380236

EUS

Adding Families
to the Homework
Equation: A
Longitudinal Study
of Mathematics
Achievement

Education and Urban Society

43(3) 313338
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013124510380236
http://eus.sagepub.com

Frances L. Van Voorhis1

Abstract
Families, whether guided or instructed to, often become involved in their
childrens homework. This study examined the effects of a weekly interactive mathematics program (Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork - TIPS)
on family involvement, emotions and attitudes, and student achievement.
Students and families (N=153) from four urban elementary schools participated in this two-year quasi-experimental study, with teachers assigned randomly to TIPS or Control conditions. Seventeen percent of students used
TIPS two years, forty percent completed TIPS one year, and forty-three
percent never used TIPS. The majority of the sample (57%) represented
African-American students, and the remaining students (43%) were Caucasian, with almost 70% of the sample qualifying for free- or reduced-price
lunch. Overall, TIPS students and families reported significantly higher levels of family involvement, more positive feelings and attitudes about math
homework, and significantly higher standardized mathematics scores than
Control students. This coordinated homework process may be a useful tool

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

Corresponding Author:
Dr. Frances L.Van Voorhis, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns
Hopkins University, 2701 N. Charles Street, Suite 300, Baltimore, MD 21218
Email: francesv@csos.jhu.edu

314

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

for educators seeking more favorable and academically productive home

learning experiences for students and their families.
Keywords
Homework, family involvement, mathematics achievement

Homework is an everyday practice that currently elicits strong and, often,

negative reactions from students, parents, and teachers. Many recent popular
books on homework question its usefulness for increasing student achievement; link it to detrimental effects on family life, student health, and attitudes
about learning; and urge families and communities to question teachers overuse of the nightly ritual (Bennett & Kalish, 2006; Kralovec & Buell, 2000).
Concerns about homework are not new. Rather than focusing on whether to
assign students excessive homework or none at all, others have emphasized
the need for a more balanced solution. Such a solution would require focusing
on the content and purpose of homework (Epstein & Van Voorhis, 2001;
Author, 2003, 2004), not just time or quantity.

Homework and Achievement

Over the course of history, shifts toward more homework have resulted when
analysts report poor mathematics achievement of U.S. students in general and
as compared to students globally. In fact, concern about the lack of increase
in fourth-grade student math scores on the 2009 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) from 2007 has policy members and educators
already concerned. Whereas 82% of fourth graders scored at a basic level,
only 39% performed at or above a proficient level (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2009). Educators often look to homework to increase
student achievement. For middle and high school students, research indicates a positive relationship between more time on homework and improved
grades and achievement scores (Cooper, 1989; Cooper, Robinson, & Patall,
2006; Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997; Keith, 1982; Keith & Cool, 1992; Keith
et al., 1993; Kelley & Kahle, 1995; Paschal, Weinstein, & Walberg, 1984,
Author, 2003). In the elementary grades, however, more time spent on homework often correlates with lower school grades and achievement, a negative
or null relationship (Cooper, 1989; Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, & Greathouse,
1998; Epstein, 1988).

Van Voorhis

315

Researchers have proposed some possible explanations for the negative

relationship between homework and achievement in the elementary years.
Some have argued that homework assigned to elementary students serves
different purposes (e.g., time management skills) than secondary homework (e.g., preparation for class lessons and enrichment). Others suggest
that elementary students who struggle may take more time to complete homework than their peers, thus leading to a false conclusion that homework
assignments themselves, rather than student characteristics of need for time
and stick-to-it-ness, are to blame for the negative relationship of time on
homework and achievement. A study of teachers and student achievement
found evidence to support both explanations above; however, weaker evidence exists for struggling students taking more time (Muhlenbruck,
Cooper, Nye, & Lindsay, 2000). It is important and necessary for parents,
teachers, and principals to question excessive amounts of homework for
students at any age, but it also is important to examine longitudinally whether
and how homework affects students attitudes about learning and student
achievement.

Student, Teacher, and Parent

Feelings About Homework
A recent examination of the homework experience revealed current attitudes
of students, teachers, and parents (MetLife, 2007). Specifically, 8 in 10 teachers and parents report that doing homework is important, whereas 77% of
students reported such. Although they feel homework is important, 33% of
parents and 16% of teachers rate the quality of homework at the school as
fair or poor, and about 20% of elementary students (even more secondary students) themselves report that homework is just busywork. In addition, 44% of elementary students believe that homework is not interesting
and almost 30% of teachers feel less prepared to create meaningful and
engaging homework activities. In summary, these statistics indicate the value
that all parties place on homework assignments yet point directly to the need
for more professional development time on the topic of homework to improve
its content and design.

Components of Homework
Few research reviews have addressed the components of effective homework
assignments and the literature would benefit from more work in this area

316

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

(Sharp, Keys, & Benefield, 2001). One such practical review conducted by
Cooper (2007) summarizes some main areas of homework assignment design
that have been investigated: homework purpose, level of homework problem
difficulty, and feedback. Cooper found the benefit of homework assignments
that include practicing past lessons and/or preparing for future lessons as
more effective than same-day content homework activities. Evidence also
underscores the positive effect of including short problems or questions within
sets of challenging problems, interspersal assignments, on homework accuracy and completion. Finally, research suggests the importance of homework
feedback, yet the best type and optimum frequency has yet to be determined.

Parental Roles in the Homework Process

Families, whether guided or instructed to, often become involved in homelearning activities with their children, including involvement in student homework. This type of involvement (learning at home) represents one of Epsteins
(1995, 2009) six types of school, family, and community partnerships: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making,
and collaborating with the community. Researchers have identified general
and specific parentchild homework interactions (i.e., Hoover-Dempsey et al.,
2001). The range of possible parentchild interactions on homework is
broad, and some parents bring more skills or educational advantages than
others. By their design of homework and guidance and invitations offered to
parents, educators play key roles in whether parents feel confident and effective in their interactions with their children on homework.

Effects of Parental Involvement

Studies of parental involvement in homework demonstrate both positive and
negative effects on both parents and children. Several studies highlight parental frustration and embarrassment in helping children with skills that parents
do not remember, never learned, or explain differently from the teacher
(e.g., Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Burow, 1995; Hyde, Else-Quest, Alibali,
Knuth, & Romberg, 2006). In studies of parents of children at all grade levels, two thirds of parents reported that they provided a form of help that was
negative or inappropriate, such as helping the child to finish more quickly or
helping the student despite knowing that the work needed to be completed
independently (Cooper, Lindsay, & Nye, 2000). Various researchers have
noted an association between parentchild homework interactions and tensions
within the family (Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Epstein, 1988; Hoover-Dempsey

Van Voorhis

317

et al., 1995; Levin et al., 1997; McDermott, Goldman, & Varenne, 1984; Xu
& Corno, 1998, 2003).
A recent report by the MetLife Foundation (2007) analyzed parents level
of preparedness to help with homework in specific subjects. Parents most
frequently noted mathematics as the subject in which they felt most unprepared to help their children. This was true for parents of children in both the
elementary (33%) and secondary grades (53%).
There also is evidence that family involvement may bring positive emotional and motivational factors to the homework process. Epstein (1988)
found that children in the elementary grades who enjoyed talking about
homework and school with their parents tended to be better students. Leone
and Richards (1989) investigated the mood of students in Grades 5 through 9
while doing homework and found that students reported being unhappy
and disinterested while doing homework. However, their mood was more
positive, attention levels were higher, and academic performance was greater
while completing homework with a parent than while doing homework alone.
Furthermore, several studies of families of elementary grade students highlight effective parent roles for helping children reduce or cope with homework
distractions, structure the home environment, and direct childrens attention
to important aspects of the homework experience (Chandler, Argyris, Barnes,
Goodman, & Snow, 1986; Corno & Xu, 2004; McCaslin & Murdock, 1991;
McDermott et al., 1984; Xu & Corno, 1998). Even a recent research synthesis
of parent involvement and achievement revealed a positive association in the
elementary grades, especially when focused on verbal achievement (Patall,
Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). Other studies also note that parents (87%) viewed
helping with homework as a chance to talk and spend time together, a view
shared equally by parents at both the elementary and secondary levels (MetLife
Foundation, 2007).
Overall, research to date indicates that parents often assist, guide, or motivate
their children in the homework process. Most parents are willing to be involved,
but they want their investments in their children to be productive and not
overly time consuming. Parents tend to report needing assistance more frequently with certain subjects like math and all of the homework players admit
to a need for more interesting and purposeful homework activities. Schools
that are mindful of these parental desires can make more strategic decisions
about the homework design, thus possibly reducing some of the negative homework feelings.
Several studies have examined the effect of schools efforts to involve
families in student learning at home. For example, Sheldon and Epstein (2005)
used longitudinal data from elementary and secondary schools that were

318

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

working to develop goal-oriented programs of school, family, and community partnership. After controlling for prior levels of mathematics achievement, schools that conducted effective practices to encourage childrens math
learning at home (i.e., math homework requiring family discussion) had
higher percentages of students who scored at or above proficiency on standardized mathematics achievement tests. The study echoes findings of other
researchers who have investigated family involvement in learning at home
and its relationship to academic achievement in the secondary years (Epstein
& Lee, 1995; Fehrmann, Keith, & Reimers, 1987; Ho & Willms, 1996; Keith
et al., 1993; Simon, 2001).

Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork

(TIPS) Interactive Homework
Based on findings from studies of homework and parental involvement,
Epstein (2001) and her colleagues (Epstein, Salinas, & Jackson, 1992) developed a homework approach to promote student learning, parentchild interactions, and parentteacher communication. Teachers Involve Parents in
Schoolwork (TIPS) interactive homework assignments include clear objectives for learning, instructions for completion, and explicit instructions to the
student for involving family members. TIPS assignments differ from traditional homework in that they are assigned once a week or twice a month;
students are given several days to complete the activity (to permit time to
involve family); certain sections include instructions that prompt students to
involve family members with specific conversations or other interactions;
and parents provide feedback as to how effective the activity was for them
and their children (Van Voorhis & Epstein, 2002).

Research on TIPS Interactive Homework

Three prior investigations of the effects of TIPS math, language arts, and
science have been conducted. The TIPS math study was a 2-month experimental investigation of 74 sixth-grade students in one Midwestern middle school
(Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998). The year-long TIPS writing study involved
sixth- and eighth-grade students in an innercity public middle school (Epstein
et al., 1997), and the TIPS science quasi-experimental study involved sixthand eighth-grade students (N = 253) in a suburban middle school over 18 weeks
(Author, 2003).
Overall, these studies of the TIPS process indicated that providing clear
directions for family involvement in homework related to higher levels of

Van Voorhis

319

parent involvement in homework. In addition, family attitudes about homework were more positive with greater use of TIPS and compared with Control
conditions. Finally, TIPS related to higher achievement in terms of writing
skills and science report card grades but not mathematics achievement. The
lack of difference in mathematics achievement may have resulted in part,
because only one teacher was involved in the short study, and all three classes
made progress in math.

New Study of TIPS Math Homework

The present intervention study of TIPS math homework expands the homework literature in several critical ways. First, unlike prior work, this study
followed elementary students for 2 years in four urban elementary schools.
Few studies exist to date that analyze 1- and 2-year effects of homework
interventions on student and family attitudes and achievement. Second, the
study was quasi experimental in design, responding to the need for more
rigorous research involving random assignment. Third, the study involved
multiple achievement and attitudinal measures including students homework
completion, accuracy, attitudes, and standardized mathematics achievement
as well as family involvement in homework. The variety of measures permits
careful analyses of homeworks effects on both emotional and cognitive
outcomes.

Method
Sample
This intervention study took place over 2 consecutive school years (20042006) in four similar elementary schools in a southeastern urban school district. At each school, one teacher was randomly assigned to implement the
Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) interactive math homework
assignments weekly along with other homework, and the other teacher used
regular math homework assignments in a matched Control classroom.
Thus, teachers were randomly assigned to the intervention and Control conditions. Although students were not randomly assigned to classrooms, every
effort was made to select similar, average classrooms of students in Grade 3.
In Year 1 (the 2004-2005 school year), 135 third-grade students and their
families (66 TIPS and 69 Control) participated. In Year 2, 169 fourth graders
and families (80 TIPS and 89 Control) participated. In the 2005-2006 school
year, students dispersed across teachers in Grade 4 so that some students

320

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

Table 1. Student Demographics by Homework Condition

n
Female
Age
Below average
Above average
Black***
White***
Free/reduced-price
lunch**
Grade 2 mathematics
report card grade
Grade 2 mathematics
standardized test
score (TCAP)*

Control

TIPS for 1 year

TIPS for 2 years

65
54%
9.64
18%
5%
51%
49%
72%

62
47%
9.62
8%
8%
76%
24%
73%

26
47%
9.65
12%
11%
27%
73%
42%

81

81

85

44

41

53

Note: N = 153. Asterisks specify significant differences in ethnicity, free/reduced lunch, and
Grade 2 mathematics standardized test scores across homework treatment groups.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

used TIPS activities for 2 years, some for 1 year (in Grade 3 or Grade 4), and
some not at all. For the overall sample of 153 students, 17% used TIPS for
2 years, 40% used TIPS for 1 year, and 43% were Control students who
never used the TIPS intervention over the 2-year period.
Table 1 displays background information for the three groups over 2 years:
TIPS 2 Years, TIPS 1 Year, and Control. For the whole sample, 57% of the
students were African American and 43% were White. Eighty percent of the
sample was average with 13% special education and 7% gifted students.
About 67% of students qualified for free- or reduced-price lunch. The average age of the student was 9.7 years, and 50% of the sample was male.
Significant differences in background variables are noted across the three
treatment groups for ethnicity, F(2, 150) = 2.40, p < .001, free/reduced lunch,
F(2, 150) = 4.64, p < .01, and Grade 2 standardized math test score, F(2, 150) =
4.22, p < .05. Specifically, TIPS 1 Year students were significantly more
likely to be Black than TIPS 2 Year or Control students, and TIPS 2 Year
students were significantly more likely to be White than the other groups. In
addition, TIPS 2 Year students were significantly less likely to receive free/
reduced lunch than TIPS 1 Year or Control students. Finally, TIPS 2 Year
students were significantly more likely to earn higher standardized Grade 2

Van Voorhis

321

scores than Control and TIPS 1 Year students, though the latter group scores
were not significantly different.

Materials
TIPS interactive assignments. For 1 week during the summers of 2004 and
2005, the author worked with the TIPS teachers to adapt and/or develop TIPS
weekly math activities based on the districts curriculum objectives that directly
linked to the mathematics standardized test. The third- and fourth-grade TIPS
summer teams developed 30 activities for each year to administer to their
classes of students the following school year.
All TIPS math activities include seven components (Epstein et al., 2009).
The Letter to Parent, Guardian, or Family Partner briefly explains in one
sentence the topic and skill of the assignment. The student writes in the due
date and signs the letter. The Look This Over section shows an example of
the math skill taught in class along with the answer. Now Try This includes
another example for the student to demonstrate the skill of the assignment
with the answer on the back of the page. Practice includes regular homework problems for the student to master the skill. Lets Find Out allows the
student and often the family partner to discover and discuss how the math
skill is used at home or in common situations. Two-way forms of communication are encouraged in the Home-to-School Communication section that
invites the family partner to send an observation, comment, or question to the
teacher about the skill demonstrated and the homework experience. Finally,
a parent/guardian signature is requested on each activity. Each TIPS activity
was interactive (designed for the student to involve a family partner in a certain section of the activity), the students responsibility, easy to read and
understand, and designed for two sides of one page. Teachers also developed
a list of each TIPS assignment and its related standard in the curriculum.
These standards relate directly to skills tested on the districts standardized
mathematics achievement test. Teachers assigned point values to all questions in the TIPS assignments so that each activity was worth 100 points.

Procedure
TIPS condition. During the summer work time, the TIPS teachers wrote a
letter to the families of students in their classes with information on the weekly
use of TIPS math. TIPS activities, printed on green (Grade 3) or orange
(Grade 4) paper, were assigned on Monday and due on Friday. Teachers also

322

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

encouraged families to be a part of the TIPS activity as guided by their child

and the activity instructions. Finally, the letter included information about the
grading of the TIPS and that the activities were designed to help students
review concepts and skills taught in class.
Teachers role-played the presentation of a TIPS activity in the summer to
learn the TIPS procedures they would use in the classroom. They reviewed
the objective of the assignment, the due date, and explained what the students
were asked to do in each assignment. Teachers graded each activity and turned
in data for the study every 9 weeks. In addition to the TIPS assignments,
teachers also assigned their regular program of math homework. These included
independent assignments three or four week nights (i.e., worksheets on basic
mathematics facts).
Control condition. The author met with the Control teachers for 1 day prior
to the start of each school year of the study. The author reviewed the basic
goals of the study and explained the types of data she would be collecting
every 9 weeks during the school year. Control teachers used their normal
mathematics homework practices and homework. In discussion with these
teachers prior to the school year, the author learned that they rarely asked
families to be involved in student math homework and generally assigned
worksheets or problem sets to practice math facts and concepts introduced in
class. Similar to the TIPS group, Control homework was also assigned most
to every week night, and Control students and families completed an end-ofyear survey on math homework including questions about time, attitudes and
feelings about homework, and family involvement in homework.

Variables
This study included several independent and dependent variables to assess
the impact of the TIPS intervention on time on homework, family involvement in homework, student attitudes and feelings, and student math achievement. As the students varied in prior math achievement and family background,
the following independent measures were collected to statistically control for
such differences: prior mathematics achievement, free/reduced lunch status
of student, student race, gender, and grade level. Homework treatment group
was the experimental variable in the study. TIPS homework completion,
accuracy, and percentage of TIPS activities signed by a parent as well as time
on homework, family involvement, math attitudes and feelings, and mathematics achievement were the dependent variables.
Background. The background measures included the students mathematics
report card grade from the prior year, previous standardized mathematics scores,

Van Voorhis

323

gender, ethnicity (Black or White students), and lunch status (students who
receive or do not receive free- or reduced-price meals).
Homework completion. Teachers collected and graded students TIPS and
other math homework assignments each week and provided the data by student number for the author every 9 weeks. TIPS homework data included
whether the student returned the assignment (yes or no) and the average accuracy of all TIPS assignments for 9 weeks. Point values related to the importance of the questions and were standardized across TIPS teachers and TIPS
years (Grades 3 and 4) so that each assignment was worth a total of 100 points.
TIPS teachers also recorded whether assignments were signed by a parent/
family member.
Survey measures. The author designed student and parent surveys each year
to garner information about the TIPS and Control conditions for time on
homework, family involvement, and attitudes and feelings about math class
and math homework assignments. Surveys used in previous studies of parental involvement in homework were collected and adapted to create the specific components of the surveys in the present study (Balli, 1995; Epstein
et al., 1997; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Levin et al., 1997; Author, 2003).
Time on homework. Students and parents reported how much time the student spent on math homework on an average night (0 = 0 min, 1 = 15-20 min,
2 = 30-40 min, 3 = about 1 hr, 4 = more than 1 hr, and 5 = more than 2 hr).
Students and parents also used the same scale to estimate time on a typical
math TIPS homework assignment (TIPS students only), family partner time
on a typical math TIPS (TIPS only), and family partner time on math homework (Control only).
Family involvement. Three questions from the student survey were used to
gauge levels of family involvement in homework for the TIPS and Control
students. These questions asked students to record how often (0 = never, 1 =
a few times, or 2 = a lot) a parent or other adult worked with them on math,
reading, and science homework. Similar questions of family involvement in
homework appeared on the family survey, where parents recorded their involvement on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always).
Math homework attitudes. Students and parents in both conditions answered
several questions about their opinions of math homework and school in general. The opinion items used the response categories of 0 = disagree, 1 = agree
a little, and 2 = agree a lot. Two questions were worded identically across
condition and referred to family discussions about school for students and
families: My family partner/I likes(like) to hear what I/my child am (is) learning in school (HEAR) and I/my child can talk about math with my family
partner/me (TALK). Two questions referred to parentchild interactions:

324

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

Math homework helped my parent/me see what I/my child am (is) learning
(SEE) and My family partner/I liked working on the homework with me/
my child (LIKE). For those two questions, TIPS students and families were
asked about TIPS math assignments, whereas Control students and families
answered about math homework in general. These four survey questions
comprised the items for the average scale for student ( = .70) and family
attitudes ( = .68). Finally, for TIPS students and families only, three survey
questions referred specifically to the TIPS program: TIPS math assignments
are a good idea (students and families); Students should use TIPS next year
(families only); and TIPS math assignments are better than regular math
homework assignments (students only).
Feelings about math homework interactions. Students and parents answered
questions about their feelings while working on math homework together.
Students responded to the following two questions: (a) How do you feel
when you work with your mom or female guardian on math homework? and
(b) How do you think your mom or female guardian feels when she works
with you on math homework? Students used a scale ranging from 1 (unhappy)
to 3 (happy) for each of these questions. Similar questions were asked regarding dad or male guardians, but due to missing data (many students indicated
that they did not work with their fathers on math homework and left these
answers blank), results are not reported here. Parents answered similar questions to those of students and reported their childs feelings while working
with them on math as well as their own feelings while working with their
children on math (1 = very frustrated, 2 = frustrated, 3 = a little frustrated,
4 = ok, 5 = a little happy, 6 = happy, and 7 = very happy). These questions
were identical across TIPS and Control conditions. An average scale was created for the student (2-item scale; = .82) and family (2-item scale; = .80)
reports of emotions during the math homework experience.
Mathematics achievement. Standardized math scores for Grades 2, 3, and 4
were collected by student number from the district office. The standardized
scores represented student performance on the mathematics section of the
Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), including criterionreferenced items directly aligned with the mathematics content standards and
state performance indicators.

Research Questions and Results

Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted to identify the
effects of the TIPS intervention on five dependent constructs: (a) homework
completion and accuracy, (b) family involvement in homework, (c) math

Van Voorhis

325

homework attitudes and feelings, (d) time on homework, and (e) mathematics achievement. These measures permitted the investigation of four main
research questions:
1. What were the return rates and accuracy of the TIPS assignments
and how often did a family partner sign the TIPS assignments?
2. Did the TIPS and Control groups differ in terms of family involvement in and time on homework?
3. Did the TIPS and Control groups express different opinions or feelings about math homework or homework in general? and
4. Were there achievement differences for students in the TIPS and
Control homework conditions?

Use of the TIPS Math Program

Students completed most TIPS assignments in both third and fourth grades.
Specifically, students returned an average of 91% of assignments in third
grade with an average accuracy of 87%, and 81% of TIPS were signed by
a family partner. Though fourth-grade results were slightly lower than thirdgrade results with a return rate, average accuracy and percent signed of
84%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, teachers successfully implemented the
TIPS program.

Family Involvement in Homework

The majority of students and parents both years completed and returned the
end-of-year surveys on family involvement in homework, attitudes and feelings about homework, and time on homework. The student return rate of
surveys was above 90% in Grades 3 and 4, and the family survey return rate
was 93% in Grade 3 and 79% in Grade 4.
Students reported how often a parent or other adult helped them with
math, reading, and science homework. Grade 4 TIPS students ranked their
parental involvement levels significantly higher than those of Control students for math, F(2, 123) = 14.86, p < .001, reading, F(2, 119) = 7.67, p <
.01, and science, F(2, 121) = 5.73, p < .01. Specifically, 93% of TIPS 2 Year
students reported that their parents helped with math homework a lot compared with 57% of TIPS 1 Year students and 32% of Control students. Post
hoc analyses revealed significant differences between all three groups.
Regression analyses confirmed these results by homework condition. After
controlling for ethnicity, free/reduced lunch, gender, and student reported

326

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

Table 2. Means of Student and Family Attitude and Emotion Scales by Homework
Condition in Grades 3 and 4
Homework
condition
Attitudes
Student
Family
Emotions
Student
Family

Grade 3
Control

Grade 4
TIPS

Control

TIPS 1

TIPS 2

1.74
1.73

1.86*
1.85*

1.72
1.60

1.80
1.78

1.83
1.85**

2.52
4.52

2.75
5.56***

2.55
4.61

2.60
4.81

2.94*
5.36

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

level of family involvement in math in Grade 3, students who were in the

TIPS condition ( = .44, t = 4.19***)1 reported significantly higher levels of
family involvement in fourth-grade math homework than Control students.
The condition effect added 19% of explained variance to the full model predicting (25%) of the variance in student reports of family involvement in
math homework.
Family reports of involvement with students in Grade 4 were significantly
different only in math, not in reading or science. That is, TIPS 2 Year families (M = 3.55) reported significantly higher levels of family involvement in
math than did families of students in the Control group (M = 2.74), and those
who used TIPS for 1 Year (M = 2.95), F(2, 115) = 6.77, p < .01. In terms of
the question, 66% of TIPS 2 Year families, 36% of TIPS 1 Year families, and
25% of Control families checked always for their involvement levels in
math homework. Regression analyses confirmed the positive and significant
effect of being in the TIPS group, = .30, t = 3.11**) over the Control group,
after controlling for ethnicity, free/reduced lunch, gender, and Grade 3
family-reported level of involvement in math homework. Homework condition added 8% of explained variance to the full model accounting for 47% of
the variation in fourth-grade family reports of level of family involvement in
math homework.

Attitudes, Feelings, and Time on Math Homework

Student and family attitudes about homework and TIPS. Students and families
provided their opinions of school math homework. Table 2 presents the

Van Voorhis

327

means and significant differences for emotions and attitudes by TIPS and
Control conditions for students and families in grades 3 (TIPS and Control)
and 4 (TIPS 2 Years, TIPS 1 Year, Control).
Though the differences are not all significant (5/8 are significant), it remains
interesting that the table displays means that are consistently higher for the
TIPS groups over the Control group. Specifically, family attitudes in both
gradesGrade 3, F(1, 113) = 4.70, p < .05, and Grade 4, F(2, 104) = 6.83,
p < .01and student attitudes in Grade 3 only, F(1, 113) = 4.51, p < .05, were
significantly higher for TIPS groups. Post hoc analyses for Grade 4 family
attitudes revealed significant differences between Control (M = 1.60) and
TIPS 1 (M = 1.78) families as well as Control and TIPS 2 Year (M = 1.85)
families. In fact, 62% of TIPS 2 Year families agreed a lot with statements
that they liked working with their children, enjoyed hearing what their child
was learning, were able to see what their children were learning from math,
and their child was able to talk about math with them. This compares with
30% of Control families and 55% of TIPS 1 Year families.
Across both grades, regression analyses were also conducted to analyze
the effect of homework condition (TIPS vs. Control) on student and family
attitudes; controlling for gender, ethnicity, poverty, and previous math report
card grade. Being in the TIPS group positively predicted student and family
attitudes about the math homework experience. In addition, families of boys
and White students tended to rate their homework experiences less positively
than families of girls and Black students. These models failed to account for
much of the variation in attitudes (between 5% and 29%), but these analyses
do note the positive and significant effect of the TIPS condition over and
above other background variables.
TIPS students and families also provided a gauge of their attitudes of the
TIPS program. Three survey questions related specifically to opinions of the
TIPS math intervention. Ninety-five percent or more of TIPS students and
families in both years agreed (a little or a lot) that the TIPS math program was
a good idea. TIPS students were asked whether they believed TIPS was better than regular math homework. Eighty-five percent of TIPS 3rd graders and
95% of TIPS 4th graders agreed a little or a lot to that question. TIPS families
were asked whether the TIPS math program should be used by students in the
next school year. Ninety-seven percent of third-grade families and 100% of
fourth-grade families agreed a little or a lot with this question. TIPS families
also had the opportunity to write comments about the program. Thirty-four
families in Grade 3 and 24 families in Grade 4 took time to write a comment.
Ninety-three percent of these comments were positive evaluations of the program such as: I like the green sheets (TIPS Math) because sometimes I

328

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

learned along with my child (case M3CY11). Another family member noted,
They were very very (I could keep on going) good. They (the school) should
consider doing the other grades or other subjects (case M4HS06).
Feelings about math homework. Table 2 also displays student and family
reports of their emotions or feelings during the math homework experience. Significant differences emerged in these scales for Grade 3 families,
F(1, 117) = 14.24, p < .001, and Grade 4 students, F(2, 128) = 3.81, p <
.05. TIPS 2 Year students reported an average emotion of 2.94 while working with their families on math homework while TIPS 1 Year students
reported an average of 2.60, a significant difference. In addition, Control
students indicated an average of 2.55, which, in post hoc analyses, was
significantly lower than TIPS 2 Year student feelings but not different
from TIPS 1 Year reports. In terms of percentages, 87% of TIPS 2 year
students reported an average of happy feelings for themselves and their
families while working on math homework together. This compares with
only 67% of TIPS 1 Year students and 53% of Control students reporting
a happy experience. Therefore, only 13% of TIPS 2 Year students
reported their math homework experience as ok, whereas 33% of
TIPS 1 Year reported their experiences as ok or unhappy, and 47% of
Control students did so.
Across both grades, regression analyses also indicated that being in the
TIPS group positively predicted student and family emotions about the math
homework experience (models explained between 7% and 14% of the variation in emotions), after accounting for gender, ethnicity, free/reduced lunch
status, and previous math report card grade. In addition, families of boys and
White students tended to rate their homework experiences less positively
than families of girls and Black students.
Time on homework. No significant condition effects emerged for the amount
of time children spent on math homework as reported by students or families.
The mean scores for student reports of time on math homework in Grades 3
and 4 were 1.42 and 1.44, respectively, or between 15-20 min and 30-40 min
per night. Family reports were similar for both groups. More than 70% of
TIPS students and 60% of TIPS families in Grades 3 and 4 reported that children spent 15 to 20 min on a typical TIPS sheet.

Mathematics Achievement
Multiple regression analyses were used to assess the impact of the TIPS
intervention on standardized mathematics test scores. Table 3 displays the
results for Grade 4 standardized scores in math, accounting for Grade 2
performance.

329

Van Voorhis
Table 3. Effects of Student Background and Homework Condition on Grade
4 Standardized Math Achievement Test Scores, Controlling on Prior Math
Achievement
Model 1
Variable

Gender (1 = male,
.06
0.83
0 = female)
Race (1 = White,
.33
3.83***
0 = Black)
Free/reduced lunch
.22 2.51*
(1 = yes, 0 = no)
Grade 2 math
standardized test
score
Math homework group (reference: control)
TIPS 2 years
TIPS 1 year
(Grade 3 or 4)
R2/adjusted R2
.23/.22

Model 2

Model 3

.00

0.02

.01

0.21

.04

0.52

.05

0.72

.10

1.48

.05

0.80

.68

10.27***

.66

10.39***

.19
.13

3.22**
2.23*

.55/.54

.59/.57

Note: N = 142. Grade 2 and Grade 4 achievement test scores were provided by the district
office for students who remained in the school, were not in special education or on modified
curriculum, and were present for the test administration. R2 = .319 for Model 2 (p = .000);
R2 = .034 for Model 3 (p = .003).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model 1 includes background variables and accounts for 22% of the variance in math scores. White students earned significantly higher math achievement test scores than Black students, and students receiving free/reduced
price meals earned lower standardized math scores than those students not
receiving meals.
Model 2 adds the effect of Grade 2 standardized math score and adds 32%
of explained variance. Not surprisingly, students with a higher math score in
Grade 2 were significantly more likely to earn a higher Grade 4 math score.
With the inclusion of this variable in the model, none of the other background
variables continued to result in significant explanation of variance in Grade 4
math scores.
Finally, Model 3 adds the effect of math homework group to the model.
Even after accounting for prior achievement, students who used TIPS for 1 year
( = .13) or two ( = .19) had significantly higher standardized mathematics
achievement scores than Control students. This full model accounts for 57%
of the variation in Grade 4 mathematics achievement scores.

330

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to learn whether math homework that was
designed to involve families could add meaning to the homework process and
increase the benefits of homework for students and families compared with
math homework that students are asked to complete alone. Given current
discussions of the challenges associated with math homework practice, it is
important to look deeply into the results of homework programs in specific
subjects over time. This study provides evidence that sustained use of TIPS
homework (i.e., activities that are well designed, clear in instruction, and
linked to the curriculum), related to more positive student and family feelings and attitudes about math learning and higher levels of elementary student achievement, as measured by standardized test scores.
The study is unique in collecting data on a homework intervention over
2 years, having affect and achievement data from students and from parents,
and delving deeply into homework processes, reactions, and results. The study
applied a strong quasi-experimental design (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell,
2002). By randomly assigning teachers to intervention and control conditions, selecting classrooms similar in student populations at the outset of the
study, using regression techniques to control for variables on which students
differed, and using prior achievement test scores for both intervention and
control groups as pretest variables, this study increased our understanding
of homework attitudes, behaviors, interactions at home, and the effects of the
intervention on emotional and cognitive outcomes for students.

TIPS Generated More Positive Feelings About Math

The results of this study suggest that the TIPS interactive homework process
generates more positive feelings of students and families about math than does
regular homework. One parents written comments are typical of many
comments on the surveys: My daughter and I really enjoyed working on
TIPS math together. I hope the program goes school-wide! (case M3CY09).
It is, indeed, unusual for parents and students to report being happy when
working on math homework together, but the percentages of such reports
were higher in the TIPS than in the Control condition.
This study cannot identify the cause of the differences in feelings
about math, but one possible explanation may be that families and students
can work together when they have better or clearer instructions about how
to complete math skills and how to discuss the use of math skills in real
world situations. Survey items addressing the issue of adequate information

Van Voorhis

331

from the school consistently ranked in favor of the TIPS groups. In other
words, TIPS students and families reported that the level of math information and instruction they received was better than that reported by the
Control group. Future studies should investigate why students and families
feel better about math when working on TIPS or other well-crafted math
interventions.

TIPS Encouraged Higher Levels of

Family Involvement in Math
TIPS students and families reported higher levels of family involvement in
math homework than did Control students and families. This finding extends
results from the three previous studies of TIPS conducted over much shorter
time periods that found the intervention promoted higher levels of family
involvement in the subject for which they are designed (Balli, 1995; Epstein
et al., 1997; Author, 2003). As noted by one TIPS parent, I feel that my
child and I have benefited from TIPS math sheets because it has given me a
better opportunity to follow what he is learning in math (case M4HS11).
TIPS and other interventions like it may equalize the playing field for more
students and families by providing the information they need to successfully
discuss classwork at home.

TIPS Students Earned Higher Standardized

Mathematics Test Scores
After controlling for differences in student background characteristics, including prior math test scores, free/reduced lunch, gender, and ethnicity, TIPS students earned significantly higher standardized math test scores than did Control
students. The relationship was most robust for students who used TIPS for
2 years (a strong effect size) but less significant for those who used TIPS for
1 year in Grade 3 or Grade 4 (a nonexistent to small effect size). Exposure
to TIPS for 2 years seemed to strengthen the relationship.
These achievement results paired with higher levels of family involvement and more positive attitudes and emotions create a well-rounded picture
suggesting the benefits of using the intervention over two consecutive years.
As the TIPS assignments had documented links to tested standards, and the
TIPS 2 year group had as many as 60 opportunities for this type of practice in
homework, it is not surprising that an effect on standardized test scores
emerged for this group in comparison with the Control group. It also makes
sense that the result does not contribute more than 3% of explained variance

332

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

to the achievement model, given the fact that TIPS represented only one
15-20 min homework assignment weekly.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Although this study represents an important contribution to the literature on
homework, the experiment points to ways to improve future studies.
Include a larger number of students at the outset of the study. Longitudinal
studies of an intervention that will follow students to one or more new grade
levels should start with a larger number of students. In this study, because
Grade 3 students were placed in classrooms of many different teachers who
were not included in this study, there were relatively few students in the TIPS
2 Year group. Future research should start with a larger number of schools,
teachers, and classrooms and negotiate student placements from 1 year to the
next to retain the largest possible study samples in intervention and control
conditions for full longitudinal analyses of the impact of the intervention.
Such examinations are extremely intensive and require strong connections
and commitments from school staff, district education offices, and researchers, but knowing the long-term impact of homework interventions may be
worth the investment.
Standardize homework practices and assignments across treatment and control
groups. Although TIPS students and families rated the TIPS math program
positively and asked that it be used in the future, an ideal study would compare
TIPS and control classes that had exactly the same homework assignments
except for the family involvement component. Given the same assignments
in the same order, on the same skills, with variation only in guidance to students to interact with a family partner would allow component analyses of the
impact of family involvement on student learning. This was accomplished in
a middle school study of TIPS science homework (Author, 2003) but remains
for a future study of elementary grades math. This kind of control is easier in
small studies with few teachers but is another way to strengthen the design
and power of larger, longitudinal studies in the future.
Measure the quality of teachers implementation of the intervention. This
study collected data every 9 weeks from teachers to monitor students
homework completion and accuracy as well as data from students and families on their reactions to homework over 2 years. Future studies could
directly observe and measure more of the details of teachers implementation of the interactive and standard homework processes. This study
included a brief self-report survey of the 16 involved teachers asking them
to evaluate how well they introduced assignments, shared correct answers

Van Voorhis

333

with their students, reminded students of homework due dates, and so on.
Only one of these questions resulted in significant differences across the
groups, namely, the fact that TIPS teachers were significantly more likely
to encourage family involvement in assignments than Control teachers,
F(1, 15) = 7.76, p < .05. Studies including self-report measures and direct
observation of teacher practice paired with specific details of the components of the independent assignments across the groups may help clarify the
specific aspects of programs like TIPS that link to achievement and attitudinal outcomes.

Implications for Teaching Practice

Two main implications for teaching practice emerge from this study.
Well-designed homework does not require more student time, but it does
necessitate support for and effort from teachers. More time on student homework is not necessarily better when it comes to homework; better is better.
TIPS and Control students did not differ in their reports of time spent on math
homework. Therefore, the TIPS math homework effect on standardized
achievement test scores cannot be attributed to more student time on homework. The achievement effect may be due to qualities of homework design
(better and clearer instruction for involvement and links to curriculum standards) and the regular communications at home that reinforced student learning.
Schools should broaden their discussions of homework beyond issues of time
and reflect on effective elements of homework design (Author, 2004), coordination of homework among teachers across school years, and communications about homework with students and parents. Well-designed homework
programs require teacher time, coordination and planning of homework practices in the summer prior to the start of the school year, and comprehensive
understanding of the subject-specific curriculum. These efforts can engage
teachers, students, and families and provide programs that teachers may use
for years to come. Surveys of teachers in this study indicated that 7/8 TIPS
teachers were very likely to use the TIPS program the following year and
8/8 were likely to use it in the future. These summer homework efforts on
the part of teachers must be valued and supported fiscally by district and
school-level administration. Without it, teachers are left individually to plan
their own assignments when they could be planning and learning from each
other in teams.
Homework can engage more students and families in learning. Homework can
be important and engaging. Mathematics homework may be improved by
moving beyond low-cognitive-demand activities (e.g., simple procedural

334

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

problem solving and routine memorization) to include high-cognitive-demand

activities (e.g., understanding and discussing math concepts in real-world
situations; Tate, 2006). Teachers want students to talk about what they are
learning in class with someone at home, and the interactive homework provided these teachers an opportunity to encourage family involvement in mathrelated discussions. When teachers provide invitations to parents through
students (Green, Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007) and students
follow through, students demonstrate that they care enough about what they
are learning to share and explain it to someone else. When parents see their
children excited about learning, they are more likely to be engaged as well,
especially if students have been guided to conduct conversations with a parent as part of the homework. Thus, homework can foster positive communications when its content has been well explained in class, when students and
parents understand their roles in the process, and when teachers assign consistent but reasonable amounts of interesting homework that promotes and
inspires learning.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge her colleagues Joyce L. Epstein, Kenyatta
Williams, Steven Sheldon, Mavis Sanders, and Claudia Galindo for their guidance,
support, and suggestions. The author is especially grateful for the partnership of the
teachers and district office personnel involved in this study.

Authors Note
The analyses and opinions are the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies
of the funding source.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from
the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) for the
Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI) to the Center on School, Family, and
Community Partnerships.

Note
1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Van Voorhis

335

References
Balli, S. J. (1995). The effects of differential prompts on family involvement with middle-grades homework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of MissouriColumbia, Columbia.
Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998). Family involvement with childrens
homework: An intervention in the middle grades. Family Relations, 47, 149-157.
Bennett, S., & Kalish, N. (2006). The case against homework: How homework is hurting our children and what we can do about it. New York: Crown.
Chandler, J., Argyris, D., Barnes, W., Goodman, I., & Snow, C. (1986). Parents as
teachers: Observations of low-income parents and children in a homework-like
task. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), Ethnographic studies of literacy
(pp. 171-187). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cooper, H. (1989). Homework. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Cooper, H. (2007). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators,
teachers, and parents (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Cooper, H., & Lindsay, J. J., & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in the home: How student,
family, and parenting-style differences relate to the homework process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 464-487.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among
attitudes about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and
student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 70-83.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of Educational
Research, 76, 1-62.
Corno, L., & Xu, J. (2004). Homework as the job of childhood. Theory Into Practice,
43, 227-233.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican-American home: Socializing children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 495-513.
Epstein, J. L. (1988). Homework practices, achievement, and behaviors of elementary school students (Report 26). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center on
Families, Communities, Schools, and Childrens Learning.
Epstein, J. L. (1995, May). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the
children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 701-712.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Epstein, J. L., & Lee, S. (1995). National patterns of school and family connections in
the middle grades. In B. Ryan, G. Adams, T. Gulotta, R. Weissberg, & R. Hampton
(Eds.), The familyschool connection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 108-154).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

336

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

Epstein, J. L., Salinas, K. C., & Jackson, V. E. (1992). Manual for teachers and prototype activities: Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) Language Arts,
Science/Health, and Math Interactive Homework in the middle grades. Baltimore:
Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn,
N. R., Van Voorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., Greenfeld, M. D., Hutchins,
D. J., & Williams, K. J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your
handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., Simon, B. S., & Salinas, K. C. (1997, September). Effects of Teachers
Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) Language Arts Interactive Homework in
the middle grades (Research Bulletin No. 18). Phi Delta Kappa, 1-6.
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers roles in
designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181-193.
Fehrmann, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influences on school
learning: Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school
grades. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 330-337.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007).
Parents motivations for involvement in childrens education: An empirical test of
a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 532-544.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediators of childrens perceptions of their parents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.
Ho, E. S., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade
achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Burow, R. (1995). Parents reported
involvement in students homework: Strategies and practices. Elementary School
Journal, 95, 435-450.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. B., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M.,
& Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195-210.
Hyde, J. S., Else-Quest, N. M., Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E., & Romberg, T. (2006).
Mathematics in the home: Homework practices and mother-child interactions
doing mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 136-152.
Keith, T. Z. (1982). Time spent on homework and high school grades: A large sample
path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 248-253.
Keith, T. Z., & Cool, V. A. (1992). Testing models of school learning: Effects of quality of instruction, motivation, academic coursework, and homework on academic
achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 207-226.

Van Voorhis

337

Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Troutman, G. C., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P. S., & Singh, K.
(1993). Does parental involvement affect eighth grade student achievement? Structural analysis of national data. School Psychology Review, 22, 474-496.
Kelley, M. L., & Kahle, A. L. (1995). Homework interventions: A review of procedures for improving performance. Special Services in the Schools, 10(1), 1-24.
Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning. Boston: Beacon.
Leone, C. M., & Richards, M. H. (1989). Classwork and homework in early adolescence: The ecology of achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18,
531-548.
Levin, I., Levy-Shiff, R., Appelbaum-Peled, T., Katz, I., Komar, M., & Meiran, N.
(1997). Antecedents and consequences of maternal involvement in childrens
homework: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
18, 207-222.
McCaslin, M., & Murdock, T. (1991). The emergent interaction of home and school in
the development of students adaptive learning. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 213-259). Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
McDermott, R. P., Goldman, S. V., & Varenne, H. (1984). When school goes home:
Some problems in the organization of homework. Teachers College Record, 85,
390-409.
MetLife, Inc. (2007). The Metlife Survey of the American Teacher: The homework
experience. New York: Author.
Muhlenbruck, L., Cooper, H., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. L. (2000). Homework and
achievement: Explaining the different strengths of relation at the elementary and
secondary school levels. Social Psychology of Education, 3, 295-317.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nations report card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010-451). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Paschal, R. A., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1984). The effects of homework on
learning: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 97-104.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Parent involvement in homework:
A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1039-1104.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sharp, C., Keys, W., & Benefield, P. (2001). Homework: A review of recent research.
Slough: NFER.
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community
partnerships and math achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196-206.

338

Education and Urban Society 43(3)

Simon, B. S. (2001). Family involvement in high school: Predictors and effects. NASSP
Bulletin, 85(627), 8-19.
Tate, W. F. (2006). Do the math: Cognitive demand makes a difference. Research
Points, 4(2), 1-4.
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family
involvement and science achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 96(6)
(323-338).
Van Voorhis, F. L. (2004) Reflecting on the homework ritual: Assignments and
designs. Theory Into Practice, 43(3) (205-211).
Van Voorhis, F. L., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). TIPS interactive homework CD for the
elementary and middle grades. Baltimore: Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2003). Family help and homework management reported by
middle schools students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 503-518.
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (1998). Case studies of families doing third-grade homework.
Teachers College Record, 100, 402-436.

Bio
Frances L. Van Voorhis, PhD, works with school and district leaders to improve
homework for students, teachers, and families. She is an author of both research and
practical articles on homework as well as the effects of the Teachers Involve Parents
in Schoolwork (TIPS) interactive homework process.