on, copy, or lie about their homework and complete it more reliably.

Finally, pre-service and in-service teachers should be specifically trained in assigning high-quality homework. The results of this study demonstrate that positive emotions in teachers can be evoked by their students’ learning progress, learning outcomes, and engagement. Previous studies have shown that homework quality can promote student achievement ( Rosário et al., 2018 ) and engagement ( Trautwein et al., 2006 ). Assigning high-quality homework can have positive effects on both the students’ learning and the teacher’s own emotional experiences. During the training, teachers could also learn how to follow up on completed homework during class, as it was found that being unable to use homework in class leads to negative emotions.

Data availability statement

The dataset presented in this article is not readily availabel because it currently forms an essential part of the first author’s qualification phase. Requests to access the dataset should be directed to CF, [email protected] .

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

CF conceived, planned, and conducted the study. In addition, CF wrote the first draft of the manuscript. GH and SM were closely involved in the process and contributed to the revision of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2023.1239443/full#supplementary-material

An, S., Ji, L.-J., Marks, M., and Zhang, Z. (2017). Two sides of emotion: exploring positivity and negativity in six basic emotions across cultures. Front. Psychol. 8, 1–14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00610

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anttila, H., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., and Pietarinen, J. (2016). How does it feel to become a teacher? Emotions in teacher education. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 19, 451–473. doi: 10.1007/s11218-016-9335-0

Baş, G., Şentürk, C., and Ciğerci, F. M. (2017). Homework and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research. Issues Educ. Res. 27, 31–50.

Google Scholar

Becker, E. S., Goetz, T., Morger, V., and Ranellucci, J. (2014). The importance of teachers' emotions and instructional behavior for their students' emotions – An experience sampling analysis. Teach. Teach. Educ. 43, 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2014.05.002

Becker, E. S., Keller, M. M., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., and Taxer, J. L. (2015). Antecedents of teachers' emotions in the classroom: An intraindividual approach. Front. Psychol. 6:635. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00635

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berger, F., Schreiner, C., Hagleitner, W., Jesacher-Rößler, L., Roßnagl, S., and Kraler, C. (2021). Predicting coping with self-regulated distance learning in times of COVID-19: evidence from a longitudinal study. Front. Psychol. 12:701255. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.701255

Brennan, R. L., and Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 41, 687–699. doi: 10.1177/001316448104100307

Breyer, B., and Bluemke, M. (2016). Deutsche version der positive and negative affect schedule PANAS (GESIS panel). Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items Skalen . doi: 10.6102/zis242

Burić, I., and Frenzel, A. C. (2021). Teacher emotional labour, instructional strategies, and students' academic engagement: a multilevel analysis. Teach. Teach. 27, 335–352. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2020.1740194

Carstensen, B., Köller, M., and Klusmann, U. (2019). Förderung sozial-emotionaler Kompetenz von angehenden Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift Für Entwicklungspsychologie Pädagogische Psychologie 51, 1–15. doi: 10.1026/0049-8637/a000205

Chang, M.-L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: examining the emotional work of teachers. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 21, 193–218. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y

Chang, M.-L. (2020). Emotion display rules, emotion regulation, and teacher burnout. Front. Educ. 5:90. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00090

Chen, J. (2019). Exploring the impact of teacher emotions on their approaches to teaching: a structural equation modelling approach. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 57–74. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12220

Chen, J. (2020). Teacher emotions in their professional lives: implications for teacher development. Asia Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 48, 491–507. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2019.1669139

Cooper, H. (1989). Homework . New York: Longman.

Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., and Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Rev. Educ. Res. 76, 1–62. doi: 10.3102/00346543076001001

De Ruyter, D. J., and Kole, J. J. (2010). Our teachers want to be the best: on the necessity of intra-professional reflection about moral ideals of teaching. Teach. Teach. , 16, 207–218. doi: 10.1080/13540600903478474

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., and Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions during homework in mathematics: testing a theoretical model of antecedents and achievement outcomes. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36, 25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.001

Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kunter, M., and Baumert, J. (2010). Homework works if homework quality is high: using multilevel modeling to predict the development of achievement in mathematics. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 467–482. doi: 10.1037/a0018453

Dettmers, S., Yotyodying, S., and Jonkmann, K. (2019). Antecedents and outcomes of parental homework involvement: how do family-school partnerships affect parental homework involvement and student outcomes? Front. Psychol. 10:1048. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01048

DiStefano, M., O’Brien, B., Storozuk, A., Ramirez, G., and Maloney, E. A. (2020). Exploring math anxious parents’ emotional experience surrounding math homework-help. Int. J. Educ. Res. 99:101526. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101526

Dreer, B. (2021). Teachers’ well-being and job satisfaction: the important role of positive emotions in the workplace. Educ. Stud. 1–17, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2021.1940872

Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Neumann, M., Niggli, A., and Schnyder, I. (2012). Does parental homework involvement mediate the relationship between family background and educational outcomes? Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 37, 55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.09.004

Ellsworth, P. C., and Scherer, K. R. (2003). “Appraisal processes in emotion” in Series in affective science. Handbook of affective sciences . eds. R. J. Davidson, H. H. Goldsmith, and K. R. Scherer (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 572–595.

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., and Hejmadi, A. (2008). Mother and child emotions during mathematics homework. Math. Think. Learn. 10, 5–35. doi: 10.1080/10986060701818644

Epstein, J. L., and van Voorhis, F. L. (2012). “The changing debate: from assigning homework to designing homework” in Contemporary debates in childhood education and development . ed. S. Suggate (London: Routledge), 263–273.

Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J., and Fan, X. (2017). Homework and students' achievement in math and science: a 30-year meta-analysis, 1986–2015. Educ. Res. Rev. 20, 35–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.003

Fernández-Alonso, R., Woitschach, P., Álvarez-Díaz, M., González-López, A. M., Cuesta, M., and Muñiz, J. (2019). Homework and academic achievement in Latin America: a multilevel approach. Front. Psychol. 10:95. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00095

Flunger, B., Trautwein, U., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Niggli, A., and Schnyder, I. (2015). The Janus-faced nature of time spent on homework: using latent profile analyses to predict academic achievement over a school year. Learn. Instr. 39, 97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.008

Forsberg, L. (2007). Homework as serious family business: power and subjectivity in negotiations about school assignments in Swedish families. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 28, 209–222. doi: 10.1080/01425690701192695

Frenzel, A. C. (2014). “Teacher emotions” in Educational psychology handbook series. International handbook of emotions in education . eds. R. Pekrun and L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (New York: Routledge), 494–519.

Frenzel, A. C., Daniels, L., and Burić, I. (2021). Teacher emotions in the classroom and their implications for students. Educ. Psychol. 56, 250–264. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2021.1985501

Frenzel, A. C., Fiedler, D., Marx, A. K. G., Reck, C., and Pekrun, R. (2020). Who enjoys teaching, and when? Between- and within-person evidence on teachers' appraisal-emotion links. Front. Psychol. 11:1092. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01092

Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., and Sutton, R. E. (2009a). Emotional transmission in the classroom: exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. J. Educ. Psychol. 101, 705–716. doi: 10.1037/a0014695

Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Stephens, E. J., and Jacob, B. (2009b). “Antecedents and effects of teachers' emotional experiences: An integrated perspective and empirical test” in Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers' lives . eds. P. A. Schutz and M. Zembylas (New York: Springer), 129–151.

Frenzel, A. C., Götz, T., and Pekrun, R. (2008). “Ursachen und Wirkungen von Lehreremotionen: Ein Modell zur reziproken Beeinflussung von Lehrkräften und Klassenmerkmalen” in Lehrerexpertise: Analyse und Bedeutung unterrichtlichen Handelns . ed. M. Gläser-Zikuda (Münster: Waxmann), 187–209.

Frenzel, A. C., Götz, T., and Pekrun, R. (2015). “Emotionen” in Pädagogische Psychologie . eds. E. Wild and J. Möller. 2. Auflage ed (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer), 201–224.

Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Durksen, T. L., Becker-Kurz, B., et al. (2016). Measuring teachers' enjoyment, anger, and anxiety: the teacher emotions scales (TES). Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 46, 148–163. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.003

Fried, L., Mansfield, C., and Dobozy, E. (2015). Teacher emotion research: introducing a conceptual model to guide future research. Issues Educ. Res. 25, 415–441.

Fuss, S., and Karbach, U. (2019). Grundlagen der Transkription: Eine praktische Einführung . 2nd Edn. Opladen Toronto: Barbara Budrich.

Georgiou, S. N., Christou, C., Stavrinides, P., and Panaoura, G. (2002). Teacher attributions of student failure and teacher behavior toward the failing student. Psychol. Sch. 39, 583–595. doi: 10.1002/pits.10049

Goetz, T., Bieg, M., and Hall, N. C. (2016). “Assessing academic emotions via the experience sampling method” in Methodological advances in research on emotion and education . eds. M. Zembylas and P. A. Schutz (Stuttgart: Springer), 245–258.

Goetz, T., Cronjaeger, H., Frenzel, A. C., Lüdtke, O., and Hall, N. C. (2010). Academic self-concept and emotion relations: domain specificity and age effects. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 35, 44–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.001

Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., and Hall, N. C. (2006). The domain specificity of academic emotional experiences. J. Exp. Educ. 75, 5–29. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.75.1.5-29

Goetz, T., Nett, U. E., Martiny, S. E., Hall, N. C., Pekrun, R., Dettmers, S., et al. (2012). Students' emotions during homework: structures, self-concept antecedents, and achievement outcomes. Learn. Individ. Differ. 22, 225–234. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.006

Hagenauer, G., and Hascher, T. (2018). Bedingungsfaktoren und Funktionen von Emotionen von Lehrpersonen im Unterricht. Unterrichtswissenschaft 46, 141–164. doi: 10.1007/s42010-017-0010-8

Hagenauer, G., Hascher, T., and Volet, S. E. (2015). Teacher emotions in the classroom: associations with students' engagement, classroom discipline and the interpersonal teacher-student relationship. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 30, 385–403. doi: 10.1007/s10212-015-0250-0

Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 14, 835–854. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00025-0

Hascher, T., and Waber, J. (2021). Teacher well-being: a systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educ. Res. Rev. 34:100411. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411

Heuer, F., and Reisberg, D. (1992). “Emotion, arousal, and memory for detail” in The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory . ed. S.-Å. Christianson (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 151–180.

Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., and Hensley, L. (2014). “Exploring teacher emotions: a literature review and an experience sampling study” in Teacher motivation: Theory and practice . eds. P. W. Richardson, H. M. G. Watt, and S. A. Karabenick (New York: Routledge), 69–82.

Keller, M. M., and Lazarides, R. (2021). “Effekte von Lehreremotionen auf Unterrichtsgestaltung und Schüleremotionen: Eine Tagebuchstudie im Fach Mathematik” in Emotionen in Schule und Unterricht: Bedingungen und Auswirkungen von Emotionen bei Lehrkräften und Lernenden . eds. C. Rubach and R. Lazarides (Opladen Berlin Toronto: Barbara Budrich), 108–127.

Kleinginna, P. R., and Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motiv. Emot. 5, 345–379. doi: 10.1007/BF00992553

Knollmann, M., and Wild, E. (2007). Quality of parental support and students' emotions during homework: moderating effects of students' motivational orientations. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 22, 63–76. doi: 10.1007/BF03173689

Kuckartz, U. (2010). Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten . 3rd Edn. Wiesbaden: VS.

Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310

Mayring, P. (2017). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution . Klagenfurt: Beltz.

Mevarech, Z. R., and Maskit, D. (2015). The teaching experience and the emotions it evokes. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 18, 241–253. doi: 10.1007/s11218-014-9286-2

Moè, A., and Katz, I. (2018). Brief research report: parents’ homework emotions favor students’ homework emotions through self-efficacy. J. Exp. Educ. 86, 597–609. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2017.1409180

Moroni, S., Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., and Baeriswyl, F. (2015). The need to distinguish between quantity and quality in research on parental involvement: the example of parental help with homework. J. Educ. Res. 108, 417–431. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2014.901283

Oral, B. (2012). Student Teachers' classroom management anxiety: a study on behavior management and teaching management. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 2901–2916. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00966.x

Orosz, G., Tóth-Király, I., Bőthe, B., Kusztor, A., Kovács, Z. Ü., and Jánvári, M. (2015). Teacher enthusiasm: a potential cure of academic cheating. Front. Psychol. 6:318. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00318

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., and Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in Students' self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ. Psychol. 37, 91–105. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4

Pekrun, R., and Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). “Academic emotions and student engagement” in Handbook of research on student engagement . eds. S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie (New York: Springer), 259–282.

Pekrun, R., and Marsh, H. W. (2022). Research on situated motivation and emotion: Progress and open problems. Learn. Instr. 81:101664. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101664

Pekrun, R., Marsh, H. W., Elliot, A. J., Stockinger, K., Perry, R. P., Vogl, E., et al. (2023). A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 124, 145–178. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000448

Pelikan, E. R., Lüftenegger, M., Holzer, J., Korlat, S., Spiel, C., and Schober, B. (2021). Learning during COVID-19: the role of self-regulated learning, motivation, and procrastination for perceived competence. Z. Erzieh. 24, 393–418. doi: 10.1007/s11618-021-01002-x

Pomerantz, E. M., and Eaton, M. M. (2001). Maternal intrusive support in the academic context: transactional socialization processes. Dev. Psychol. 37, 174–186. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.174

Prawatt, R. S., Byers, J. L., and Anderson, A. H. (1983). An attributional analysis of teachers' affective reactions to student success and failure. Am. Educ. Res. J. 20, 137–152. doi: 10.3102/00028312020001137

Reyna, C., and Weiner, B. (2001). Justice and utility in the classroom: An attributional analysis of the goals of teachers' punishment and intervention strategies. J. Educ. Psychol. 93, 309–319. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.93.2.309

Rodríguez, S., Núñez, J. C., Valle, A., Freire, C., Ferradás, M. D. M., and Rodríguez-Llorente, C. (2019). Relationship between students' prior academic achievement and homework behavioral engagement: the mediating/moderating role of learning motivation. Front. Psychol. 10:1047. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01047

Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., and Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement. Rev. Educ. Res. 81, 493–529. doi: 10.3102/0034654311421793

Rosário, P., Carlos Núñez, J., Vallejo, G., Nunes, T., Cunha, J., Fuentes, S., et al. (2018). Homework purposes, homework behaviors, and academic achievement. Examining the mediating role of students' perceived homework quality. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 53, 168–180. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.04.001

Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Soc. Sci. Inf. 44, 695–729. doi: 10.1177/0539018405058216

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis . London: SAGE.

Schutz, P. A., and Lanehart, S. L. (2002). Introduction: emotions in education. Educ. Psychol. 37, 67–68. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_1

Shuman, V., and Scherer, K. R. (2014). “Concepts and structures of emotions” in Educational psychology handbook series. International handbook of emotions in education . eds. R. Pekrun and L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (New York: Routledge), 13–35.

Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., and Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: the importance of teacher–student relationships. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 23, 457–477. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y

Stearns, S. A. (2001). The student-instructor relationship's effect on academic integrity. Ethics Behav. 11, 275–285. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_6

Sutton, R. E. (2005). Teachers' emotions and classroom effectiveness: implications from recent research. Clear. House 78, 229–234. doi: 10.2307/30189914

Sutton, R. E. (2007). “Teachers' anger, frustration, and self-regulation” in Emotion in education . eds. P. A. Schutz and R. Pekrun (Amsterdam: Academic Press), 259–274.

Sutton, R. E., and Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers' emotions and teaching: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 4, 327–358. doi: 10.1023/A:1026131715856

Trautwein, U., Köller, O., and Baumert, J. (2001). Lieber oft als viel: Hausaufgaben und die Entwicklung von Leistung und Interesse im Mathematik-Unterricht der 7. Jahrgangsstufe. Zeitschrift Pädagogik 47, 703–724. doi: 10.25656/01:4310

Trautwein, U., Köller, O., Schmitz, B., and Baumert, J. (2002). Do homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis in 7th-grade mathematics. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27, 26–50. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1084

Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2007). Students' self-reported effort and time on homework in six school subjects: between-students differences and within-student variation. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 432–444. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.432

Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2008). “Die Förderung der Selbstregulation durch Hausaufgaben: Herausforderungen und Chancen” in Kompetenz-Bildung: Soziale, emotionale und kommunikative Kompetenzen von Kindern und Jugendlichen . eds. C. Rohlfs, M. Harring, and C. Palentien (Wiesbaden: VS), 239–251.

Trautwein, U., and Lüdtke, O. (2009). Predicting homework motivation and homework effort in six school subjects: the role of person and family characteristics, classroom factors, and school track. Learn. Instr. 19, 243–258. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.001

Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., and Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 438–456. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438

Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., and Lüdtke, O. (2009a). Between-teacher differences in homework assignments and the development of students’ homework effort, homework emotions, and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 101, 176–189. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.101.1.176

Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Niggli, A., Neumann, M., and Lüdtke, O. (2009b). Chameleon effects in homework research: the homework–achievement association depends on the measures used and the level of analysis chosen. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34, 77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.001

Wentzel, K. R. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and adolescent competence at school. In T. Wubbels, P. Brokden, J. Tartwijkvan, and J. Levy (Eds.), Advances in learning environments research: Vol. 3. Interpersonal relationships in education: An overview of contemporary research . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. (pp. 19–35).

Wettstein, A., and Raufelder, D. (2021). “Beziehungs- und Interaktionsqualität im Unterricht” in Soziale Eingebundenheit. Sozialbeziehungen im Fokus von Schule und Lehrer*innenbildung . eds. G. Hagenauer and D. Raufelder (Münster: Waxmann), 17–31.

Wu, Z., and Chen, J. (2018). Teachers' emotional experience: insights from Hong Kong primary schools. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 19, 531–541. doi: 10.1007/s12564-018-9553-6

Xu, J. (2022). Individual and class-level factors for students' management of homework environment: the self-regulation perspective. Curr. Psychol. 1–15, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-02596-5

Xu, J., Du, J., Cunha, J., and Rosário, P. (2021). Student perceptions of homework quality, autonomy support, effort, and math achievement: testing models of reciprocal effects. Teach. Teach. Educ. 108:103508. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103508

Keywords: teachers’ emotions, homework, secondary school, qualitative content analysis, interviews, emotional antecedents

Citation: Feiss C, Hagenauer G and Moroni S (2023) “I feel enthusiastic, when the homework is done well”: teachers’ emotions related to homework and their antecedents. Front. Educ . 8:1239443. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1239443

Received: 13 June 2023; Accepted: 18 July 2023; Published: 03 August 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Feiss, Hagenauer and Moroni. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Christine Feiss, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The happy learner: Effects of academic boredom, burnout, and engagement

Christiaan i. bekker.

1 Optentia Research Unit, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa

Sebastiaan Rothmann

Magdalena m. kloppers.

2 Research Unit Self-directed Learning, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Associated Data

The data is available at Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/hscn689xzn.1

This study aimed to investigate the impact of demographic and contextual variables on boredom in English and mathematics, and to test structural models of boredom, learner burnout, learner engagement, and life satisfaction. Using a cross-sectional survey design and employing a convenience sampling technique, 544 secondary school learners in the Sedibeng District, Gauteng, South Africa, took part in the study. The participants completed the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire – English, the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire – Mathematics, the Schoolwork Engagement Inventory, the School Burnout Inventory, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Latent variable modeling was used to test measurement and structural models of boredom, burnout, engagement, and life satisfaction. The indirect effects of boredom on life satisfaction were also computed. The results showed that Afrikaans as the home language, the final mark for English in the previous examination, caregivers that cannot help with English homework, and disliking the English teacher predicted boredom in English. Afrikaans as the home language, marks for mathematics in the previous examination, not having the ability to focus on schoolwork at home, and disliking the mathematics teacher predicted boredom in mathematics. Boredom in mathematics and English resulted in an increase in learner burnout and a decrease in learner engagement. Furthermore, boredom in mathematics and English indirectly affected life satisfaction via learner burnout and engagement.

Introduction

The concept of life satisfaction posits that happiness is a product of human thinking and represents the cognitive component of subjective well-being ( Pavot and Diener, 2008 ; Rojas and Veenhoven, 2013 ). Life satisfaction reflects the degree to which individuals feel they have met their goals ( Diener et al., 1985 ; Pavot and Diener, 2013 ) and the resources they have to meet the needs within their environment, either positively or negatively affecting their life satisfaction. This study will report on the associations between academic boredom in mathematics and English, burnout, engagement, and life satisfaction of learners and the possible mediating effect of burnout and engagement between academic boredom and life satisfaction.

Academic boredom is a “silent” but complex and non-trivial aspect of achievement emotion that is negatively associated with optimal learning in formal educational settings ( Pekrun et al., 2002 , 2010 ; Pekrun, 2006 ; Acee et al., 2010 ). It can impair learners’ physical and psychological health, which, in turn, can harm their perceptions of their abilities, leading to feelings of inadequacy ( Preckel et al., 2010 ; Malkovsky et al., 2012 ; Willis, 2014 ). Research suggests that overall diminished quality of life and low life satisfaction ( Barnett and Klitzing, 2006 ; Nett et al., 2011 ), learner burnout and learner disengagement, and lower levels of achievement are consequences of academic boredom ( Nett et al., 2010 ; Tze et al., 2014 ; Weybright et al., 2017 ; Schwartze et al., 2021 ). For the purposes of this study, burnout, engagement, and life satisfaction are dimensions of well-being of learners.

Academic boredom and well-being

Conceptualization of academic boredom.

One of the most contemporary, comprehensive, and integrative approaches to understanding emotions in education is the Control-Value Theory (CVT) of Pekrun (2006) . Pekrun (2006) developed the CVT of achievement emotion to analyze the causes and effects of emotions in educational settings. The theory’s propositions include appraisal, emotion, environment, and achievement, where each proposition has a reciprocal relationship. The appraisal propositions consist of the subjective value and subjective control over a situation such as learning, achievement, and academic activities, which can have a profound effect on learners’ boredom experience and can be referred to as control and value appraisals ( Pekrun, 2006 ; Acee et al., 2010 ; Weinerman and Kenner, 2016 ). Control appraisal refers to an individual’s experience of a specific achievement emotion when they feel in control over a classroom activity, learning, and achievement, whereas value appraisal concerns the meaning these learners attribute to classroom activities ( Pekrun, 2006 ; Artino et al., 2012 ).

Within the CVT, reference is made to either positive or negative achievement emotions (emotions linked to achievement activities/outcomes). Positive, pleasant emotions refer to enjoyment, joy, hope, pride, and gratitude. In contrast, negative emotions refer to boredom, sadness, anxiety, disappointment, and hopelessness ( Pekrun et al., 2007 ). Depending on the level of control and significance ascribed to classroom activity, the learners will experience different emotions, ranging from pleasure and curiosity to anxiety and boredom ( Lichtenfeld et al., 2022 ). The same principles apply to value; if the activities they participate in have incentive value and are perceived as important, the learner will enjoy learning what is being taught. Conversely, a lack of value and control will lead to boredom ( Pekrun, 2006 ; Pekrun et al., 2010 ). This implies that control and value appraisals are proximal determinants of these emotions.

Steinberger et al. (2016) defined boredom as a state in which an individual experiences a lack of internal and external stimulation, leading to an active pursuit in the search for something interesting to increase arousal levels and thus alleviate the feeling of being bored. For this study, boredom is defined as a negative, unpleasant achievement-related emotion that refers to an intense and often brief psychophysiological change in response to a supposedly meaningful educational event ( Pekrun et al., 2002 ; Pekrun, 2006 ; Tze et al., 2013 ; Westphal et al., 2018 ). Negative-deactivating emotions like boredom can severely hinder academic learning ( Pekrun, 1992 ; Pekrun et al., 2002 ). A meta-analysis by Camacho-Morles et al. (2021) showed that boredom is negatively related to academic performance ( ρ  = −0.25).

Highly bored learners typically avoid schoolwork, reduce their efforts in their work, are not well self-regulated, and show reduced motivation ( Schwartze et al., 2020 ). Schwartze et al. (2020) identified positive correlations with behavioral problems, emotional difficulties, and negative affect. Mathematics boredom was also negatively associated with prosocial behavior, positive affect, cognitive reappraisal, and conscientiousness. Brown et al. (2008) showed that boredom was one of the most prevalent reasons learners do not continue with mathematics after secondary school. There is also a negative relationship between boredom and interest ( Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2012 ; Pekrun et al., 2014 ).

Control-value theory suggests that achievement emotions are governed by universal functional mechanisms. Emotional arousal, therefore, is determined by both control and value appraisals regardless of the academic domain, gender, or cultural background of the learners ( Pekrun, 2009 ). However, recent literature has emphasized the need to investigate cultural and demographic differences in academic boredom proneness ( Weybright et al., 2015 ; Sharp et al., 2016 ; Lee and Chei, 2020 ). Prior research indicated that certain cultures were more likely to experience boredom to a higher degree due to sociocultural contexts and internalized cultural values ( Tsai et al., 2006 ). For example, Sundberg et al. (1991) saw Asians as more boredom prone than Westerners. Tze et al. (2013) also reported on cultural influences on appraisals and found that Japanese learners attributed the failure to themselves more than American learners.

It has been found that learners who speak English at home sometimes perform better than those who do not ( Howie, 2003 ; Spaull, 2013 ). In the research, almost 70% of the pupils answered these tests, set in English, in their second or third language. On the one hand, mathematics performance in wealthier schools is negatively related to repeating a grade once, extra classes, and whether the learner is an orphan. In wealthier communities, a range of human and material resources in schools and homes which enhance and enrich school learning is available ( Kotze and Strauss, 2006 ; Visser et al., 2015 ). On the other hand, low levels of grade repetition (two or more times) are negatively associated with performance in poorer schools and attending schools in urban areas ( Spaull, 2013 ). Similarly, inconsistencies were noticed in the age and gender differences in the tendency to experience boredom; for example, Wegner et al. (2006) and Daschmann et al. (2011) found that boredom was more common among females and young people, but Hendricks (2015) noticed no gender differences. Goetz et al. (2010) reported higher mean levels of boredom in mathematics and German among Grade 8 learners compared to Grade 11 learners. They also did not find any statistical difference in their mean level of boredom in English.

First-year female students in a South African sample were more likely to report boredom than males; however, no statistically significant correlation was found between boredom and home language ( Erasmus and Hall, 2019 ). Those learners who rated their English language proficiency as good to very good experienced higher levels of boredom ( Erasmus and Hall, 2019 ). Those learners who attended township schools experienced more boredom than those who attended urban schools ( Erasmus and Hall, 2019 ), supporting previous findings that urban areas achieve better mathematics results ( Howie, 2003 ).

Grades did not predict school learners’ boredom. However, prior grades of college students predicted their boredom ( Goetz et al., 2007 ; Schukajlow and Rakoczy, 2016 ). It is also true that boredom happens when learners are under- or over-challenged ( Pekrun, 2006 ; Schwartze et al., 2020 ). Demographic variables that influence performance in mathematics in Zambian and Nigerian studies were, e.g., parental education and occupation, parental pressure, learner aspiration and attitudes toward mathematics, enjoyment of mathematics, reading ability, gender, age, and time spent on homework ( Georgewill, 1990 ; Sayers, 1994 ; Howie, 2003 ). In schools in more urban areas, pupils who spoke English or Afrikaans at home scored higher in mathematics.

Learner burnout and engagement

Burnout is a term used to describe a three-dimensional phenomenon involving: (a) exhaustion (a constant feeling of being tired or ruminating on school-related problems due to school demands or pressure); (b) cynicism (an indifferent feeling or attitude toward school or learning); and (c) a sense of inadequacy (a diminished feeling of competency, achievement, or the inability to see things as meaningful) ( Maslach et al., 2001 ; Walburg, 2014 ; Salmela-Aro et al., 2016 ; Evers et al., 2020 ; Lee et al., 2020 ). Research on burnout among high school learners showed a high prevalence of risk of mental disorders during adolescence ( Salmela-Aro et al., 2008 ; Walburg, 2014 ). As reported by Winga et al. (2016) , low achievers exhibit greater levels of learner burnout, whereas high achievers display lower levels of burnout.

Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya (2012) defined learner engagement as a positive and fulfilling state of mind related to learning. Learner engagement consists of three dimensions: energy, dedication, and absorption. A high level of energy is associated with vigor, whereas dedication is a positive attitude to learning, and absorption is a state of complete concentration in which learning takes place at a rapid rate and time passes very quickly ( Salmela-Aro et al., 2016 ).

Engagement at school is crucial for learners’ learning, academic development, and well-being ( Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2012 ; Upadyaya and Salmela-Aro, 2013 ; Petillion and McNeil, 2020 ). Weybright et al. (2017) argued that boredom in schools had been associated with disengagement. Furthermore, learner engagement has been correlated with higher academic achievement ( Carter et al., 2012 ; Forsblom et al., 2022 ) as well as improved mental health ( Steele and Fullagar, 2009 ) and lower levels of dropouts ( Saeki and Quirk, 2015 ). Hietajärvi et al. (2020) maintain that engagement should be the main aim of modern pedagogical practices by investigating technology-enhanced engagement practices and mitigating the risk factors from boredom experiences. Recent research in a Finnish sample suggests that learners would be more engaged in learning activities if they could use technology ( Halonen et al., 2016 ; Salmela-Aro et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, continued disengagement will lead to high levels of learners dropping out of school ( Weybright et al., 2017 ).

Learner happiness: The role of life satisfaction

Happiness can be divided into two concepts: feeling good, i.e., hedonic well-being, and functioning well, i.e., eudaimonic well-being. ( Keyes and Annas, 2009 ). Feeling good refers to those elements that bring joy and pleasure to one’s life, such as life satisfaction and positive affect ( Guse, 2020 ). Moreover, functioning well focuses on those elements in life that lead to meaning, purpose, optimal functioning, living a life of virtue, and human excellence ( Ryan and Deci, 2001 ; Potgieter and Botha, 2020 ). Eudaimonic well-being activities can lead to life satisfaction. Two theories have been used to explain the feeling-good approach to happiness ( Rojas and Veenhoven, 2013 ). According to one theory, people compare how life is with what it should be. Hence, happiness is based on socially constructed standards of what constitutes a good life and is indicated by life satisfaction. Another theory suggests that people infer happiness based on how they feel most of the time. According to this theory, happiness is an unreasoned (positive and negative) affective experience rooted in the satisfaction of universal human needs. This study focuses on happiness as life satisfaction (rather than positive and negative affect).

The negative effects of boredom, and higher levels of burnout, and disengagement, could impact a learner’s life satisfaction. Research on emotions’ effects in learning has been well-documented ( Pekrun et al., 2002 , 2011 ; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016 ; Furlong et al., 2021 ). Emotional learning experiences impact learners’ subjective well-being, quality of learning, motivation, self-regulated learning, and learning strategies.

Academic self-concept is crucial in learner success and well-being ( Marsh, 2006 ; Eccles, 2009 ; Marsh et al., 2019 ; Niepel et al., 2021 ), as well as a broad range of outcomes such as academic emotions ( Arens et al., 2017 ; Pekrun et al., 2019 ), and even achievement goals ( Dörendahl et al., 2021 ). When learners experience higher levels of positive emotions, it is generally correlated with higher academic performance, whereas negative emotions are often associated with lower academic performance ( Leino et al., 2021 ; Pekrun et al., 2002 , 2011 ). However, learners who perform well academically might not necessarily experience more subjective well-being ( Bücker et al., 2018 ).

Most people experience relatively stable life satisfaction over time ( Luhmann and Intelisano, 2018 ). Guse (2020) found that age is not statistically significantly associated with life satisfaction. Research in the USA showed no life satisfaction changes between Grade 9 to Grade 12 ( Huebner et al., 2004 ). In contradiction, Meuleners et al. (2003) reported a decline in life satisfaction of Australian adolescents between the ages of 12–16 years. Studies on gender and life satisfaction have been largely inconclusive ( Chui and Wong, 2016 ). Compared to females, a slightly higher sense of life satisfaction has been found in males ( Goldbeck et al., 2007 ; Suldo et al., 2015 ).

Current study

South African learners performed significantly poorer than most other countries in the TIMSS and struggle to deal with mathematical problems involving language ( Maree et al., 2006 ). The reformation of the schooling system since the advent of democracy in South Africa, aimed to help learners to acquire skills to be lifelong learners, critical thinkers, and problem solvers ( Maree et al., 2006 ). Despite several changes in the South African curriculum, learners still perform poorly in mathematics which has a negative impact on their future job opportunities. Little research has been done on the determinants of boredom in mathematics and English within the South African schooling system. It is unclear how boredom in mathematics and English influences a learner’s life satisfaction. This study aimed to investigate the antecedents of academic boredom in the subject domains of English and mathematics to assess their effect on secondary school learners’ experience of life satisfaction via learner burnout and engagement.

Materials and methods

Participants.

A purposive sample of 544 learners in Grade 9 and Grade 10 were taken ( n Grade 9  = 255; Grade 10 ( n Grade 10  = 226, n Missing values  = 63). Table 1 describes the biographical variables of the participants.

Characteristics of participants ( N  = 544).

211 of the 229 participants who had Afrikaans as their first language had English as a second language (missing values = 18); 168 of the 295 participants who had an African language as their first language had English as a second language, while 105 had an African language as a second language.

To be eligible to participate in this study, the participants had to have both English and mathematics as subjects in public secondary schools in the Sedibeng District in the Gauteng Province, South Africa. Their ages ranged from 14 to 19 ( M  = 15.34, SD  = 0.83). Participants’ self-reported marks for English and mathematics in the previous year’s examination (November 2020) are reported in Table 1 .

Measuring instruments

A biographical questionnaire, the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire – English (AEQ-E), the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire – Mathematics (AEQ-M), the Schoolwork Engagement Inventory (SEI), the School Burnout Inventory (SBI), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) were administered in this study.

Data about the demographic and contextual variables of the participants were collected using a biographical questionnaire . Items included were: current grade; gender; home language; second language; marks received in the last examination for English; marks received in the last examination for mathematics; parent/caregiver help with English and mathematics homework; whether or not participants had a room of their own at home; whether or not participants had a desk and a chair at home to do their homework at; whether participants could focus on their school work at home; having only one teacher in the subject for the entire year; liking the subject teacher; finding the subject interesting, and failing English or mathematics and the entire year because of it.

Two scales of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ; Pekrun et al., 2005 , 2011 ; Goetz et al., 2007 ) were used to measure academic boredom. The AEQ consists of two measures of boredom, one for English and one for mathematics. Learners reported boredom in English (six items; e.g., “I get bored in English classes”) and mathematics (six items; e.g., “I get bored in mathematics classes”) using a Likert scale, which ranged from 1 (“ strongly disagree ”) to 5 (“ strongly agree ”). Learners rated their feelings during a specific subject’s class, studying for it, and taking the associated tests and exams. Averaging the values was done with high values representing high feelings of boredom at each of the three points. Bekker (2022) demonstrated the construct validity and measurement invariance of the AEQ boredom scales for learners in Grades 9 and 10 (using the same sample that was used in this study). The scales have acceptable internal consistency reliabilities ranging from 0.85 to 0.92 ( Pekrun et al., 2002 , 2005 ).

Learner burnout was assessed with the School Burnout Inventory (SBI; Salmela-Aro et al., 2009 ). The SBI comprises nine items. Each item is graded on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 ( completely disagree ) to 6 ( completely agree ). The SBI consists of three subscales: exhaustion at school (4 items, e.g., “I feel overwhelmed by my schoolwork”); cynicism toward the significance of school (3 items, e.g., “I feel that I’m losing interest in my schoolwork”); and a sense of inadequacy as a learner (2 items, e.g., “I often have feelings of inadequacy in my schoolwork”). The SBI has been widely applied across different age groups since this measuring instrument has been adapted to fit the school context ( Tuominen-Soini and Salmela-Aro, 2014 ; Salmela-Aro and Read, 2017 ) and provides a good overview of learners’ academic and psychological functioning ( Upadyaya and Salmela-Aro, 2013 ; Salmela-Aro, 2017 ). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranges from 0.88 to 0.90, confirming a positive correlation between the test items. In addition, the SBI showed good concurrent validity.

Learner engagement was assessed using three items of the Schoolwork Engagement Inventory (SEI; Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2012 ). The items were measured using a 7-point scale ranging from 0 ( never ) to 7 ( daily ). Three items are included in each subscale: energy (e.g., “When I study, I feel I’m bursting with energy”); dedication (e.g., “I am enthusiastic about my studies”); and absorption (e.g., “Time flies when I’m studying”). The SEI is specified as a uni-dimensional measurement model ( Salmela-Aro and Upadyaya, 2012 ), indicating a general study-related positive state of mind. The SEI has proven to be a reliable and valid tool in Finnish research ( Salmela-Aro, 2017 ). Based on a sum score of school engagement, the SEI has good psychometric properties, indicated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.90.

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985 ; Pavot et al., 1991 ; Pavot and Diener, 1993 ) has gained considerable popularity in recent years ( Guse, 2020 ). To measure the cognitive judgments of life satisfaction, all learners filled out a 5-item scale that measured their level of life satisfaction. The scale consists of items such as ‘ The conditions of my life are excellent ’ or ‘ If I could live my life over , I would change almost nothing ’. The learners were required to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with each of the five items using a 7-point scale system, ranging from 1 (“ strongly disagree ”) to 7 (“ strongly agree ”). In addition to being used widely in multiple countries, the SWLS has also been used in South African studies by a variety of cultural groups ( Pavot et al., 1991 ; Pavot and Diener, 1993 ; Temane and Wissing, 2006 ; Keyes et al., 2008 ; Patel et al., 2009 ). It has also been validated in Setswana ( Wissing et al., 2010 ). In addition to scalar invariance of the SWLS concerning gender, both metric and scalar invariances were found when age invariance was measured ( Jovanović et al., 2022 ). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients range between 0.79 and 0.89 ( Wissing et al., 2010 ).

Research procedure

The researcher ensured that parental permission, voluntary participation, informed consent, and confidentiality were maintained during the study. The Health Research Ethics Committee of the North-West University (NWU-00476-19-A1) and the Gauteng Department of Education Research and Knowledge Management Division (Ref: 2019/259A) approved the study.

Schools were invited to participate, and those that wished to participate granted their goodwill permission before parental consent documents were distributed to them. There was an independent person who gathered the consent of the learners before the researcher began the data collection process in each school. Surveys were administered from July to September 2021. The data was captured by independent experts using Epidata software, and the data were checked to ensure that it was accurate on several versions before analyzing the data.

Data analysis

The data analyses were performed using three statistical programs, namely IBM SPSS Version 27 ( IBM Corp, 2020 ; JASP Team, 2022 ), and Mplus 8.7 ( Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2021 ). The measurement and structural models were tested using latent variable modeling ( Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2021 ). In this study, all the variables were continuous. The data was checked for multivariate normality and outliers. A scaling correction factor of 1.16 (indicating deviance from multivariate normality) was obtained when a Maximum Likelihood method with robust standard errors (MLR) in Mplus 8.7 was used. Therefore, further analyses used the MLR estimator. SPSS was used to compute descriptive statistics.

As a measure of model fit, both absolute and incremental fit indices were used ( West et al., 2012 ). We measured the accuracy of fit by applying chi-square statistics, standardized root mean residuals (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). RMSEA and SRMR values less than 0.08 indicate that the model fits the data adequately. The Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI) were used to determine incremental fit indices. It is recommended that TLI and CFI have a value of 0.90 or greater. Models were compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). The models with the smaller information measures have a better fit. The following guidelines were used for differences between the absolute values of the BIC for two models: 0–2 = weak evidence; 2–6 = positive evidence; 6–10 = strong evidence, and higher than 10 = very strong evidence ( Wang and Wang, 2020 ). Concerning measurement invariance for males and females, our analyses showed that the English and mathematics boredom measures were invariant for learners in this study: (a) Boredom (English) – metric against configural (χ 2  = 4.44, df  = 5, p  = 0.488), scalar against configural (χ 2  = 17.10, df  = 22, p  = 0.758), and scalar against metric (χ 2  = 12.67, df  = 17, p  = 0.758); (b) Boredom (mathematics) – metric against configural (χ 2  = 2.20, df  = 5, p  = 0.820), scalar against configural (χ 2  = 17.57, df  = 22, p  = 0.731), and scalar against metric (χ 2  = 14.63, df  = 17, p  = 0.622.

Scale reliability estimates (ω) were computed using JASP ( JASP Team, 2022 ). Reliability coefficients higher than 0.70 were regarded as acceptable ( Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994 ). The statistical significance was set at p  < 0.01. Cohen (1988) guidelines were used to determine the effect sizes of correlations and the percentage of variance explained. Correlations of 0.5 are large, 0.3 are moderate, and 0.1 is small. Cohen (1988) pointed out that the value of R 2 can be described as follows: higher than 0.25 – large effect; smaller than 0.25 but higher than 0.09 – medium effect; smaller than 0.09 – small effect.

Two structural models were tested in this study. First, a structural model of boredom in mathematics and English was tested. Second, a structural model of life satisfaction was tested. Using Mplus 8.7, simple mediation analysis ( Hayes, 2018 ) was performed ( Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2021 ).

Confirmatory factor analysis

An MLR estimator from Mplus 8.7 was used to test five measurement models using confirmation factor analysis ( Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2021 ). Competing measurement models were evaluated by specifying and testing Model 1, while three other contesting models (models 2–4) were equally specified, with differences from Model 1, and tested to confirm which model fits better.

Model 1 consisted of five first-order latent variables: boredom in mathematics (measured by six items); boredom in English (measured by six items); learner burnout (measured by nine items); learner engagement (measured by three items); and life satisfaction (measured by five items). All latent variables were correlated. In Model 2, boredom was specified with 12 observed variables (rather than six items on boredom in English and six in mathematics). In Model 3, learner burnout and engagement were specified using 12 items (including all nine items that measure burnout and the three items that measure engagement). Finally, Model 4 provided one latent variable (well-being), and 29 observations were loaded onto it. Table 2 demonstrates goodness-of-fit statistics for the four competing measurement models described above.

Goodness-of-fit statistics of competing measurement models.

* Values significant at the p  < 0.01 level (two-tailed). χ 2 , chi-square; df, degrees of freedom; TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; ABIC, adjusted Bayesian information criterion.

The results in Table 2 show that a χ 2 value of 763.43 ( df  = 363, p  < 0.001) was obtained for Model 1. The CFI (0.92) and TLI (0.91) fit indices were satisfactory (>0.90), as was the RMSEA (0.05 [0.04; 0.05]) and SRMR (0.06) indicators (<0.80). As expected, all items loaded on their respective constructs. The standardized regression coefficients were all statistically significant ( p  < 0.001). Akaike and BIC fit indices were used to compare alternative models, with the lowest values indicating the best fit. Model 1 fits the data well and was the most parsimonious of the three alternative models (AIC = 51080.06; BIC = 51514.25). The fit of the hypothesized model was acceptable on all the fit indices.

To improve the fit of the selected model, analysis continued in an exploratory mode. Modification indices (MIs) were studied to identify reasons for misfit in the model. Item AEQM13 (“I cannot concentrate because I am so bored”) showed error covariance in relation to item AEQM12 (MI = 79.26; “I think the mathematics class is boring”). It was therefore decided to re-specify the model to allow AEQM13 to correlate with AEQM12 (Model 1b). Model 1b has the following fit statistics: χ 2  = 908.07 ( df  = 366, p  < 0.001), CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.05 [0.05, 0.06], SRMR = 0.06, AIC = 51245.65, BIC = 51666.94.

While Model 1 b’s fit improved significantly (ΔAIC = −89.14, ΔBIC = −84.85), the fit statistics on one fit index was below the recommended guideline. Item AEQE13 (“I cannot concentrate because I am so bored”) showed error covariance (MI = 69.61) in relation to item AEQE12 (“I think the English class is boring”). The model was re-specified allowing these items to correlate. Model 1c fit statistics were: χ 2  = 836.21 ( df  = 365, p  < 0.001), CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05 [0.04, 0.05], SRMR = 0.06, AIC = 51162.97, BIC = 51588.57.

Table 2 shows that the fit of Model 1c improved significantly (ΔAIC = −82.68, ΔBIC = −78.37). The modification indices were studied again to see if a better specified model is not achievable. AEQE14 (“I cannot stay awake”) showed error covariance (MI = 44.48) in relation to item AEQE13 (“I cannot concentrate because I am so bored”). The model was re-specified allowing these items to correlate. The fit statistics for Model 1d were as follows: χ 2  = 789.82 ( df  = 364, p  = 0.000), CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05 [0.04, 0.05], SRMR = 0.06, AIC = 51110.62, BIC = 51540.51.

The fit of Model 1d improved significantly (ΔAIC = −30.56, ΔBIC = −26.26). However, the modification indices were studied again to see if a better-specified model was not achievable. AEQM14 (“I cannot stay awake”) showed error covariance (MI = 27.58) in relation to item AEQM13 (“I cannot concentrate because I am so bored”). The model was re-specified allowing these items to correlate. The fit statistics for Model 1e were as follows: χ 2  = 763.43 ( df  = 363, p  = 0.000), CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05 [0.04, 0.05], SRMR = 0.06, AIC = 51080.06, BIC = 51514.25. The fit of Model 1e was acceptable.

Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the instruments, their Omega coefficient and their product–moment correlation coefficients. The findings from Table 3 suggest that the Omega coefficients of each measure were acceptable as they met the threshold of ≥0.70 as satisfactory, with scores ranging between 0.72 and 0.90 ( Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994 ).

Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and Pearson correlations of the scales ( N  = 544).

** p  < 0.01; ω, Omega measurement reliability; SD, standard deviation; means and standard deviations of scale scores are shown, but factor scores were used to compute correlations; a: minimum = 1, maximum = 5; b: minimum = 1, maximum = 7; c = minimum = 1, maximum = 6.

The correlations in Table 3 show that boredom in mathematics was positively related to boredom in English (medium effect), and moderately, negatively related to life satisfaction (small effect). Boredom in English was also negatively related to life satisfaction (medium effect). Boredom in mathematics was positively related to learner burnout and negatively related to learner engagement (both medium effects). Boredom in English was positively related to burnout (medium effect), and negatively related to learner engagement (large effect). Lastly, burnout was negatively related to life satisfaction (medium effect), while learner engagement was positively related to life satisfaction (medium effect).

Testing the structural model of boredom

The final measurement model demonstrated good fit to the data (χ 2  = 831.04, df  = 277; p < 0.001; CFI = 0.83; TLI = 0.80; RMSEA = 0.07, p < 0.001 [0.06, 0.08]; SRMR = 0.11). Each item loaded correctly on its respective construct. The standardized regression coefficients were all statistically significant ( p  < 0.001).

For English and mathematics boredom when considered as dependent variables, the standardized regression coefficients can be found in Table 4 .

Standardized regression coefficients with Boredom in English and Mathematics as dependent variables.

SE, standard error; Est/SE, estimate divided by standard error; * p  < 0.05; ** p  < 0.01. Language – Home language; Performance: English = What were the last marks you received for English in the November/December exams?; Performance: Mathematics = What were the last marks you received for Mathematics in the November/December exams?; Caregiver help = Is there a caregiver that helps you with your English homework?; Own Room = Do you have a room of your own?; Having own desk = Do you have a desk and chair to do homework at?; Focus on schoolwork = Can you focus on your school work at home?; One English Teacher = Do you only have one English teacher for the entire year?; One Mathematics Teacher = Do you only have one Mathematics teacher for the entire year?; Fail_Year_Eng = Have you ever failed English and failed the entire year because of it?; Fail_Year_Maths = Have you ever failed Mathematics and failed the entire year because of it?

Table 4 shows that boredom in English is best predicted by four variables, namely, Afrikaans as home language (β = −0.46; p  < 0.01); the final mark for English in the previous (November 2020) exam (β = −0.08; p  < 0.05); caregivers that cannot help with English homework (β = −0.12; p  < 0.01); and disliking the English teacher (β = −0.32; p  < 0.01). Boredom in mathematics is best predicated by four variables, namely, Afrikaans as home language (β = −0.29; p  < 0.01); mark for mathematics in the previous (November 2020) exam (β = −0.15; p  < 0.01); not having the ability to focus on schoolwork at home (β = −0.11; p  < 0.05); and disliking the mathematics teacher (β = −0.36; p  < 0.01). The demographic variables and contextual factors predict 28.7% of the variation in boredom in mathematics, but for boredom in English, they predicted 44.4% thereof. In both these instances, the R 2 was higher than 0.25, indicating a large effect.

Testing the structural model of life satisfaction

Considering the data we collected, the final measurement model produced an acceptable fit to the data (χ 2  = 768.52, df  = 364; p  < 0.001; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.05, p  = 0.962 [0.04, 0.05]; SRMR = 0.06). All items loaded as expected on their respective constructs. The standardized regression coefficients were all statistically significant ( p  < 0.001). Table 5 shows the results of the structural model of learner boredom, burnout, engagement, and life satisfaction.

Standardized regression coefficients with learner burnout, engagement and life satisfaction as dependent variables.

SE, standard error; Est/SE, estimate divided by standard error; p, obtained significance value.

* p  < 0.05; ** p  < 0.01.

Table 5 shows that learner burnout is predicted by both boredom in English (β = 0.24; p  < 0.01) and boredom in mathematics (β = 0.34; p  < 0.01). As expected, learner engagement has a negative relationship with boredom in mathematics (β = −0.24; p  < 0.01) as well as boredom in English (β = −0.48; p  < 0.01). It is clear from Table 5 that there is no direct significant impact on Life satisfaction through boredom in mathematics (β = −0.02; p  > 0.05) and English (β = 0.04; p  > 0.05), but the indirect relationship through learner burnout (β = −0.23; p  < 0.01) and learner engagement (β = 0.37; p  < 0.01) is evident and significant.

Boredom in mathematics and English predicted 24.9% of the variance of learner burnout. This is just on the verge of being classified as a large effect. Boredom in mathematics and English predicted 39.8% of the variance in learner engagement. This variance has a large effect. Boredom in mathematics and English predicted 22.4% of the variance in life satisfaction.

Indirect effects

For this study, the suggested procedure by Hayes (2018) to determine how boredom in mathematics and English affected life satisfaction indirectly was applied. A two-sided bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CI’s) were constructed by bootstrapping (with 10,000 samples) to evaluate indirect effects.

The results in Figure 1 show that boredom in mathematics (β = −0.08, SE = 0.03, p  = 0.003, [−0.14, −0.03]), and boredom in English (β = −0.02, SE = 0.02, p  = 0.016, [−0.11, −0.02]) indirectly affected life satisfaction via burnout. The results further showed that low boredom in mathematics (β = −0.09, SE = 0.03, p  = 0.004, [−0.16, −0.04]), and low boredom in English (β = −0.18, SE = 0.05, p  < 0.001, [−0.29, −0.10]) indirectly affected life satisfaction via learner engagement.

A structural model of life satisfaction.

Academic boredom experienced in educational settings is pervasive and has profound consequences for a learner’s burnout, engagement, and life satisfaction ( Pekrun et al., 2010 ). This study aimed to determine the impact of demographic and situational variables on learners’ boredom in English and mathematics. Furthermore, the study aimed to investigate the effects of learners’ boredom in English and mathematics on their happiness, as indicated by their experiences of burnout, engagement, and life satisfaction. This was done considering Pekrun (2006) control-value theory of achievement emotions. Boredom is a negative, deactivating emotion experienced by learners when they take part in educational activities. It was clear from this study that boredom is experienced by learners when they are attending class, doing activities in class, and completing homework activities.

Boredom in mathematics was positively related to boredom in English and negatively related to life satisfaction. Boredom in English was also negatively related to life satisfaction. Corroborating the findings of Barnett and Klitzing (2006) and Nett et al. (2011) , boredom in this study was also negatively related to life satisfaction, albeit with small and medium effects. Boredom in mathematics was positively related to learner burnout and negatively related to learner engagement. Boredom in English was positively associated with burnout and negatively associated with learner engagement. Lastly, burnout was negatively related to life satisfaction, while learner engagement was positively related to life satisfaction.

Lower subjective well-being and quality of life were noted by Nett et al. (2010) and Schwartze et al. (2021) , also evident from the findings of this study. In support of the findings of this study, Tze et al. (2014) and Weybright et al. (2017) also found academic boredom to be associated with burnout, disengagement, and lower levels of achievement. From this study, learners who disengaged experienced higher levels of burnout. Seeing as adolescents are already at high risk of developing mental health problems or disorders ( Salmela-Aro et al., 2008 ; Walburg, 2014 ), it would be good to put measures in place to assist teachers and the schools to help alleviate some of the experience of boredom, which influences burnout and engagement, ultimately leading to lower subjective well-being.

Four variables predicted boredom in English: Afrikaans as home language; the final mark for English in the previous examination; caregivers that cannot help with English homework; and disliking the English teacher. Four variables best-predicted boredom in mathematics: Afrikaans as home language; mark for mathematics in the previous exam; not having the ability to focus on schoolwork at home, and disliking the mathematics teacher. No association was found between gender and boredom (see Hendricks, 2015 ). However, associations exist that point toward an increased experience of boredom when a learner does not have an interest in activities ( Daniels et al., 2015 ; Xie, 2021 ).

Erasmus and Hall (2019) found no significant correlation between boredom experiences and learners’ home language. However, in this study, the contrary is partially true for one language group. Afrikaans learners were more prone to boredom in English and mathematics than those with English as a home language or an African home language. This confirms the findings of Howie (2003) and Spaull (2013) . Also, contradictory to what Goetz et al. (2007) and Schukajlow and Rakoczy (2016) found regarding grades not predicting boredom, this study found that boredom in both English and mathematics are predicted by a previous mark obtained.

Interestingly, caregiver help with homework was statistically significant and negatively associated with English homework, but not with mathematics homework. This might mean that learners believe they can complete mathematics homework independently without needing intervention from caregivers at home. Alternatively, caregiver support with mathematics did not play a significant role because learners might perceive that a caregiver might not be able to help them.

The demographic variables and contextual factors predict 28.7% of the variation in boredom in mathematics, but for boredom in English, they predicted 44.4% thereof. Both these are classified as large effects, meaning that the demographic variables identified in this study, accounted for large percentages of the variance in boredom. Seen in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, school closures, and in support of Schwartze et al. (2021) ‘s findings, the unfortunate environmental circumstances could also lead learners to dislike teachers and their peers, leading to even more maladaptive forms of boredom. Other situational factors could have also played a role, and further research could be done to establish if there are any other situational or personal factors that could influence boredom proneness in secondary school learners. Certain factors such as parental educational level and occupation, pressure, learner aspirations, proficiency in the language, and other contextual factors might have played a role in this, as was found the case in mathematics performance in Zambia and Nigeria ( Georgewill, 1990 ; Sayers, 1994 ; Howie, 2003 ).

Also interesting from this study, was the fact that some contextual factors did not impact learners’ experiences of boredom, burnout, or engagement. Demographic variables and contextual factors such as gender; having an own room; having a desk and chair; having one English or mathematics teacher; or previously failing English or mathematics, showed no significance to boredom in either the English or mathematics domain.

Learner burnout was predicted by both boredom in English and boredom in mathematics in this study. As expected, learner engagement had a negative relationship with boredom in mathematics and boredom in English. The experience of boredom has been found to impact learners’ perceptions of their ability, and their sense of adequacy. Therefore, a learner that perceives their own ability to be below average or poor, might not feel competent, and as a result, develop burnout ( Malkovsky et al., 2012 ; Willis, 2014 ). There is no significant direct impact on life satisfaction through boredom in mathematics and English, but the indirect relationship via learner burnout and learner engagement is evident and significant. Learners might be so burned-out that they feel debilitated and end up withdrawing from school or engaging in maladaptive behavior ( Shao et al., 2019 ), thus hampering their academic performance or eventually dropping out of school ( Weybright et al., 2017 ).

Boredom in mathematics and English predicted a large percentage of the variance in learner burnout and an even larger percentage of the variance in learner engagement. Furthermore, boredom and learner burnout and engagement predicted a substantial percentage of the variance in life satisfaction Therefore, boredom in mathematics and English indeed affect the happiness of learners these findings agree with the findings of studies by Tomislava (2021) , Botha (2014) and Westaway et al. (2003) . Boredom affects learner burnout and has an even stronger effect on their engagement, which affect their life satisfaction, probably because burned-out and disengaged learners do not reach their life goals.

The results showed that boredom in mathematics and boredom in English indirectly affected life satisfaction via learner burnout and engagement. As expected, boredom was negatively correlated with academic performance, especially final course grades ( Pekrun et al., 2010 ). Learners experience boredom when they believe a learning activity, or schooling overall, holds no value or significance ( Mora, 2011 ). It, therefore, is important that teachers should note and explain the reasons why activities are to be completed. If learners understand the importance of learning and learning-related activities, it will also contribute to their sense of control ( Pekrun, 2006 ).

Although teachers do their best to make lessons and classes as interesting as possible, some learners will still find those lessons “boring.” Thus, learners need to learn how to create a higher sense of “value” for the mathematics and English subject domains. Learners would like to co-create learning and perhaps allowing learners to choose which activities they could complete would allow them the sense of control they like to have ( Xie et al., 2021 ). In this way, they will target the causes of boredom ( Nett et al., 2010 ). This also allows for happier learners in future.

It remains the responsibility of each teacher and learner, to co-create more stimulating classroom experiences by explaining the relevance of activities or assessments, thereby helping learners understand and value activities more. Fostering a sense of appreciation for lesson content will help the learner understand the value instead of focusing on otherwise boring content ( Nett et al., 2011 ). It will also be good to help learners understand their responsibility in emotional regulation and encourage teachers to be receptive to feedback on lessons, tests, and other educational tools. This will allow the learner to feel more in control, thus enhancing learning outcomes and development ( Van Tonder et al., 2022 ). This will lead to minimizing boredom and maximizing the academic achievement of the learner.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

There are several limitations to the study. The study’s first limitation was that it was limited to Grade 9 and Grade 10 learners from the Sedibeng District within the Gauteng Province of South Africa. The study needs to be expanded to other provinces. It would be good to include learners from other grades in such a study. The inclusion criteria for participation in this study only looked at boredom in the subject domains of English and mathematics. Further research could also investigate the experience of boredom in other languages, or the domains of economics, business economics, biology and science classes at secondary school levels.

Because this was a cross-sectional study, it is limited that any statements made concerning causality are void of validity as this study only represented a snapshot for this period ( Singleton and Straits, 2010 ). Consequently, future research could also examine a longitudinal approach to determine the cause and effect of these academic emotions. To draw a longitudinal conclusion, it would be beneficial to conduct longitudinal and multilevel studies, which will allow an analysis of the effects of this study’s variables over a longer period rather than at one point in time ( Pallant, 2010 ). Future research could also employ neuroimaging, physiological assessments, and measurements and the analysis of facial expressions and body posture to further examine the effects of boredom. The study relied exclusively on self-reports, which may have contributed to common method variance. In addition, the researcher cannot rule out that having more participants might have affected data analysis and even resulted in different findings, despite the relatively large sample size.

Intervention programs targeting academic boredom in educational settings are still lacking, and research findings like this will have to be validated and tested in various educational settings. Helping learners understand the boredom they experience and helping them cope with such an emotion might be something worth investigating or implementing in future studies. Helping learners understand their emotional experiences better will allow teachers to encourage learners to be more actively involved in the educational experience ( Weinerman and Kenner, 2016 ).

Academic boredom was classified as an unpleasant, deactivating emotion that should be taken seriously in educational settings. Certain demographic variables and contextual factors play a role in the experience of academic boredom in mathematics and English. These antecedents then have a profound impact on either/both learner burnout and engagement, which impacts a learner’s experience of life satisfaction. This experience creates attention problems and affects motivational engagement and performance in educational settings. Learners who experience academic boredom in either/both mathematics and English have a diminished sense of satisfaction with their lives and might also experience less engagement and higher levels of burnout. Boredom is, therefore, detrimental to secondary school learners’ attention, motivation, efforts, self-directed or -regulated learning, and academic performance.

This study provides valuable information for educators who wish to see happier, more engaged learners in their classes. Results from this study could inform the development of psychoeducational interventions to minimize the effects of academic boredom for these learners within the South African context. Understanding the antecedents that contribute to boredom in subjects such as mathematics and English necessitate teachers to think critically about their teaching strategies and how they structure learning experiences for secondary schools in South Africa. Seeing as academic boredom is a ‘silent’ emotion that sometimes goes undetected, it is even more important that interventions are developed, implemented, and evaluated to at least aim for the reduction of such negative, deactivating emotions, which are detrimental to a learner’s evaluation of their life as satisfied or not.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Health Research Ethics Committee, North-West University, South Africa. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author contributions

CB took the lead in conceptualizing and writing the manuscript and collected and analyzed the data. SR conducted the data analyses, acted as an additional writer, and reviewed the manuscript. MK acted as an additional writer and reviewed the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This study was supported by National Research Foundation: Grant No: 105850.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The handling editor AH declared a past co-authorship with the author SR.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Acee T. W., Kim H., Kim H. J., Kim J.-I., Chu H.-N. R., Kim M., et al.. (2010). Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 35 , 17–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.08.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arens A. K., Becker M., Möller J. (2017). Social and dimensional comparisons in math and verbal test anxiety: within- and cross-domain relations with achievement and the mediating role of academic self-concept . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 51 , 240–252. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.08.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Artino A. R., Holmboe E. S., Durning S. J. (2012). Control-value theory: using achievement emotions to improve understanding of motivation, learning, and performance in medical education: AMEE guide no. 64 . Med. Teach. 34 , e148–e160. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.651515, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett L. A., Klitzing S. W. (2006). Boredom in free time: relationships with personality, affect, and motivation for different gender, racial and ethnic student groups . Leis. Sci. 28 , 223–244. doi: 10.1080/01490400600598053 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bekker C. I. (2022). Academic boredom of learners in secondary schools in the Sedibeng District in South Africa: Measurement , antecedents , and outcomes . Doctoral thesis, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa: North-West University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Botha F. (2014). Life satisfaction and education in South Africa: investigating the role of attainment and the likelihood of education as a positional good . Soc. Indic. Res. 118 , 555–578. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0452-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown M., Brown P., Bibby T. (2008). “I would rather die”: reasons given by 16-year-olds for not continuing their study of mathematics . Res. Math. Educ. 10 , 3–18. doi: 10.1080/14794800801915814 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bücker S., Nuraydin S., Simonsmeier B. A., Schneider M., Luhmann M. (2018). Subjective well-being and academic achievement: a meta-analysis . J. Res. Pers. 74 , 83–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Camacho-Morles J., Slemp G. R., Pekrun R., Loderer K., Hou H., Oades L. G. (2021). Activity achievement emotions and academic performance: a meta-analysis . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33 , 1051–1095. doi: 10.1007/s10648-020-09585-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter C. P., Reschly A. L., Lovelace M. D., Appleton J. J., Thompson D. (2012). Measuring student engagement among elementary students: pilot of the student engagement instrument—elementary version . Sch. Psychol. Q. 27 , 61–73. doi: 10.1037/a0029229, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chui W. H., Wong M. Y. (2016). Gender differences in happiness and life satisfaction among adolescents in Hong Kong: relationships and self-concept . Soc. Indic. Res. 125 , 1035–1051. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-0867-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniels L. M., Tze V. M. C., Goetz T. (2015). Examining boredom: difference causes for different coping profiles . Learn. Individ. Differ. 37 , 255–261. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daschmann E. C., Goetz T., Stupnisky R. H. (2011). Testing the predictors of boredom at school: development and validation of the precursors to boredom scales . Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 81 , 421–440. doi: 10.1348/000709910X526038, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E., Emmons R. A., Larsen R. J., Griffin S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale . J. Pers. Assess. 49 , 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dörendahl J., Scherer R., Greiff S., Martin R., Niepel C. (2021). Dimensional comparisons in the formation of domain-specific achievement goals . Motiv. Sci. 7 , 306–318. doi: 10.1037/mot0000203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action . Educ. Psychol. 44 , 78–89. doi: 10.1080/00461520902832368 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erasmus M. R., Hall I. (2019). First year students’ boredom in an applied communication skills classroom at a south African University of Technology . South African J. High. Educ. 33 , 94–113. doi: 10.20853/33-4-3155 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evers K., Chen S., Rothmann S., Dhir A., Pallesen S. (2020). Investigating the relation among disturbed sleep due to social media use, school burnout, and academic performance . J. Adolesc. 84 , 156–164. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.08.011, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forsblom L., Pekrun R., Loderer K., Peixoto F. (2022). Cognitive appraisals, achievement emotions, and students’ math achievement: a longitudinal analysis . J. Educ. Psychol. 114 , 346–367. doi: 10.1037/edu0000671 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Furlong M. J., Smith D. C., Springer T., Dowdy E. (2021). Bored with school! Bored with life? Well-being characteristics associated with a school boredom mindset . J. Posit. School Psychol. 5 , 42–64. doi: 10.47602/jpsp.v5i1.261 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Georgewill J. W. (1990). Causes of poor achievement in West African school certificate mathematics examinations in Rivers state secondary schools, Nigeria . Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 21 , 379–385. doi: 10.1080/0020739900210305 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goetz T., Cronjaeger H., Frenzel A. C., Lüdtke O., Hall N. C. (2010). Academic self-concept and emotion relations: domain specificity and age effects . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 35 , 44–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goetz T., Frenzel A. C., Pekrun R., Hall N. C., Lüdtke O. (2007). Between- and within-domain relations of students’ academic emotions . J. Educ. Psychol. 99 , 715–733. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.715 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldbeck L., Schmitz T. G., Besier T., Herschbach P., Henrich G. (2007). Life satisfaction decreases during adolescence . Qual. Life Res. 16 , 969–979. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9205-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guse T. (2020). “ Feeling good: the hedonic perspective on well-being ” in Towards flourishing: Embracing well-being in diverse contexts . eds. Wissing M. P., Potgieter J. C., Guse T., Khumalo I. P., Nel L. (Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik; ), 29–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halonen N., Hietajärvi L., Lonka K., Salmela-Aro K. (2016). Sixth graders’ use of technologies in learning, technology attitudes and school well-being . Eur. J. Soc. Behav. Sci. 18 , 51–68. doi: 10.15405/ejsbs.205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation , moderation , and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . 2nd Edn. New York: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendricks G. (2015). The effect of peer pressure and leisure boredom on substance use among adolescents in low-income communities in Cape Town [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Cape Town, South Africa: University of the Western Cape. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hietajärvi L., Lonka K., Hakkarainen K., Alho K., Salmela-Aro K. (2020). Are schools alienating digitally engaged students? Longitudinal relations between digital engagement and school engagement . Frontline Learn. Res. 8 , 33–55. doi: 10.14786/flr.v8i1.437 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howie S. J. (2003). Language and other background factors affecting secondary pupils’ performance in mathematics in South Africa . African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 7 , 1–20. doi: 10.1080/10288457.2003.10740545 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huebner E. S., Suldo S., Valois R. F., Drane J. W., Zullig K. (2004). Brief multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale: sex, race, and grade effects for a high school sample . Psychol. Rep. 94 , 351–356. doi: 10.2466/pr0.94.1.351-356, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IBM Corp (2020). IBM SPSS statistics for windows: Version 27 (computer software) . Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. [ Google Scholar ]
• JASP Team . (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.1). https://jasp-stats.org/?msclkid=3adff66ca7ba11ec892610a4bb5bc3f2
• Jovanović V., Rudnev M., Arslan G., Buzea C., Dimitrova R., Góngora V., et al.. (2022). The satisfaction with life scale in adolescent samples: measurement invariance across 24 countries and regions, age, and gender . Appl. Res. Qual. Life 17 , 2139–2161. doi: 10.1007/s11482-021-10024-w, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keyes C. L., Annas J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science . J. Posit. Psychol. 4 , 197–201. doi: 10.1080/17439760902844228 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keyes C. L. M., Wissing M., Potgieter J. P., Temane M., Kruger A., Van Rooy S. (2008). Evaluation of the mental health continuum - short form (MHC-SF) in Setswana-speaking south Africans . Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 15 , 181–192. doi: 10.1002/cpp.572, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kotze G. S., Strauss J. P. (2006). Contextual factors of the mathematics learning environment of grade 6 learners in South Africa . Pythagoras 0 , 38–45. doi: 10.4102/pythagoras.v0i63.107 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee J. Y., Chei M. J. (2020). Latent profile analysis of Korean undergraduates’ academic emotions in e-learning environment . Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 68 , 1521–1546. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09715-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee M., Lee K.-J., Lee S. M., Cho S. (2020). From emotional exhaustion to cynicism in academic burnout among Korean high school students: focusing on the mediation effects of hatred of academic work . Stress. Health 36 , 376–383. doi: 10.1002/smi.2936, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leino R. K., Gardner M. R., Cartwright T., Döring A. K. (2021). Engagement in a virtual learning environment predicts academic achievement in research methods modules: a longitudinal study combining behavioral and self-reported data . Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. Psychol. 1 , 1–14. doi: 10.1037/stl0000281 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichtenfeld S., Pekrun R., Marsh H. W., Nett U. E., Reiss K. (2022). Achievement emotions and elementary school children’s academic performance: longitudinal models of developmental ordering . J. Educ. Psychol. doi: 10.1037/edu0000748 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linnenbrink-Garcia L., Patall E. A., Pekrun R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion in education . Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 3 , 228–236. doi: 10.1177/237273221664445 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhmann M., Intelisano S. (2018). “ Hedonic adaptation and the set point for subjective well-being ,” in Handbook of well-being . eds. Diener E., Oishi S., Tay L. (Salt Lake City, Utah: DEF Publishers; ), 1–27. https://bit.ly/2PKEE9R [ Google Scholar ]
• Malkovsky E., Merrifield C., Goldberg Y., Danckert J. (2012). Exploring the relationship between boredom and sustained attention . Exp. Brain Res. 221 , 59–67. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3147-z, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maree K., Aldous C., Hattingh A., Swanepoel A., van der Linde M. (2006). Predictors of learner performance in mathematics and science according to a large-scale study in Mpumalanga . S. Afr. J. Educ. 26 , 229–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh H. W. (2006). Self-concept theory , measurement and research into practice: The role of self-concept in educational psychology . Leicester, United Kingdom: British Psychological Society. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh H. W., Pekrun R., Parker P. D., Murayama K., Guo J., Dicke T., et al.. (2019). The murky distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy: beware of lurking jingle-jangle fallacies . J. Educ. Psychol. 111 , 331–353. doi: 10.1037/edu0000281 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslach C., Schaufeli W. B., Leiter M. P. (2001). Job burnout . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52 , 397–422. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meuleners L. B., Lee A. H., Binns C. W., Lower A. (2003). Quality of life for adolescents: assessing measurement properties using structural equation modelling . Qual. Life Res. 12 , 283–290. doi: 10.1023/A:1023221913292, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mora R. (2011). “School is so boring”: high stakes testing and boredom at an urban middle school . Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education 9 , 1–9. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ957120.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén L. K., Muthén B. O. (1998–2021). Mplus user’s guide . 8th Edn Muthén & Muthén. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nett U. E., Goetz T., Daniels L. M. (2010). What to do when feeling bored? Students’ strategies for coping with boredom . Learn. Individ. Differ. 20 , 626–638. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nett U. E., Goetz T., Hall N. C. (2011). Coping with boredom in school: an experience sampling perspective . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36 , 49–59. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niepel C., Marsh H. W., Guo J., Pekrun R., Möller J. (2021). Revealing dynamic relations between mathematics self-concept and perceived achievement from lesson to lesson: an experience-sampling study . J. Educ. Psychol. 114 , 1380–1393. doi: 10.1037/edu0000716 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nunnally J. C., Bernstein I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory . 3rd Edn McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pallant J. (2010). SPSS survival manual . 4th Edn McGraw-Hill Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel C. J., Ramgoon S., Paruk Z. (2009). Exploring religion, race and gender as factors in the life satisfaction and religiosity of young south African adults . S. Afr. J. Psychol. 39 , 266–274. doi: 10.1177/0081246309039003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pavot W., Diener E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale . Psychol. Assess. 5 , 164–172. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pavot W., Diener E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction . J. Posit. Psychol. 3 , 137–152. doi: 10.1080/17439760701756946 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pavot W., Diener E. (2013). “ Happiness experienced: the science of subjective well-being ” in The Oxford handbook of happiness . eds. Boniwell I., David S. A., Ayers A. C. (Oxford University Press; ), 134–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pavot W., Diener E., Colvin C. R., Sandvik E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures . J. Pers. Assess. 57 , 149–161. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5701_17, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators . Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 41 , 359–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00712.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 18 , 315–341. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R. (2009). “ Global and local perspectives on human affect: implications of the control-value theory of achievement emotions ” in Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives . eds. Wosnitza M., Karabenick S. A., Efklides A., Nenninger P. (Hogrefe; ), 97–115. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Frenzel A. C., Goetz T., Perry R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: an integrative approach to emotions in education . Emot. Educ. 1 , 13–36. doi: 10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50003-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Goetz T., Daniels L. M., Stupnisky R. H. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: exploring control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion . J. Educ. Psychol. 102 , 531–549. doi: 10.1037/a0019243 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Goetz T., Frenzel A. C., Barchfeld P., Perry R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: the achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ) . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 36 , 36–48. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Goetz T., Perry R. P. (2005). Achievement emotions questionnaire: Mathematics (AEQ–M) user’s manual . University of Munich: Department of Psychology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Goetz T., Titz W., Perry R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research . Educ. Psychol. 37 , 91–105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Hall N. C., Goetz T., Perry R. P. (2014). Boredom and academic achievement: testing a model of reciprocal causation . J. Educ. Psychol. 106 , 696–710. doi: 10.1037/a0036006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekrun R., Murayama K., Marsh H. W., Goetz T., Frenzel A. C. (2019). Happy fish in little ponds: testing a reference group model of achievement and emotion . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117 , 166–185. doi: 10.1348/000709909X480716, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petillion R. J., McNeil W. S. (2020). Student experiences of emergency remote teaching: impacts of instructor practice on student learning, engagement, and well-being . J. Chem. Educ. 97 , 2486–2493. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00733 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Potgieter J. C., Botha K. F. H. (2020). “ Functioning well: the eudaimonic perspective on well-being ” in Towards flourishing: Embracing well-being in diverse contexts . eds. Wissing M. P., Potgieter J. C., Guse T., Khumalo I. P., Nel L. (Van Schaik; ), 57–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Preckel F., Götz T., Frenzel A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: effects on academic self-concept and boredom . Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 80 , 451–472. doi: 10.1348/000709909X480716, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rojas M., Veenhoven R. (2013). Contentment and affect in the assessment of happiness . Soc. Indic. Res. 110 , 415–431. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9952-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52 , 141–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saeki E., Quirk M. (2015). Getting students engaged might not be enough: the importance of psychological needs satisfaction on social-emotional and behavioral functioning among early adolescents . Soc. Psychol. Educ. 18 , 355–371. doi: 10.1007/s11218-014-9283-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmela-Aro K. (2017). Dark and bright sides of thriving: school burnout and engagement in the Finnish context . Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 14 , 337–349. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2016.1207517 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmela-Aro K., Kiuru N., Leskinen E., Nurmi J.-E. (2009). School burnout inventory (SBI) reliability and validity . Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 25 , 48–57. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.48 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmela-Aro K., Kiuru N., Nurmi J.-E. (2008). The role of educational track in adolescents’ school burnout: a longitudinal study . Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 78 , 663–689. doi: 10.1348/000709908X281628, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmela-Aro K., Muotka J., Alho K., Hakkarainen K., Lonka K. (2016). School burnout and engagement profiles among digital natives in Finland: a person-oriented approach . Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 13 , 704–718. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2015.1107542 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmela-Aro K., Read S. (2017). Study engagement and burnout profiles among Finnish higher education students . Burn. Res. 7 , 21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.burn.2017.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmela-Aro K., Upadyaya K. (2012). The schoolwork engagement inventory . Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 28 , 60–67. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000091 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sayers R. (1994). Gender differences in mathematics education in Zambia . Educ. Stud. Math. 26 , 389–403. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schukajlow S., Rakoczy K. (2016). The power of emotions: can enjoyment and boredom explain the impact of individual preconditions and teaching methods on interest and performance in mathematics? Learn. Instr. 44 , 117–127. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartze M. M., Frenzel A. C., Goetz T., Marx A. K., Reck C., Pekrun R., et al.. (2020). Excessive boredom among adolescents: a comparison between low and high achievers . PLoS One 15 , e0241671–e0241612. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241671, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartze M. M., Frenzel A. C., Goetz T., Pekrun R., Reck C., Marx A. K., et al.. (2021). Boredom makes me sick: adolescents’ boredom trajectories and their health-related quality of life . Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 :6308. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126308, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shao K., Pekrun R., Nicholson L. J. (2019). Emotions in classroom language learning: what can we learn from achievement emotion research? System 86 , 102121–102111. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2019.102121 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharp J. G., Hemmings B., Kay R. (2016). Towards a model for the assessment of student boredom and boredom proneness in the UK higher education context . J. Furth. High. Educ. 40 , 649–681. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2014.1000282 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singleton R. A., Straits B. C. (2010). Approaches to social research . 5th Edn Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spaull N. (2013). Poverty & privilege: primary school inequality in South Africa . Int. J. Educ. Dev. 33 , 436–447. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.09.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steele J. P., Fullagar C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting . J. Psychol. 143 , 5–27. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.5-27, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberger F., Moeller A., Schroeter R. (2016). The antecedents, experience, and coping strategies of driver boredom in young adult males . J. Saf. Res. 59 , 69–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2016.10.007, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suldo S. M., Minch D. R., Hearon B. V. (2015). Adolescent life satisfaction and personality characteristics: investigating relationships using a five-factor model . J. Happiness Stud. 16 , 965–983. doi: 10.1007/s10902-014-9544-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sundberg N. D., Latkin C. A., Farmer R. F., Saoud J. (1991). Boredom in young adults: gender and cultural comparisons . J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 22 , 209–223. doi: 10.1177/0022022191222003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Temane Q. M., Wissing M. P. (2006). The role of spirituality as a mediator for psychological well-being across different contexts . S. Afr. J. Psychol. 36 , 582–597. doi: 10.1177/008124630603600309 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomislava V. (2021). Students’ school satisfaction: the role of classroom climate, self-efficacy, and engagement . Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 9 , 347–357. doi: 10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-3-347-357 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsai J. L., Knutson B., Fung H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90 , 288–307. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.288, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuominen-Soini H., Salmela-Aro K. (2014). Schoolwork engagement and burnout among Finnish high school students and young adults: profiles, progressions, and educational outcomes . Dev. Psychol. 50 , 649–662. doi: 10.1037/a0033898, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tze V. M. C., Daniels L. M., Klassen R. M., Li J. C.-H. (2013). Canadian and Chinese university students’ approaches to coping with academic boredom . Learn. Individ. Differ. 23 , 32–43. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tze V. M. C., Klassen R. M., Daniels L. M. (2014). Patterns of boredom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support and engagement . Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 39 , 175–187. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Upadyaya K., Salmela-Aro K. (2013). Development of school engagement in association with academic success and well-being in varying social contexts: a review of empirical research . Eur. Psychol. 18 , 136–147. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000143 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Tonder G. P., Kloppers M. M., Grosser M. M. (2022). Enabling self-directed academic and personal wellbeing through cognitive education . Front. Psychol. 12 :789194. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.789194, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Visser M., Juan A., Feza N. (2015). Home and school resources as predictors of mathematics performance in South Africa . S. Afr. J. Educ. 35 , 1–10. doi: 10.15700/201503062354 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogel-Walcutt J. J., Fiorella L., Carper T., Schatz S. (2012). The definition, assessment, and mitigation of state boredom within educational settings: a comprehensive review . Educ. Psychol. Rev. 24 , 89–111. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9182-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walburg V. (2014). Burnout among high school students: a literature review . Child Youth Serv. Rev. 42 , 28–33. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang J., Wang X. (2020). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus . 2nd Edn Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wegner L., Flisher A. J., Muller M., Lombard C. (2006). Leisure boredom and substance use among high school students in South Africa . J. Leis. Res. 38 , 249–266. doi: 10.1080/00222216.2006.11950078 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinerman J., Kenner C. (2016). Boredom: that which shall not be named . J. Dev. Educ. 40 , 18–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44987721 [ Google Scholar ]
• West S. G., Taylor A. B., Wu W. (2012). “ Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling ” in Handbook of structural equation modeling . ed. Hoyle R. H. (The Guilford Press; ), 209–231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Westaway M. S., Maritz C., Golele N. J. (2003). Empirical testing of the satisfaction with life scale: a south African pilot study . Psychol. Rep. 92 , 551–554. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2003.92.2.551, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Westphal A., Kretschmann J., Gronostaj A., Vock M. (2018). More enjoyment, less anxiety and boredom: how achievement emotions relate to academic self-concept and teachers’ diagnostic skills . Learn. Individ. Differ. 62 , 108–117. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.016 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weybright E. H., Caldwell L. L., Ram N., Smith E. A., Wegner L. (2015). Boredom prone or nothing to do? Distinguishing between state and trait leisure boredom and its association with substance use in south African adolescents . Leis. Sci. 37 , 311–331. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2015.1014530, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weybright E. H., Caldwell L. L., Xie H., Wegner L., Smith E. A. (2017). Predicting secondary school dropout among south African adolescents: a survival analysis approach . S. Afr. J. Educ. 37 , 1–11. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2015.1014530, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willis J. (2014). Neuroscience reveals that boredom hurts . Phi Delta Kappan 95 , 28–32. doi: 10.1177/003172171409500807 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winga M. A., Agak J. O., Ayere M. A. (2016). The relationship between school burnout, gender and academic achievement amongst secondary school students in Kisumu east subcounty Kenya . J. Emerg. Trends. Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 7 , 326–331. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wissing M. P., Thekiso S. M., Stapelberg R., Van Quickelberge L., Choabi P., Moroeng C., et al.. (2010). Validation of three Setswana measures for psychological wellbeing: original research . SA J. Ind. Psychol. 36 , 86–93. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.860 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie J. (2021). The effects of boredom on EFL learners’ engagement . Front. Psychol. 12 , 1–4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.743313, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xie J., Xu J., Wei T., Gallo K., Giles M. E., Zhan Y., et al.. (2021). Contributing factors, attribution, and coping in academic boredom: an exploratory case study of graduate students in education . Adult Learn. 33 , 99–113. doi: 10.1177/1045159520987304 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]