homework correction

• Give learners a chance to compare their answers in pairs. They can then correct / change / complete their own answers before a whole class check. • Take names out of a hat to nominate who will answer (make sure this is done in a ‘fun’ way, explaining they have an opportunity to PASS if they want). • Use a ball nominate who gets to give their answer to questions. Whoever gets the ball throws it to the next learner. Again, give them an opportunity to pass if necessary. • Alternate between asking for answers to be volunteered and calling on specific learners to answer questions. • Pre-prepare a grid that includes the question numbers for the various exercises that are to be corrected. Leave a space next to each question number. At the beginning of the lesson, get learners to put their name down to answer the various questions. Tell them that, even if they did not do the homework they can still try to answer a question of their choice but do not force them to put their names down. Use the list to call on learners to answer the questions in turn. • Vary the order in which exercises are corrected • Change the time of the lesson in which homework is corrected. Most learners expect homework corrections to come right at the beginning of a lesson. • Provide mini keys of individual exercises to distribute to pairs. Learners then take it in turns to ‘play the teacher’ and check each other’s answers. Remember to provide an opportunity for the discussion of problem areas at the end of the pair-work session or at the end of the lesson. • Spot check on lexis by occasionally eliciting synonyms/ antonyms/ similar expressions/ analogous idioms of items taken from the exercises being corrected. • Create a multiple choice answer key for a few exercises where three possible answers to each question are provided, only one of which is correct. Learners then compare their own answers with the alternatives given, then choose the answer that they consider correct.

Make sure lots of praise and encouragement is given for answers that are even partly correct and, where possible, give positive feedback for areas that are not necessarily the focus of the exercise (such as good pronunciation in the case of grammatical errors or wrong answers in comprehension exercises).

Remember: learners quickly tune in to the mood of their teacher. If the teacher presents homework correction as a valid and interesting part of the learning process it will be infectious and homework corrections need never be boring again!Homework Correction

Share this:

About kintaro63

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Search for:

Recent Posts

• Some of the Best Travel Literature of all Time
• Language Teaching Professionals
• American Dream
• How to do Well as a Udemy Instructor?
• School Owners Mini-Conference
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• February 2023
• February 2022
• November 2021
• February 2021
• December 2020
• October 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• October 2018
• September 2018
• August 2018
• February 2018
• January 2018
• December 2017
• November 2017
• September 2017
• August 2017
• January 2017
• November 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• February 2016
• August 2013
• January 2013
• November 2012
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

How to Teach English in Japan

Top Posts & Pages

• Some of the Best Travel Literature of all Time
• How to do Well as a Udemy Instructor?
• Coping with Jealousy & Comparing at Work
• The Importance of Learning English
• Chat GPT Prompts for English Teachers in Japan
• Using Board Games in the English Class
• Teaching English to Children

• Airbnb; want to host ?
• Avanti Staff
• Breaking News English
• EFL Magazine
• Eikaiwa Owners Group
• English Online – Easy News Articles for Students
• ESL Library
• ESL Teachers Board
• ETJ Independents
• ETJ, English Teachers in Japan
• Flamingo find Students
• Free Video Editing for Teachers
• Gamification Software
• Hello Sensei
• I am Hakone
• ISL Collective
• JALT: Performance in Education
• Japan Living
• Japan Meteorological Agency
• JET Program
• Jobs in Japan
• Kevin R Burns
• Kevin`s English Schools
• Kevin`s Hakone Guest Houses
• Kevin`s Instructor Page at Udemy
• Kev`s Twisted Humor
• Kimi Information Centre
• Linguahouse
• Ohayo Sensei
• Online Courses Galore
• Open Online Digital Tools for Learning
• Shinyurigaokan, The
• Travel Writing from A-Z & Chat GPT
• West Tokyo JALT

Sports & Hobbies

• JIGG Kanagawa

• 10,645 hits

Recent Comments

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Find your institution

Examples: State University, [email protected]

Other access options

• More options

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• More like this
• Preview Available
• Scholarly Journal

EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR HOMEWORK CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

You might have access to the full article...

Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.

Content area

The aim of this paper is to investigate the ways through which homework correction can be used effectively as a teaching strategy that leads to increased learning motivation from the part of the students. Most often, homework is regarded as a "necessary evil" by students, who do not immediately see the intrinsic value of this undertaking. In general, they do it just to get rid of it as quickly as possible, and very rarely do they actually learn anything from the mistakes they have made, unless properly exploited in class, with the right amount of feedback and appropriate strategies used by the teacher. I will present an experiment I carried out with Greek-Romanian students, enrolled in a Greek school based in Bucharest, Romania.

Key words: Homework correction; Grammar games; Bilingual students.

1 Introduction

In Romania there exist few schools which function according to foreign curricula, especially English-speaking schools, which are recognised in Great Britain, or the USA. Such is the case of the Athens Greek School in Bucharest, where the materials used are supplied by the Greek Ministry of Education, as well as the curriculum according to which the lesson plans are carried out. In the following I will present a didactic project applied to the 5th and 6th grade students. In Greece, grades D, E, ST (4th, 5th and 6th grades) are considered to be part of the primary school and follow the same Curriculum. Primary school learners should gradually develop the following skills:

a) Receptive and productive speech skills such as:

- Understanding and production of continuous and coherent oral and written language;

- Understand and use concepts;

- Production of speech acts;

- Learning and communication strategies;

- Parallel use of native and foreign language;

- Developing multicultural awareness.

These skills are described below.

a. Understanding oral and written language:

By the end f the cycle, students should be able to:

- Understand all the known phrases and the general meaning of short oral or written texts containing known data.

- Infer the meaning of unknown words and phrases from the context.

- Understand short texts instructions, descriptions or other information, dialogues etc, where the language is known and simple suggestions.

- Understand discourse containing mostly known phrases.

- Understand...

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

• Our Mission

Using Test Corrections as a Learning Tool

Assigning corrections as classwork and then retesting students allows a teacher to accurately assess if they have mastered the material.

Test corrections are an invaluable tool for feedback and learning. They are not, however, an effective tool for assessing what students have learned, nor are they an effective means of guaranteeing high levels of learning for all learners.

Imagine this—a child playing with a friend won’t share their toy. Drama ensues. The teacher intervenes, pointing out that this behavior is inappropriate. The child goes back to their playmate and reluctantly shares the toy. Has the lesson been learned? Will the child willingly share the toy tomorrow without prompting? We don’t know. We don’t know until the situation repeats, and we can observe the child’s behavior in the moment. 

It’s the same way with test corrections. Typically, a teacher hands back the test with incorrect answers identified, and the student works to correct the errors on their own. They may redo the problem correctly, or maybe not. If they thought their grade was acceptable, they lose interest in the process. If a student is not confident in their understanding of the standard, they become even more disengaged from this process. 

Occasionally, students are required to complete a reflective piece, thinking about their errors. Reflecting on their work and correcting errors are valuable learning experiences, but they aren’t an accurate measure of what the student knows and understands. 

Typically, students are correcting their mistakes in order to receive partial credit back on their test grade. Why not full credit? If one truly believes that test corrections are accurate evidence of students’ understanding, then shouldn’t they receive full credit?

I would argue that teachers are not willing to give full credit for test corrections because they recognize that it isn’t accurate evidence. Students should have the opportunity to earn full credit for their understanding, and that’s why I recommend test corrections as a learning experience followed by retesting.

Corrections Through Station Rotation

In my classroom, I use short leveled assessments with foundational, grade-level, and advanced questions all in their own sections.

After a test, I correct their work, circling incorrect answers and then take a day to implement stations. I group students with similar performances on the assessment. Two stations in the room are self-regulated—one utilizes Quizizz , an online program to review an older skill, and the other focuses on building vocabulary. The third station is at a table with me where we do test corrections.

Within this small group, I hand back their tests with incorrect problems circled, and I ask students if they can correct their mistakes. I also make sure that they read any comments I had written on the test and give them the chance to ask questions or respond.

By doing this in small groups in front of me, I ensure academic integrity and witness the ease or difficulty students have identifying or correcting their mistakes. I can engage individuals in meaningful conversations about their errors and solicit from them strategies to avoid their mistakes in the future.

Grouping students with similar mistakes lowers the embarrassment threshold—they know they are not alone in their struggles. This creates a common bond within the group and a willingness to help each other and engage in mathematical discourse. If I see a student really struggling with a correction, I have the opportunity to work through it with them, and then immediately give them similar problems to practice.

Because I am not using corrections as an assessment, there are no limits to the types of reteaching that can happen in the small group. This process emphasizes the power of yet—they may not know it yet , even after the test, but we will work on it together until they learn it.

A day or two later, I make time in my classroom to retest for full credit. I might include the reassessment on our next test or quiz, or I might pull out the retesters to a small group while the other students work on a separate assignment. I can also use the levels on my assessment to differentiate the retests. A student who correctly answered 100 percent of the foundational questions does not need to retest that section. A student who only missed the top-level questions can redo just that section. The specificity and brevity of the reassessments creates more willingness on the part of the student to retest.

This method of doing test corrections and retests does create more work for me. I won’t deny that. But it does more to guarantee student learning than the traditional test-correction process, which tends to be optional. A teacher hands back the test, and students look at the grade at the top of the paper. If they are content with their grade, they aren’t interested in performing test corrections. If they are interested, it’s then a question of when.

Some teachers allow class time for corrections; for others, it has to be done after school or during study hall. If students want to do the corrections and can find the time, they can. Test corrections done in station rotations are not optional. All students are expected to reflect on their performance and correct their mistakes. Creating class time for corrections and reassessments sends a message to all students that their teachers believe they can be successful, we are here to support them, and we expect them to achieve. Learning is not optional.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The effects of teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' efl performance: a randomized-group design.

• 1 Departamento de Psicologia Aplicada, Escola de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
• 2 Departamento de Psicologia, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
• 3 Vicerrectoría Académica, Universidad Central de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile
• 4 Facultad de Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile

This study analyzed the effects of five types of homework follow-up practices (i.e., checking homework completion; answering questions about homework; checking homework orally; checking homework on the board; and collecting and grading homework) used in class by 26 teachers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) using a randomized-group design. Once a week, for 6 weeks, the EFL teachers used a particular type of homework follow-up practice they had previously been assigned to. At the end of the 6 weeks students completed an EFL exam as an outcome measure. The results showed that three types of homework follow-up practices (i.e., checking homework orally; checking homework on the board; and collecting and grading homework) had a positive impact on students' performance, thus highlighting the role of EFL teachers in the homework process. The effect of EFL teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' performance was affected by students' prior knowledge, but not by the number of homework follow-up sessions.

Introduction

Homework is defined as a set of school tasks assigned by teachers to be completed by students out of school ( Cooper, 2001 ). Several studies have showed the positive impact of this instructional tool to enhance students' school performance and develop study skills, self-regulation, school engagement, discipline, and responsibility (e.g., Cooper et al., 2006 ; Rosário et al., 2009 , 2011 ; Buijs and Admiraal, 2013 ; Hagger et al., 2015 ).

In the homework process teachers have two major tasks: designing and setting activities ( Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001 , 2012 ; Trautwein et al., 2009a ), and checking and/or providing homework feedback to students ( Trautwein et al., 2006b ; Núñez et al., 2014 ). Cooper (1989) called the later “classroom follow-up” (p. 87). Classroom follow-up includes feedback provided by the teacher (e.g., written comments, marking homework, and incentives; Cooper, 1989 , 2001 ). Hattie and Timperley (2007) defined feedback as the information provided by an educational agent or the student (self) on aspects of the performance. Feedback is an important source of information for checking answers ( Narciss, 2004 ) and improving academic performance ( Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006 ; Shute, 2008 ; Duijnhouwer et al., 2012 ). According to Walberg and Paik (2000) , feedback is “the key to maximizing the positive impact of homework” (p. 9) because teachers take advantage of the opportunity to reinforce the work that was well-done by the students or teach them something new that would help them improve their work. Moreover, Cooper (1989 , 2001) argued that the way teachers manage students' homework assignments presented in classroom may influence how much students benefit from homework.

Research on homework, with a particular focus on the homework follow-up practices commonly used by teachers, has looked into various practices such as homework control perceived by students (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006a , b ), teachers' feedback on homework ( Cardelle and Corno, 1981 ; Elawar and Corno, 1985 ), and feedback on homework perceived by students (e.g., Xu, 2008 , 2010 ). Studies conducted in several countries (e.g., Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore) reported homework control (i.e., checking whether students have completed their homework) as the homework follow-up practice teachers use in class most often in elementary and middle school levels (see Trautwein et al., 2009a ; Kaur, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ). However, studies carried out in mathematics and French as a second language concluded that controlling homework completion reported by middle school students, or controlling students' homework style reported by teachers (e.g., “By looking at a student's assignment, I can quickly tell how much effort he/she has put into it”) did not have any effect on middle school students' achievement ( Trautwein et al., 2002 , 2009a ). To our knowledge, only the study by Trautwein et al. (2006b) found a positive predictive effect of homework control perceived by middle school students on students' homework effort in French as a Foreign Language at the student level but not at the class level.

Regarding homework feedback, Walberg and Paik (2000) described “[homework feedback as] the key to maximizing the positive impact of homework” (p. 9). In fact, the literature has evidenced a positive relationship between homework feedback and students' outcomes. For example, Xu (2008 , 2010) examined the benefits of homework feedback using a measure of teacher's feedback on homework. This measure assessed middle and high school students' perceptions on topics such as: discussing homework, collecting homework, checking homework, grading homework [i.e., assigning numerical grades for homework], and counting homework completion for students' overall grade. However, Xu (2008) ; Xu (2010) did notanalyzed the impact of any particular feedback practice. The same author found a positive relationship between homework feedback provided by teachers (as perceived by the middle and high school students) and students' interest in homework ( Xu, 2008 ); students' homework management ( Xu, 2012 ; Xu and Wu, 2013 ); and students' homework completion ( Xu, 2011 ). More recently, Núñez et al. (2014) analyzed the relationship between teachers' homework feedback as perceived by students from the fifth to the twelfth grade and academic achievement, and reported an indirect relationship between homework feedback and academic achievement through students' homework behaviors (e.g., amount of homework completed).

Other studies on homework have examined the effects of written feedback on students' academic outcomes. In particular, Cardelle and Corno (1981) and Elawar and Corno (1985) , examined the effects of three types of written homework feedback (i.e., praise, constructive criticism, constructive criticism plus praise) using an experimental design, and concluded that student's performance when given constructive criticism plus praise was higher than when given the other two types of feedback in primary education ( Elawar and Corno, 1985 ) or in higher education ( Cardelle and Corno, 1981 ). These results stress how important teachers' feedback may be not only because of its positive effect on homework, but also because it provides students with information on how to improve their work ( Cardelle and Corno, 1981 ). The synthesis by Walberg et al. (1985) confirmed the results of previous studies and showed that “commented upon or graded homework” (p.76) increased the positive effect of homework on academic achievement of elementary and secondary students.

The literature has shown the effect of some teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' homework behaviors and academic achievement ( Xu, 2012 ; Xu and Wu, 2013 ; Núñez et al., 2014 ), yet the use of different measures and sources of information (e.g., see Trautwein et al., 2006b , 2009a ) makes it difficult for researchers to draw conclusions about the benefits of the various types of homework follow-up practices. Moreover, Trautwein et al. (2006b) suggested that future studies should include other dimensions of teachers' homework practices (e.g., checking homework completion, grading homework). However, to our knowledge, research has not yet analyzed the effects of the various types of homework follow-up practices used by teachers.

To address this call, we used a quasi-experimental design in a study conducted in an authentic learning environment in order to analyze the relationship between five types of homework follow-up practices (i.e., 1, Checking homework completion ; 2, Answering questions about homework ; 3, Checking homework orally ; 4, Checking homework on the board ; and 5, Collecting and grading homework ) used by EFL teachers and their students' performance in English. Findings may be useful to school administrators and teachers as they may learn and reflect upon the effects of the homework follow-up practices used in class, which may in turn promote homework effectiveness and school success.

Considering the scarce results of prior studies, it was not possible to establish specific hypotheses regarding the relationship between type of homework feedback and student academic performance. However, taking into account the nature of each type of feedback and its implications for student learning process, in this study we hypothesize that:

(1) The types of homework feedback analyzed are differentially associated with student academic performance (increasing from types 1–5);

(2) The magnitude of the impact of the types of teacher homework feedback on academic performance is associated with students' prior level of performance.

Participants

A randomized-group design study was conducted in which 45 EFL teachers (classes) were randomly assigned to five homework follow-up conditions (nine EFL teachers per condition). Nineteen teachers were excluded from the study for various reasons (three were laid off, six did not give an accurate report of the procedures followed or submitted the data requested, and 10 did not follow the protocol closely. In the end 26 EFL teachers (20 females) aged 28–54 participated in the study. The final distribution of the teachers per condition was as follows: Type 1 (4); Type 2 (3); Type 3 (5); Type 4 (15); Type 5 (2). Participants had 3–30 years of teaching experience ( M = 19) and taught English to a total of 553 sixth-graders at six state schools in the north of Portugal. Students' age ranged 10–13 ( M = 11.05; SD = 0.87), and there were 278 girls (50.3%) and 275 boys (49.7%).

Learning English as a foreign language is compulsory from fifth to ninth grade in all Portuguese middle schools. Middle school is divided into two stages: the first stage includes fifth and sixth grade (age range 10–11), and the second stage includes seventh to ninth grade (age range 12–14). Our study was conducted with sixth grade students, which is the last year of the first stage. English is taught in two 90-min weekly lessons. As the Portuguese public school system has not enacted any specific homework policies, teachers are free to decide on the amount, frequency, and type of homework they design. This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the ethics committee of the University of Minho, with written informed consent from all subjects enrolled (i.e., teachers and their students). All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

The two English performance measures used in this study were collected from the schools' secretary's office. Prior performance (used as a pretest) was obtained from students' grades in a final English exam completed at the end of the previous school year (end of June). Fifth grade EFL students from the six public schools enrolled in the study (all from the same region of the country) completed the same non-standardized exam in the end of the school year (June). This English exam comprised 30 questions on reading comprehension skills, vocabulary, and grammar which were calibrated by a group of EFL teachers from all the intervening schools.

Final academic performance (used as a posttest) was obtained from the students' grades in a final English exam set up specifically for this study and completed at the end of it (beginning of November). The posttest exam was made up of 20 questions designed to assess students' reading comprehension skills, vocabulary, grammar (contents covered in homework assignments 1, 2, 4, and 5), translation skills from English into Portuguese and vice versa, and writing of a short text (5–10 lines; contents covered in homework assignments 3 and 6). The exam lasted 45 min. Grades in the Portuguese compulsory educational system (first to ninth grade) range from 1 to 5, where 1 and 2 is fail, 3 pass, 4 good, and 5 excellent.

To accomplish our goal, the types of homework follow-up practices were selected from the ones identified in the literature (e.g., Walberg et al., 1985 ; Murphy et al., 1987 ; Cooper, 1989 , 2001 ; Trautwein et al., 2006b ). To learn which homework follow-up practices were used by teachers in class to deal with students' delivery of homework assignments, 15 Portuguese middle school EFL teachers were invited to participate in two focus group interviews (one group comprised seven teachers and the other eight teachers). Note that these EFL teachers did not participate in the research intervention.

Findings from this ancillary study allowed the confirmation of the two homework follow-up practices reported in the literature (i.e., checking homework completion, collecting, and grading homework ), and identified three additional practices which were used in the current study. Data from this ancillary study will not be described in detail due to space constraints. Nevertheless, some examples of each homework practice are presented in Table 1 .

Table 1. The five types of homework follow-up practices exemplified with quotations from the participating teachers in the focus group interviews .

Five homework follow-up practices were included in our study as follows: (1) Checking homework completion; (2) Answering questions about homework; (3) Checking homework orally; (4) Checking homework on the board; and (5) Collecting and grading homework. Types 1 and 5 were based on the literature ( Walberg et al., 1985 ; Murphy et al., 1987 ; Trautwein et al., 2006b ), and types 2–4 emerged in the focus group interviews with the EFL teachers, and were included in this study because of their local relevance.

Data were collected at the beginning of the school year (between mid-September and end of October) after obtaining permission from schools' head offices. EFL teachers confirmed their intention to participate via email, and from those who had confirmed participation, 45 and their students were randomly selected. Two weeks before the beginning of the study, the 45 EFL teachers participated in a 4-h information meeting which explained the project's aims and the research design in detail (e.g., analysis and discussion of the format and content of the English exam to assess students' performance; and information on the frequency, number, and type of homework assignments; guidelines to mark the homework assignments; and the five types of homework follow-up practices). Additionally, teachers were informed that they would be randomly assigned to an experimental condition, and the associated methodological reasons were discussed with the participants. All teachers agreed and were then randomly assigned to one of the five homework follow-up conditions (nine teachers per condition). However, only 26 teachers completed the study (see Section Participants). At the meeting, all teachers agreed to assign homework to their students only once a week (in the first class of the week) and to check homework completion in the following class using the type of homework follow-up condition they had been assigned to. The six homework assignments were extracted from the English textbook and common to all participants. Two different types of homework were assigned. The first type had reading comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar questions (homework assignments 1, 2, 4, and 5). The second type (homework assignments 3 and 6) had a translation exercise from English into Portuguese and vice versa, and writing of a short text in English (5–10 lines). After selecting the homework exercises, teachers worked on the guidelines to mark each homework assignment, and built a grade tracking sheet to be filled in with information regarding each student and each homework. The grade tracking sheet filled in with students data was delivered to researchers in the following class.

At the end of each lesson, the students noted down the instructions for the homework assignment in their notebooks and completed it out of class.

The researchers gave the EFL teachers extensive training on the homework follow-up practices in order to guarantee that all the participants under each condition followed the same protocol. During the information meeting a combination of theory and practice, open discussion, and role-playing exercises were used.

For each condition, the protocol was as follows. For homework follow-up condition no. 1 ( checking homework completion ), the teacher began the class asking students whether they had completed their homework assignment (i.e., yes, no) and recorded the data on a homework assignment sheet. For homework follow-up condition no. 2 ( answering questions about homework ), the teacher began the class asking students if they had any questions about the homework assignment (e.g., Please, ask any questions if there is something in the homework which you did not understand.), in which case the teacher would answer them. For homework follow-up condition no. 3 ( checking homework orally ), the teacher began the class checking homework orally. Under this condition the teachers proactively read the homework previously assigned to students and orally checked all the tasks or questions (i.e., the teacher read the questions and students answered them aloud, followed by an explanation of the mistakes made by students). For homework follow-up condition no. 4 ( checking homework on the board ), the teacher started the class by writing the answer to each of the homework questions on the board. Following the explanation to a specific question or task, the EFL teachers explicitly asked the class: “Do you have any other questions?” and moved on to the next question. In the case of homework follow-up condition no. 5 ( collecting and grading homework ), the teacher began the class handing out individually checked and graded homework to students. For homework assignments 1, 2, 4, and 5 (i.e., reading comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar questions) the EFL teachers pointed out which of answers were incorrect, and provided the correct answer. A numerical grade for each of the exercises and a global grade were awarded. For the second type of homework assignments (3 and 6; i.e., translation from English into Portuguese and vice versa, and writing of a short text in English), the EFL teachers made comments on the text in terms of contents and style, and gave a numerical grade. Students were encouraged to read the teachers' comments on their homework and asked if they had any questions.

To guarantee the reliability of the measurements (i.e., whether the EFL teachers followed the protocol), three research assistants were present at the beginning of each class. For 15 min, the research assistants took notes on the type of homework follow-up used by the teachers using a diary log. The level of overall agreement among the research assistants was estimated with Fleiss's Kappa ( Fleiss, 1981 ). According to Landis and Koch (1977) , the reliability among the research assistants may be rated as good (κ = 0.746; p < 0.001).

Data from the 19 EFL teachers who did not follow the protocol for their assigned homework follow-up condition were not included in the data set. Three weeks after the study, EFL teachers attended a 2-h post-research evaluation meeting with the aim to discuss their experience (e.g., comments and suggestions that could help in future studies; difficulties faced in implementing their experimental condition; reasons for not following the protocol), and analyze preliminary data. At the end of the six homework follow-up sessions, students completed a final English exam as a measure of academic performance (posttest).

Data Analysis

Each of the five homework follow-up practices was to be administered by the same number of EFL teachers (nine). However, as mentioned above, 19 EFL teachers were excluded from the study, which led to an uneven distribution of the participating teachers under the five conditions. As the number of homework follow-up sessions was not even in terms of type, it was not possible to guarantee the independence of these two variables (i.e., number of homework follow-up and type of homework follow-up practice). Thus, the amount of treatments (number of homework follow-up sessions) was taken as a control variable. The effect of the EFL teachers nested within the treatment levels (the five homework follow-up practices) was also controlled, but within the type of design (cluster randomized design). Furthermore, students' prior performance was controlled because of its potential to influence the relationship between homework and academic achievement ( Trautwein et al., 2002 , 2009b ).

Finally, the design included an independent variable (type of homework follow-up), a dependent variable (post-homework follow-up academic performance), and two covariates (number of homework follow-up sessions administered and performance prior to homework follow-up). The statistical treatment of the data was carried out using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Data analysis followed a two-stage strategy. First, we examined whether prior performance (pretest) significantly explained academic performance at posttest (which led to testing whether the regression slopes were null). If the result was positive, it would not be necessary to include any covariate in the model, and an ANOVA model would be fitted. On the other hand, if the result was negative, second stage, it would be necessary to verify whether the regression slopes were parallel (that is, whether the relationship between prior and final performance was similar across the different types of homework follow-up). Finally, in case the parallelism assumption were accepted, paired comparisons between the adjusted homework follow-up type variable measures (i.e., purged of covariate correlations) would be run using the method based on the false discovery rate (FDR) developed by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) (BH).

Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 [ SAS Institute, Inc., (SAS), 2013 ]. The hypotheses referring to nullity and parallelism of the regression slopes were tested using SAS PROC MIXED with the solution proposed by Kenward and Roger (2009) . PROC MIXED allows the use of a linear model that relaxes the assumption of constant variance (for details, see Vallejo et al., 2010 ; Vallejo and Ato, 2012 ). The post-hoc contrasts were done using the ESTIMATE expression in SAS PROC MIXED and the BH/FDR option in SAS PROC MULTITEST.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the homework follow-up type variable and the two covariates (prior performance and the number of homework follow-up sessions).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the variable homework follow-up practice and covariates (prior performance and number of times feedback is provided) .

Analysis of Covariance

Null regression curve test.

To determine whether prior performance (pretest) significantly explained academic performance at posttest, a type III sum of squares model without an intercept was created. This model included the homework follow-up type (A), and interactions of homework follow-up type with the covariates prior performance ( X 1 ), and number of homework follow-up sessions ( X 2 ); that is, A × X 1 and A × X 2 . The information obtained in this analysis allowed to consider regression slopes for each level of the homework follow-up type variable, and to evaluate its nullity and, to a certain extent, its parallelism. In summary, the technique used aimed to determine whether covariates (number of homework follow-up sessions administered and performance prior to homework follow-up) modified the interaction between homework follow-up type and final performance. Table 3 addresses this question and shows two model effects: the principal effect (A) and secondary effects ( A × X 1 and A × X 2 ).

Table 3. Estimators of interaction parameters obtained in the first modeling stage after creating a regression model without an intercept .

Data show that all regression coefficients involving the prior performance covariate were statistically significant ( p < 0.001) with very similar levels for the homework follow-up type variable (between p = 0.86 and 0.96). Thus, we may conclude that the slopes were not null. A strong similarity was also observed between the regression coefficients, which indicates that the number of homework follow-up sessions, with the exception of the coefficient corresponding to level 2 of the homework follow-up type variable ( b A 2 × S = 0.15), was also statistically significant ( p = 0.011).

Parallel Regression Slope Test

To test the hypothesis of regression slope parallelism for the covariates prior performance ( X 1 ) and number of homework follow-up sessions ( X 2 ) on final academic performance, the interaction components A × X 1 and A × X 2 of Model A shown in Table 4 are particularly interesting.

Table 4. Results of fitting three ANCOVA models and one ANOVA model during the second stage of the modeling strategy .

The data show that the regression slope parallelism hypothesis was not rejected [ F (4, 160) = 0.62, p = 0.646 and F (4, 144) = 2.20, p = 0.071], although the interaction between the number of homework follow-up sessions and the type of homework follow-up turned out to be marginally non-significant. Thus, we provisionally adopted the ANCOVA model that used equal slopes to describe the influence of the covariates on homework follow-up type. Note that the variance component of the students who received homework follow-up type no. 1 was approximately five times the variance of the students receiving type no. 5. Thus, to control the heterogeneity of the data, the GROUP expression in SAS PROC MIXED was used with the solution proposed by Kenward–Roger to adjust for the degrees of freedom ( Kenward and Roger, 2009 ). Moreover, the variance component referring to EFL teachers nested within the homework follow-up types was not statistically significant ( z = 0.15, p = 0.44), so we proceeded with the single-level ANCOVA model.

Findings indicate that the differences among the various homework follow-up types do not depend on the teacher that uses them. This preliminary result stresses the relevance of conducting multilevel designs analyzing data at two levels, students and class. This finding is aligned with those of Rosário et al. (2013) which found a small effect in the relationship between teachers' reported approaches to teaching and students' reported approaches to learning.

Table 4 also shows information regarding the fit of other ANCOVA models with identical slopes: Model B and Model C. Model B shows that the types of homework follow-up did not differ in terms of the number of homework follow-up sessions provided by the EFL teachers ( X 2 ), [ F (1, 373) = 0.16, p = 0.689]. Note that the ANCOVA model with equal regression slope that left out the number of homework follow-up sessions (Model C) was more parsimonious and showed the best fit. The model with the fewest information criteria, Akaike information criteria (AIC) and Bayesian information criteria (BIC), is the model that best fits the data.

The ANCOVA model with equal slopes is shown in Figure 1 . The essential characteristic of the model is worth noting: separate regression lines for each type of homework follow-up and approximately parallel slopes among the homework follow-up types. Figure 1 also shows two subsets of means, each with means that barely differed from each other and were thus considered equal from a statistical standpoint. These subsets encompassed, on the one hand, the first two levels of the homework follow-up type variable (types 1 and 2), and on the other hand, the three last levels of the variable. The equal regression slope ( b = 0.882) between prior performance and final performance, averaging all levels of homework follow-up type, was statistically significant [ t (467) = 36.86, p < 0.001].

Figure 1. Pretest performance level .

Comparisons between the Adjusted Homework Follow-up Type Means

The common slope ( b = 0.882) was used to calculate the final performance means adjusted to the effect of the prior performance covariate. Purged of the correlation with the prior performance covariate, the adjusted final EFL performance means were A 1 = 3.14; A 2 = 3.11; A 3 = 3.44; A 4 = 3.88; and A 5 = 4.03.

Given the two homogeneous subsets of means previously detected, the family of pairwise comparisons that appear in Table 5 was tested. To control for the probability of making one or more type I errors at the chosen level of significance (α = 0.05) for the specified family or group of contrasts, assuming heterogeneity, the ESTIMATE expression in SAS PROC MIXED was used, as was the BH/FDR option in SAS PROC MULTITEST. As indicated in the last column of Table 5 , the procedure detected statistically significant differences ( p < 0.05) in five of the six contrasts analyzed (see Figure 2 as well).

Table 5. Pairwise comparisons between the homework follow-up practices based on ANCOVA BH/FDR that controlled for prior performance .

Figure 2. Types of homework follow-up practices .

Discussion of Results

This study analyzed whether the relationship between academic performance and homework follow-up practices depended on the type of homework follow-up practice used in class. We found that the five types of homework feedback were associated with student academic performance, despite the unbalanced number of teachers in each condition, and the low number of sessions (six sessions). The magnitude of the effects found was small, which may be due to the two previously mentioned limitations. Data from the ancillary analysis collected in the two focus groups run to identify the types of homework follow-up used by EFL teachers in class, and data from the post-research evaluation meeting run with the participating teachers contributed to the discussion of our findings.

Types of EFL Teachers' Homework Follow-up Practices and Academic Performance

As Model C (see Table 4 ) shows, and once the effect of the pretest was controlled for, the differences among the types of EFL teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' performance were statistically significant, as hypothesized. Moreover, considering the positive value of the coefficients shown in Table 4 , the data indicate that students' performance improved from homework follow-up types 1–5 (see also Figure 2 ), and also that the differences between the five homework follow-up types are not of the same magnitude. In fact, after checking the error rate for comparison family using the FDR procedure, two homogeneous subsets of treatment means were identified. The first subset encompassed homework follow-up types 1 and 2, whereas the second accounted for homework follow-up types 3–5. As shown in Table 5 , significant differences were found between adjusted treatments' means for both subsets (homework follow-up types 1 and 2 vs. homework follow-up types 3–5).

What are the commonalities and differences between these two subsets of homework follow-up types that could help explain findings? Homework follow-up types 1 and 2 did not yield differences in school performance. One possible explanation might be that neither of these types of homework follow-up provides specific information about the mistakes made by students; information which could help them improve their learning in a similar way to when EFL teachers provide feedback ( Hattie and Timperley, 2007 ). Besides, as the control for homework completion is low for these two types of homework follow-up practices, students may not have put the appropriate effort to complete the homework. The following statement was shared by most of the teachers that participated in the focus group and may help explain this latter finding: “[in class] I only ask students if they have done their homework. I know that this strategy does not help them correct their mistakes, but if I don't do it, I suspect they will give up doing their homework …” (F2P3).

In homework follow-up type 2, EFL teachers only addressed difficulties mentioned by the students, so some mistakes may have not been addressed and checked by the EFL teachers. This type of practice does not provide feedback to students. As the following quotation from a participant in the focus group revealed: “At the beginning of the class, I specifically ask students if they have any questions about their homework. The truth is, students who struggle to learn seldom ask questions…I guess that they don't do their homework, or they copy the answers from peers during the break, and just asking questions does not help a lot…but they are 28 in class.” (F2P4).

The second group of homework follow-up practices includes types 3–5. Our data indicate that there were no statistically significant differences among these three types of homework follow-up (intra-group comparisons) at posttest performance (see Table 4 ). Under each of these three conditions (homework follow-up types 3–5) homework contents were checked by the teacher. In these three types of homework follow-up, students experienced opportunities to analyze EFL teachers' explanations and to check their mistakes, which may help explain our findings and those of previous studies (see Cardelle and Corno, 1981 ; Elawar and Corno, 1985 ).

According to Cooper's model ( 1989 , 2001 ), homework follow-up type 5 may be considered the homework feedback practice, because when EFL teachers grade students' assignments and provide individual feedback, students' learning improve. This idea was mentioned by one of our participants: “I collect students' exercise books, not every day, but often enough. That is because I've learned that my students improve whenever I comment upon and grade their homework assignments. I wish I had time to do this regularly…That would be real feedback, that's for sure.” (F1P6).

When analyzing students' conceptions of feedback, Peterson and Irving (2008) concluded that students believe that having their reports graded is a “clearer and more honest” (p. 246) type of feedback. These authors also argued that good grades generate a tangible evidence of students' work for parents, which may also give way to another opportunity for feedback(e.g., praise) delivered by parents and peers ( Núñez et al., 2015 ). It is likely that students see graded homework more worthwhile when compared to other types of homework follow-up practices (e.g., answering questions about homework). This idea supports studies which found a positive association between homework effort and achievement (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2006b , 2009b ). Walberg et al. (1985) claimed that graded homework has a powerful effect on learning. However, Trautwein et al. (2009a) alerted that graded homework may have a negative impact whenever experienced as overcontrolling, as “…students may feel tempted to copy from high-achieving classmates to escape negative consequences” (p. 185). These findings ( Trautwein et al., 2006b , 2009a , b ), aligned with ours, suggest the need to analyze homework feedback in more depth. For example, there are several variables that were not considered in the current research (e.g., number of students per class, number of different grade levels teachers are teaching or number of different classes teachers teach, different level of students' expertise in class, type of content domain; but also career related issues such as frozen salaries, reduced retirement costs), which may help explain our results.

We also noticed that the effect of EFL teachers' homework follow-up practices on performance was affected by students' prior performance, confirming our second hypothesis, but not by the number of homework follow-up sessions (i.e., the number of homework follow-up sessions was only marginally non-significant as a secondary factor, not as the principal factor). A quotation from a teacher under the third condition may help illustrate this finding: “reflecting on my experience under condition 3 [checking homework orally], I can tell that students' prior knowledge was very important for explaining the variations in the efficacy of this strategy. Some of my students, for example, attend language schools and master vocabulary and grammar, but others clearly need extra help. For example, checking homework on the board so that students may copy the answers and study them at home would be very beneficial for many of my students” (M15).

The results of this preliminary study were obtained in a real learning environment and focused on homework follow-up practices commonly used by EFL teachers. We acknowledge the difficulties to set up and run a randomized-group design in a real learning environment (i.e., motivating teachers to participate, training teachers to follow the protocol, control the process). Still, we believe in the importance of collecting data on-task. Plus, we consider that our preliminary findings may help teachers and school administrators to organize school-based teachers' training and educational policies on homework. For example, studies conducted in several countries (e.g., Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, Israel) reported that checking homework completion is the homework follow-up practice most often used by teachers to keep track of students' homework (e.g., Trautwein et al., 2009a ; Kaur, 2011 ; Zhu and Leung, 2012 ), and in some cases the only homework follow-up practice used in class (e.g., see Kukliansky et al., 2014 ). However, this type of homework follow-up does not provide students with appropriate information on how they may improve their learning. Our data show that, when EFL teachers offer individual and specific information to help student progress (e.g., homework correction, graded homework), the impact on school performance is higher, even when this help is provided for only 6 weeks. This main finding, that should be further investigated, may help teachers' in class practices and contribute to foster students' behaviors toward homework and school achievement.

In sum, our findings indicate that the time and effort teachers devote assessing, presenting, and discussing homework with students is worth the effort. In fact, students consider limited feedback an impediment to homework completion, and recognize teacher's feedback as a homework completion facilitator ( Bang, 2011 ).

During the focus group interviews, and consistent with findings by Rosário et al. (2015) , several EFL teachers stressed that, despite their positive belief about the efficacy of delivering feedback to students, they do not find the necessary time to provide feedback in class (e.g., comment on homework and grading homework). This is due to, among other reasons, the long list of contents to cover in class and the large number of students per class. Pelletier et al.'s (2002) show that the major constraint perceived by teachers in their job is related to the pressure to follow the school curriculum. Data from the focus group helped understand our findings, and highlights the need for school administrators to become aware of the educational constraints faced daily by EFL teachers at school and to find alternatives to support the use of in class homework follow-up practices. Thus, we believe that teachers, directly, and students, indirectly, would benefit from teacher training on effective homework follow-up practices with a focus on, for example, how to manage the extensive curriculum and time, and learning about different homework follow-up practices, mainly feedback. Some authors (e.g., Elawar and Corno, 1985 ; Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2012 ; Núñez et al., 2014 ; Rosário et al., 2015 ) have warned about the importance of organizing school-based teacher training with an emphasis on homework (i.e., purposes of homework, homework feedback type, amount of homework assigned, schools homework policies, and written homework feedback practices). With the focus group interviews we learned that several EFL teachers did not differentiate feedback from other homework follow-up practices, such as checking homework completion (e.g., see F2P7 statement, Table 1 ). EFL teachers termed all the homework follow-up practices used in class as feedback, despite the fact that some of these practices did not deliver useful information to improve the quality of students' homework and promote progress. These data suggest a need to foster opportunities for teachers to reflect upon their in-class instructional practices (e.g., type and purposes of the homework assigned, number and type of questions asked in class) and its impact on the quality of the learning process. For example, school-based teacher training focusing on discussing the various types of homework follow-up practices and their impact on homework quality and academic achievement would enhance teachers' practice and contribute to improve their approaches to teaching ( Rosário et al., 2013 ).

Limitations of the Study and Future Research

This study is a preliminary examination of the relationship between five types of EFL teachers' homework follow-up practices and performance in the EFL class. Therefore, some limitations must be addressed as they may play a role in our findings. First, participating EFL teachers were assigned to one and only one of five homework follow-up conditions, but 19 of them were excluded for not adhering to the protocol. As a result, the number of EFL teachers under each condition was unbalanced, especially in the case of homework follow-up condition number 5. This fact should be considered when analyzing conclusions.

Several reasons may explain why 19 EFL teachers were excluded from our research protocol (i.e., three were laid off, six did not report the work done correctly or submitted the data requested, and ten did not followed the protocol closely). Nevertheless, during the post-research evaluation meeting the EFL teachers addressed this topic which helped understand their motives for not adhering to the protocol. For example: “I'm sorry for abandoning your research, but I couldn't collect and grade homework every week. I have 30 students in class, as you know, and it was impossible for me to spend so many hours grading.” (M7). Our findings suggest that teachers' attitudes toward homework follow-up practices are important, as well as the need to set educational environments that may facilitate their use in class.

We acknowledged the difficulty of carrying out experimental studies in authentic teaching and learning environments. Nevertheless, we decided to address the call by Trautwein et al. (2006b) , and investigate teachers' homework practices as ecologically valid as possible in the natural learning environment of teachers and students.

Future studies should find a way to combine an optimal variable control model and an authentic learning environment.

Second, a mixed type of homework follow-up practices (e.g., combining homework control and checking homework on the board) was not considered in the current study as an additional level of the independent variable. In fact, some of the excluded EFL teachers highlighted the benefits of combining various homework follow-up practices, as one EFL teacher remarked: “I was “assigned” condition 5 [collecting and grading homework], but grading and noting homework every week is too demanding, as I have five more sixth grade classes to teach. So, although I am certain that giving individualized feedback is better for my students, I couldn't do it for the six homework assignments as required. In some sessions I checked homework orally.” (M24). Thus, future studies should consider the possibility of analyzing the impact of different combinations of types of homework follow-up practices. Our research focused on sixth grade EFL teachers only. To our knowledge, there are no studies examining the impact of homework follow-up practices in different education levels, but it is plausible that the type and intensity of the homework-follow up practices used by teachers may vary from one educational level to another. Hence, it would be interesting to examine whether our findings may be replicated in other grade levels, or in different subjects. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to conduct this study in other countries in order to explore whether the follow-up practices identified by EFL Portuguese teachers match those found in other teaching and learning cultures.

Third, the fact that in our study the differences found were small suggests the importance of examining the type of homework follow-up used and students' interpretation of teachers' practice. Future studies may analyze the hypothesis that students' behavior toward teacher homework follow-up practices (e.g., how students perceive their teachers' homework follow-up practices; what students do with the homework feedback information given by teachers) mediates the effect of homework on student learning and performance. In fact, the way students benefit from their teachers' homework follow-up practice may help explain the impact of these practices on students' homework performance and academic achievement. Future studies may also consider conducting more large-scale studies (i.e., with optimal sample sizes) using multilevel designs aimed at analyzing how student variables (e.g., cognitive, motivational, and affective) mediate the relationship between teacher homework follow-up type and students' learning and academic performance.

Finally, future research could also consider conducting qualitative research to analyze teachers' conceptions of homework follow-up practices, mainly feedback ( Cunha et al., 2015 ). This information may be very useful to improving homework feedback measures in future quantitative studies. Investigating teachers' conceptions of homework follow-up practices may help identify other homework feedback practices implemented in authentic learning environments. It may also help understand the reasons why teachers use specific types of homework feedback, and explore the constraints daily faced in class when giving homework feedback. As one teacher in the focus group claimed: “Unfortunately, I don't have time to collect and grade homework, because I have too many students and the content that I have to cover each term is vast. So I just check whether all students completed their homework” (F2P1).

This research was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds and when applicable co-financed by FEDER under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (UID/PSI/01662/2013), by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (Proyects: EDU2014-57571-P and PSI-2011-23395) and by Council of Economy and Employment of the Government of the Principality of Asturias, Spain (Proyect: FC-15-GRUPIN14-053).

Conflict of Interest Statement

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.

Bang, H. (2011). What makes it easy or hard for you to do your homework? An account of newcomer immigrant youths' afterschool academic lives. Curr. Issues Educ. 14, 1–26.

Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289–300.

Google Scholar

Buijs, M., and Admiraal, W. (2013). Homework assignments to enhance student engagement in secondary education. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28, 767–779. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0139-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cardelle, M., and Corno, L. (1981). Effects on second language learning of variations in written feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Q. 15, 251–261. doi: 10.2307/3586751

Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educ. Leadersh. 47, 85–91.

Cooper, H. (2001). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for Administrators, Teachers, and Parents, 2nd Edn . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

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

Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Macedo, L., Nunes, A. R., Fuentes, S., Pinto, R., et al. (2015). Parents' conceptions of their homework involvement in elementary school. Psicothema 27, 159–165. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2014.210

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F., and Stokking, K. (2012). Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: effects on students' writing motivation, process, and performance. Lear. Instr. 22, 171–184. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.003

Elawar, M. C., and Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers' written feedback on student homework: changing teacher behavior a little rather than a lot. J. Educ. Psychol. 77, 162–173. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.2.162

Epstein, J. L., and Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than ten minutes: teachers' roles in designing homework. Educ. Psychol. 36, 181–193. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4

Epstein, J., and Van Voorhis, F. (2012). “The changing debate: from assigning homework to designing homework,” in Contemporary Debates in Child Development and Education , eds S. Suggate and E. Reese (London: Routledge), 263–273.

Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hagger, M., Sultan, S., Hardcastle, S., and Chatzisarantis, N. (2015). Perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation toward mathematics activities in educational and out-of-school contexts is related to mathematics homework behavior and attainment. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 41, 111–123. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.002

Hattie, J., and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Kaur, B. (2011). Mathematics homework: a study of three grade eight classrooms in Singapore. Inter. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 9, 187–206. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9237-0

Kenward, M. G., and Roger, J. H. (2009). An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 53, 2583–2595. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2008.12.013

Kukliansky, I., Shosberger, I., and Eshach, H. (2014). Science teachers' voice on homework: beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Inter. J. Sci. Math. Educ. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9555-8. [Epub ahead of print].

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

Murphy, J., Decker, K., Chaplin, C., Dagenais, R., Heller, J., Jones, R., et al. (1987). An exploratory analysis of the structure of homework assignments in high schools. Res. Rural Educ . 4, 61–71.

Narciss, S. (2004). The impact of informative feedback and self-efficacy on motivation and achievement in concept learning. Exp. Psychol. 51, 214–228. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.51.3.214

Nicol, D., and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. Higher Educ . 31, 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090

Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Cerezo, R., and Valle, A. (2014). Teachers' feedback on homework, homework-related behaviors and academic achievement. J. Educ. Res . 108, 204–216. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.878298

CrossRef Full Text

Núñez, J. C., Suárez, N., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., Valle, A., and 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. Metacogn. Learn. doi: 10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5. [Epub ahead of print].

Pelletier, L., and Séguin-Lévesque, Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 186–196. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186

Peterson, E., and Irving, S. (2008). Secondary school students' conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learn. Instr. 18, 238–250. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001

Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Baldaque, M., Nunes, T., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., et al. (2009). Homework, self-regulated learning and math achievement. Revista de Psicodidática 14, 179–192.

Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Trigo, L., Suárez, N., Fernández, E., and Tuero-Herrero, E. (2011). English as a foreign language (EFL) homework diaries: evaluating gains and constraints for self-regulated learning and achievement. Psicothema 23, 681–687.

PubMed Abstract

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Ferrando, P., Paiva, O., Lourenço, A., Cerezo, R., et al. (2013). The relationship between approaches to teaching and approaches to studying: a two-level structural equation model for biology achievement in high school. Metacogn. Learn. 8, 44–77. doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9095-6

Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Mourão, R., et al. (2015). Does homework design matter? The role of homework's purpose in student mathematics achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol . 43, 10–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001

SAS Institute Inc. (SAS). (2013). SAS/STAT® 13.1 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 153–189. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795

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., Lüdtke, O., Kastens, C., and Köller, O. (2006a). Effort on homework in grades 5–9: development, motivational antecedents, and the association with effort on classwork. Child Dev. 77, 1094–1111. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00921.x

Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Schnyder, I., and Niggli, A. (2006b). 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

Vallejo, G., and Ato, M. (2012). Robust tests for multivariate factorial designs under heteroscedasticity. Behav. Res. Methods 44, 471–489. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0152-2

Vallejo, G., Ato, M., and Fernández, M. P. (2010). A robust approach for analyzing unbalanced factorial designs with fixed levels. Behav. Res. Methods 42, 607–617. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.2.607

Walberg, H. J., and Paik, S. J. (2000). Effective Educational Practices. Educational Practices Series – 3 . Brussels: International Academy of Education.

Walberg, H. J., Paschal, R. A., and Weinstein, T. (1985). Homework's powerful effects on learning. Educ. Leadersh. 42, 76–79.

Xu, J. (2008). Models of secondary school students' interest in homework: a multilevel analysis. Am. Educ. Res. J . 45, 1180–1205. doi: 10.3102/0002831208323276

Xu, J. (2010). Predicting homework distraction at the secondary school level: a multilevel analysis. Teach. Coll. Rec . 112, 1937–1970.

Xu, J. (2011). Homework completion at the secondary school level: a multilevel analysis. J. Educ. Res . 104, 171–182. doi: 10.1080/00220671003636752

Xu, J. (2012). Predicting students' homework environment management at the secondary school level. Educ. Psychol. 32, 183–200. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2011.635639

Xu, J., and Wu, H. (2013). Self-regulation of homework behavior: homework management at the secondary school level. J. Educ. Res. 106, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2012.658457

Zhu, Y., and Leung, F. (2012). Homework and mathematics achievement in Hong Kong: evidence from the TIMSS 2003. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 907–925. doi: 10.1007/s10763-011-9302-3

Keywords: types of homework follow-up, academic performance, English as a Foreign Language (EFL), homework, teachers' practices

Citation: Rosário P, Núñez JC, Vallejo G, Cunha J, Nunes T, Suárez N, Fuentes S and Moreira T (2015) The effects of teachers' homework follow-up practices on students' EFL performance: a randomized-group design. Front. Psychol . 6:1528. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528

Received: 01 August 2015; Accepted: 22 September 2015; Published: 13 October 2015.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2015 Rosário, Núñez, Vallejo, Cunha, Nunes, Suárez, Fuentes and Moreira. 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) or licensor 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: Pedro Rosário, [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.

EnglishForEveryone.org

Paragraph correction worksheets terms of use, beginning level paragraph correction worksheets.

• Answer Key - This is the answer key to beginning level worksheets.
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 1
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 2
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 3
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 4
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 5
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 6
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 7
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 8
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 9
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 10
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 11
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 12
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 13
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 14
• Beginning Paragraph Correction Worksheet 15

Intermediate Level Paragraph Correction Worksheets

• Answer Key - This is the answer key to intermediate level worksheets.
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 1
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 2
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 3
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 4
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 5
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 6
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 7
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 8
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 9
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 10
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 11
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 12
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 13
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 14
• Intermediate Paragraph Correction Worksheet 15

Advanced Level Paragraph Correction Worksheets

• Answer Key - This is the answer key to advanced level worksheets.
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 1
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 2
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 3
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 4
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 5
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 6
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 7
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 8
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 9
• Advanced Paragraph Correction Worksheet 10

Home | About | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Knowing How and When to Correct Students in Class

• Resources for Teachers
• Pronunciation & Conversation
• Writing Skills
• Reading Comprehension
• Business English
• TESOL Diploma, Trinity College London
• M.A., Music Performance, Cologne University of Music
• B.A., Vocal Performance, Eastman School of Music

A crucial issue for any teacher is when and how to correct students' English mistakes. Of course, there are a number of types of corrections that teachers are expected to make during the course of any given class. Here are the main types of mistakes that need to be corrected:

• Grammatical mistakes (mistakes of verb tenses, ​ preposition use , etc.)
• Vocabulary mistakes (incorrect collocations , idiomatic phrase usage, etc.)
• Pronunciation mistakes (errors in basic pronunciation, errors in word stressing in sentences, errors in rhythm and pitch)
• Written mistakes (grammar, spelling and vocabulary choice mistakes in written work)

The main issue at hand during oral work is whether or not to correct students as they make mistakes. Mistakes may be numerous and in various areas ( grammar , vocabulary choice, the pronunciation of both words and correct stressing in sentences). On the other hand, correction of written work boils down to how much correction should be done. In other words, should teachers correct every single mistake, or, should they give a value judgment and correct only major mistakes?

Mistakes Made During Discussions and Activities

With oral mistakes made during class discussions, there are basically two schools of thought: 1) Correct often and thoroughly 2) Let students make mistakes.

Sometimes, teachers refine the choice by choosing to let beginners make many mistakes while correcting advanced students often.

However, many teachers are taking a third route these days. This third route might be called 'selective correction'. In this case, the teacher decides to correct only certain errors. Which errors will be corrected is usually decided by the objectives of the lesson, or the specific exercise that is being done at that moment. In other words, if students are focusing on simple past irregular forms, then only mistakes in those forms are corrected (i.e., goed, thinked, etc.). Other mistakes, such as mistakes in a future form, or mistakes of collocations (for example I made my homework) are ignored.

Finally, many teachers also choose to correct students after the fact. Teachers take notes on common mistakes that students make. During the follow-up correction session, the teacher then presents common mistakes made so that all can benefit from an analysis of which mistakes were made and why.

Written Mistakes

There are three basic approaches to correcting written work : 1) Correct each mistake 2) Give a general impression marking 3) Underline mistakes and/or give clues to the type of mistakes made and then let students correct the work themselves.

What's All the Fuss About?

There are two main points to this issue:

If I allow students to make mistakes, I will reinforce the errors they are making.

Many teachers feel that if they do not correct mistakes immediately, they will be helping reinforce incorrect language production skills. This point of view is also reinforced by students who often expect teachers to continually correct them during class. The failure to do so will often create suspicion on the part of the students.

If I don't allow students to make mistakes, I will take away from the natural learning process required to achieve competency and, eventually, fluency.

Learning a language is a long process during which a learner will inevitably make many, many mistakes. In other words, we take a myriad of tiny steps going from not speaking a language to being fluent in the language. In the opinion of many teachers, students who are continually corrected become inhibited and cease to participate. This results in the exact opposite of what the teacher is trying to produce: the use of English to communicate.

Why Correction Is Necessary

Correction is necessary. The argument that students just need to use the language and the rest will come by itself seems rather weak. Students come to us to  teach  them. If they only want conversation, they will probably inform us, or, they might just go to a chat room on the Internet. Obviously, students need to be corrected as part of the learning experience. However, students also need to be encouraged to use the language. It is true that correcting students while they are trying their best to use the language can often discourage them. The most satisfactory solution of all is to make correction an activity. Correction can be used as a follow-up to any given class activity. However, correction sessions can be used as a valid activity in and of themselves. In other words, teachers can set up an activity during which each mistake (or a specific type of mistake) will be corrected. Students know that the activity is going to focus on correction and accept that fact. However, these activities should be kept in balance with other, more free-form, activities which give students the opportunity to express themselves without having to worry about being corrected every other word.

Finally, other techniques should be used to make correction not only part of the lesson but also a more effective learning tool for the students. These techniques include:

• Deferring correction to the end of an activity
• Taking notes on typical mistakes made by many students
• Correcting only one type of error
• Giving students clues to the type of error they are making (in written work) but allowing them to correct the mistakes themselves
• Asking other students to remark on mistakes made and then explain the rules by themselves. A great technique for getting 'teacher pets' listening instead of answering each question themselves. However, use this with caution!

Correction is not an 'either/or' issue. Correction needs to take place and is expected and desired by students. However, the manner in which teachers correct students play a vital role in whether students become confident in their usage or become intimidated. Correcting students as a group, in correction sessions, at the end of activities, and letting them correct their own mistakes all help in encouraging students to use English rather than to worry about making too many mistakes.

• Collocation Examples For English Learners
• Short Grammar Activities and Quick Lessons
• Classroom Management
• Beginning Level Curriculum for ESL Classes
• Tourism Discussion and Debate Lesson for Advanced Level Classes
• What Is Collocation?
• Absolute Beginner English - the Present of the Verb "to Be"
• Process Writing
• Error Correction
• Men and Women: Equal at Last?
• English Only?
• Small Talk Lesson Plan
• 10 Common Sentence Mistakes in English
• Common Writing Mistakes
• Absolute Beginner English: The 20 Point Program
• Online Course Review: TestDEN TOEFL

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

The 5 Best Homework Help Websites (Free and Paid!)

Other High School , General Education

Listen: we know homework isn’t fun, but it is a good way to reinforce the ideas and concepts you’ve learned in class. But what if you’re really struggling with your homework assignments?

If you’ve looked online for a little extra help with your take-home assignments, you’ve probably stumbled across websites claiming to provide the homework help and answers students need to succeed . But can homework help sites really make a difference? And if so, which are the best homework help websites you can use? 

Below, we answer these questions and more about homework help websites–free and paid. We’ll go over: 

• The basics of homework help websites
• The cost of homework help websites 
• The five best homework websites out there 
• The pros and cons of using these websites for homework help 
• The line between “learning” and “cheating” when using online homework help 
• Tips for getting the most out of a homework help website

So let’s get started! 

The Basics About Homework Help Websites–Free and Paid

Homework help websites are designed to help you complete your homework assignments, plain and simple. 

What Makes a Homework Help Site Worth Using

Most of the best sites allow users to ask questions and then provide an answer (or multiple possible answers) and explanation in seconds. In some instances, you can even send a photo of a particular assignment or problem instead of typing the whole thing out! 

Homework help sites also offer more than just help answering homework questions. Common services provided are Q&A with experts, educational videos, lectures, practice tests and quizzes, learning modules, math solving tools, and proofreading help. Homework help sites can also provide textbook solutions (i.e. answers to problems in tons of different textbooks your school might be using), one-on-one tutoring, and peer-to-peer platforms that allow you to discuss subjects you’re learning about with your fellow students. 

And best of all, nearly all of them offer their services 24/7, including tutoring! 

What You Should Should Look Out For

When it comes to homework help, there are lots–and we mean lots –of scam sites out there willing to prey on desperate students. Before you sign up for any service, make sure you read reviews to ensure you’re working with a legitimate company. 

A word to the wise: the more a company advertises help that veers into the territory of cheating, the more likely it is to be a scam. The best homework help websites are going to help you learn the concepts you’ll need to successfully complete your homework on your own. (We’ll go over the difference between “homework help” and “cheating” a little later!) 

You don't need a golden piggy bank to use homework help websites. Some provide low or no cost help for students like you!

How Expensive Are the Best Homework Help Websites?

First of all, just because a homework help site costs money doesn’t mean it’s a good service. Likewise, just because a homework help website is free doesn’t mean the help isn’t high quality. To find the best websites, you have to take a close look at the quality and types of information they provide! 

When it comes to paid homework help services, the prices vary pretty widely depending on the amount of services you want to subscribe to. Subscriptions can cost anywhere from $2 to $150 dollars per month, with the most expensive services offering several hours of one-on-one tutoring with a subject expert per month.

The 5 Best Homework Help Websites 

So, what is the best homework help website you can use? The answer is that it depends on what you need help with. 

The best homework help websites are the ones that are reliable and help you learn the material. They don’t just provide answers to homework questions–they actually help you learn the material. 

That’s why we’ve broken down our favorite websites into categories based on who they’re best for . For instance, the best website for people struggling with math might not work for someone who needs a little extra help with science, and vice versa. 

Keep reading to find the best homework help website for you! 

Best Free Homework Help Site: Khan Academy

• Price: Free!
• Best for: Practicing tough material 

Not only is Khan Academy free, but it’s full of information and can be personalized to suit your needs. When you set up your account , you choose which courses you need to study, and Khan Academy sets up a personal dashboard of instructional videos, practice exercises, and quizzes –with both correct and incorrect answer explanations–so you can learn at your own pace. 

As an added bonus, it covers more course topics than many other homework help sites, including several AP classes.

Runner Up: Brainly.com offers a free service that allows you to type in questions and get answers and explanations from experts. The downside is that you’re limited to two answers per question and have to watch ads. 

Best Paid Homework Help Site: Chegg

• Price: $14.95 to $19.95 per month
• Best for: 24/7 homework assistance  

This service has three main parts . The first is Chegg Study, which includes textbook solutions, Q&A with subject experts, flashcards, video explanations, a math solver, and writing help. The resources are thorough, and reviewers state that Chegg answers homework questions quickly and accurately no matter when you submit them.  

Chegg also offers textbook rentals for students who need access to textbooks outside of their classroom. Finally, Chegg offers Internship and Career Advice for students who are preparing to graduate and may need a little extra help with the transition out of high school. 

Another great feature Chegg provides is a selection of free articles geared towards helping with general life skills, like coping with stress and saving money. Chegg’s learning modules are comprehensive, and they feature solutions to the problems in tons of different textbooks in a wide variety of subjects. 

Runner Up: Bartleby offers basically the same services as Chegg for $14.99 per month. The reason it didn’t rank as the best is based on customer reviews that say user questions aren’t answered quite as quickly on this site as on Chegg. Otherwise, this is also a solid choice!

Best Site for Math Homework Help: Photomath

• Price: Free (or $59.99 per year for premium services) 
• Best for: Explaining solutions to math problems

This site allows you to t ake a picture of a math problem, and instantly pulls up a step-by-step solution, as well as a detailed explanation of the concept. Photomath also includes animated videos that break down mathematical concepts to help you better understand and remember them. 

The basic service is free, but for an additional fee you can get extra study tools and learn additional strategies for solving common math problems.

Runner Up: KhanAcademy offers in-depth tutorials that cover complex math topics for free, but you won’t get the same tailored help (and answers!) that Photomath offers. 

Best Site for English Homework Help: Princeton Review Academic Tutoring

• Price: $40 to $153 per month, depending on how many hours of tutoring you want 
• Best for: Comprehensive and personalized reading and writing help 

While sites like Grammarly and Sparknotes help you by either proofreading what you write via an algorithm or providing book summaries, Princeton Review’s tutors provide in-depth help with vocabulary, literature, essay writing and development, proofreading, and reading comprehension. And unlike other services, you’ll have the chance to work with a real person to get help. 

The best part is that you can get on-demand English (and ESL) tutoring from experts 24/7. That means you can get help whenever you need it, even if you’re pulling an all-nighter! 

This is by far the most expensive homework site on this list, so you’ll need to really think about what you need out of a homework help website before you commit. One added benefit is that the subscription covers over 80 other subjects, including AP classes, which can make it a good value if you need lots of help!  

Best Site for STEM Homework Help: Studypool

• Best for: Science homework help
• Price: Varies; you’ll pay for each question you submit

When it comes to science homework help, there aren’t a ton of great resources out there. The best of the bunch is Studypool, and while it has great reviews, there are some downsides as well. 

Let’s start with the good stuff. Studypool offers an interesting twist on the homework help formula. After you create a free account, you can submit your homework help questions, and tutors will submit bids to answer your questions. You’ll be able to select the tutor–and price point–that works for you, then you’ll pay to have your homework question answered. You can also pay a small fee to access notes, lectures, and other documents that top tutors have uploaded. 

The downside to Studypool is that the pricing is not transparent . There’s no way to plan for how much your homework help will cost, especially if you have lots of questions! Additionally, it’s not clear how tutors are selected, so you’ll need to be cautious when you choose who you’d like to answer your homework questions.  

What Are the Pros and Cons of Using Homework Help Sites?

Homework help websites can be a great resource if you’re struggling in a subject, or even if you just want to make sure that you’re really learning and understanding topics and ideas that you’re interested in. But, there are some possible drawbacks if you don’t use these sites responsibly. 

We’ll go over the good–and the not-so-good–aspects of getting online homework help below. 

3 Pros of Using Homework Help Websites 

First, let’s take a look at the benefits. 

#1: Better Grades Beyond Homework

This is a big one! Getting outside help with your studies can improve your understanding of concepts that you’re learning, which translates into better grades when you take tests or write essays. 

Remember: homework is designed to help reinforce the concepts you learned in class. If you just get easy answers without learning the material behind the problems, you may not have the tools you need to be successful on your class exams…or even standardized tests you’ll need to take for college. 

#2: Convenience

One of the main reasons that online homework help is appealing is because it’s flexible and convenient. You don’t have to go to a specific tutoring center while they’re open or stay after school to speak with your teacher. Instead, you can access helpful resources wherever you can access the internet, whenever you need them.

This is especially true if you tend to study at off hours because of your extracurriculars, work schedule, or family obligations. Sites that offer 24/7 tutoring can give you the extra help you need if you can’t access the free resources that are available at your school. 

#3: Variety

Not everyone learns the same way. Maybe you’re more of a visual learner, but your teacher mostly does lectures. Or maybe you learn best by listening and taking notes, but you’re expected to learn something just from reading the textbook . 

One of the best things about online homework help is that it comes in a variety of forms. The best homework help sites offer resources for all types of learners, including videos, practice activities, and even one-on-one discussions with real-life experts. 

This variety can also be a good thing if you just don’t really resonate with the way a concept is being explained (looking at you, math textbooks!).

Not so fast. There are cons to homework help websites, too. Get to know them below!

3 Cons of Using Homework Help Websites 

Now, let’s take a look at the drawbacks of online homework help. 

#1: Unreliable Info

This can be a real problem. In addition to all the really good homework help sites, there are a whole lot of disreputable or unreliable sites out there. The fact of the matter is that some homework help sites don’t necessarily hire people who are experts in the subjects they’re talking about. In those cases, you may not be getting the accurate, up-to-date, and thorough information you need.

Additionally, even the great sites may not be able to answer all of your homework questions. This is especially true if the site uses an algorithm or chatbot to help students…or if you’re enrolled in an advanced or college-level course. In these cases, working with your teacher or school-provided tutors are probably your best option. 

#2: No Clarification

This depends on the service you use, of course. But the majority of them provide free or low-cost help through pre-recorded videos. Watching videos or reading info online can definitely help you with your homework… but you can’t ask questions or get immediate feedback if you need it .

#3: Potential For Scamming 

Like we mentioned earlier, there are a lot of homework help websites out there, and lots of them are scams. The review comments we read covered everything from outdated or wrong information, to misleading claims about the help provided, to not allowing people to cancel their service after signing up. 

No matter which site you choose to use, make sure you research and read reviews before you sign up–especially if it’s a paid service! 

When Does “Help” Become “Cheating”?

Admittedly, whether using homework help websites constitutes cheating is a bit of a grey area. For instance, is it “help” when a friend reads your essay for history class and corrects your grammar, or is it “cheating”? The truth is, not everyone agrees on when “help” crosses the line into “cheating .” When in doubt, it can be a good idea to check with your teacher to see what they think about a particular type of help you want to get. 

That said, a general rule of thumb to keep in mind is to make sure that the assignment you turn in for credit is authentically yours . It needs to demonstrate your own thoughts and your own current abilities. Remember: the point of every homework assignment is to 1) help you learn something, and 2) show what you’ve learned. 

So if a service answers questions or writes essays for you, there’s a good chance using it constitutes cheating. 

Here’s an example that might help clarify the difference for you. Brainstorming essay ideas with others or looking online for inspiration is “help” as long as you write the essay yourself. Having someone read it and give you feedback about what you need to change is also help, provided you’re the one that makes the changes later. 

But copying all or part of an essay you find online or having someone write (or rewrite) the whole thing for you would be “cheating.” The same is true for other subjects. Ultimately, if you’re not generating your own work or your own answers, it’s probably cheating.

5 Tips for Finding the Best Homework Help Websites for You

Now that you know some of our favorite homework help websites, free and paid, you can start doing some additional research on your own to decide which services might work best for you! Here are some top tips for choosing a homework help website. 

Tip 1: Decide How You Learn Best 

Before you decide which site or sites you’re going to use for homework help, y ou should figure out what kind of learning style works for you the most. Are you a visual learner? Then choose a site that uses lots of videos to help explain concepts. If you know you learn best by actually doing tasks, choose a site that provides lots of practice exercises.

Tip 2: Determine Which Subjects You Need Help With

Just because a homework help site is good overall doesn’t mean that it’s equally good for every subject. If you only need help in math, choose a site that specializes in that area. But if history is where you’re struggling, a site that specializes in math won’t be much help. So make sure to choose a site that you know provides high-quality help in the areas you need it most. 

Tip 3: Decide How Much One-On-One Help You Need 

This is really about cost-effectiveness. If you learn well on your own by reading and watching videos, a free site like Khan Academy is a good choice. But if you need actual tutoring, or to be able to ask questions and get personalized answers from experts, a paid site that provides that kind of service may be a better option.

Tip 4: Set a Budget

If you decide you want to go with a paid homework help website, set a budget first . The prices for sites vary wildly, and the cost to use them can add up quick. 

Tip 5: Read the Reviews

Finally, it’s always a good idea to read actual reviews written by the people using these homework sites. You’ll learn the good, the bad, and the ugly of what the users’ experiences have been. This is especially true if you intend to subscribe to a paid service. You’ll want to make sure that users think it’s worth the price overall!

What’s Next?

If you want to get good grades on your homework, it’s a good idea to learn how to tackle it strategically. Our expert tips will help you get the most out of each assignment…and boost your grades in the process.

Doing well on homework assignments is just one part of getting good grades. We’ll teach you everything you need to know about getting great grades in high school in this article.

Of course, test grades can make or break your GPA, too. Here are 17 expert tips that’ll help you get the most out of your study prep before you take an exam.

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Homework & Correction Samples – Advanced Vocabulary & Collocations Course

One of the best things about the Advanced Vocabulary & Collocations Course is the option to do homework and get feedback/correction from an Espresso English teacher.

There are so many benefits to this homework!

✔️ Putting new words into practice guarantees that you’ll remember them better

✔️ You can easily get any mistakes identified and fixed, and learn from the errors

✔️ Your confidence in using advanced English words will increase when you get confirmation from a teacher that you’re using them correctly!

What does the homework and correction look like?

I’ve made a few samples available for you to see!

Sample #1 – Topic: Emotions & Behavior

Question is in bold Student answer is in italics Teacher feedback is in blue

1. Describe the last time you were elated. When I got the acceptance from my dream school 5 years ago, I was elated.

When I  was accepted by  my dream school (this way sounds a little more natural)

2. What’s something that keeps you spellbound? A well-written book on the following three topics normally keeps me spellbound: psychology, interior design and astrophysics.

3. Have you ever encountered someone who was despondent or disconsolate? What was the reason?  My co-worker once called me and poured out his frustration for our manager. He said it seemed like every he did was wrong and he didn’t know what our manager wanted from him.

his frustration  about  our manager

everything he did

4. What’s something you’re longing for? I long for the day when we are back to normal and can start to travel again.

5. Have you ever been disenchanted, and why? I seldom get disenchanted and I think that is because I alway try to manage my expectation on anything.

I  always manage my expectations for everything.

6. How can a person avoid becoming bitter? I think bitterness normally comes from the feeling that “I am stuck”. If we be more mindful on all the choices we have, we might be less likely to be bitter.

mindful  of  all

7. Do you think it’s better to be resigned to a bad situation, or try to change it? I think we’d better resigned to a situation with a good spirit if we cannot change it in short term. In other words, we can try to accept it while try our best to change the situation.

we’d better  be  resigned

in  the  short term

while  trying or: while  we try

8. What kinds of situations make you crabby or grouchy? I am crabby when someone from work asks me to provide something last minute and assumes I will prioritize his/her ask over my other daily tasks.

9. Talk about the last time you had the jitters. I had a chance to be keynote speaker in front of hundreds of clients a few years ago. Though I was well-prepared, I was still very jittery the night before.

be  the  keynote speaker

10. What’s something that makes you grin? Dog/cat videos will make me grin.

11. When was the last time you became irate or scowled? When I was misunderstood and criticized for something I didn’t do, I was irate.

12. What would you do if your child, partner, or friend were sulking? If I did something wrong, I normally would apologize and ask for forgiveness. If I think they are just being a little emotional that day, I will just pretend everything is normally and let time heal the situation.

I would just pretend everything is normal

Sample #2 – Topic: Personality

• Do you consider being assertive and outspoken a positive or a negative quality? In my  opinion, being assertive is a positive quality. Being an outspoken, however, can be either positive or negative, depending on the situation. Some people really state their opinion in a kind of aggressive way, that can leads to arguing.

Being  an  outspoken or: Being an outspoken person (outspoken an adjective, so if we use “an” then we need a noun afterwards)

that can  lead 

• Describe someone you know who is charismatic. I would say that Morgan Freeman is a very charismatic person. Every time I see him in an interview, I can see how much charism he has. I would love to have a beer with him and talk about his life and career.  

how much  charisma

• Talk about a time when you were very conscientious. When I need to buy something new I am very conscientious. I usually do a lot of research, talk with people who have experience with it and read or watch a lot of reviews about it before I decide to buy it.
• Write about a situation when you had to stay composed. When I was in my 20’s, I worked at receptionist in a laundry shop. Sometimes I had to stay composed with clients that were not so satisfied with the service and when we had delays in some important deliveries.

I   worked  as a receptionist in a  laundromat.

• Describe someone you know who is feisty or witty. My best friend is a feisty person. He always brings a lot of joy and happiness to every party we go. I always enjoy spending time with him.

to every party we go  to. (in more formal English we avoid ending a sentence with a preposition, but when speaking/writing informally it’s fine)  or: every party we attend.

• What’s a condescending remark you’ve heard someone say? I had a colleague in a previous work who was very condescending. Once he said that “we should end the meeting” because we were not agreeing with what he was saying.

in a previous  job . (work is an uncountable noun , so it doesn’t go with “a.” And “work” is more like something you do, not the job itself)

• What are some things you find obnoxious? I find obnoxious people who talk about other people in their back all the time. Seems like they are always complaining about everyone. I can never trust a person like that.

I find it obnoxious when people talk about other people behind  their back (we say that like this)

• What would you do if your coworker was very nosy? I always try to solve problems at work peacefully. I would find it very obnoxious and then politely speak with him/her that I do not like to be watched all the time.
• Do you think people in general are more cynical nowadays than in the past? I definitely think so, especially in times of pandemic. People are being more cynical nowadays because they find difficulties on having a non-normal life. Also, watching the news on TV always bring us the worst in the world.

difficulties  in  having (we use in for areas, and you mean difficulties in a particular area)

watching the news on TV always brings  us

10.What’s an example of slovenly behavior you’ve seen (or done yourself)? I have a single friend that lives alone for a while and he lives in a very slob place. I don’t know how he can live in such a mess!

that  has lived  alone for a while (present perfect is for things that started in the past and continue today)

he lives in a very  slovenly  place. or: he is such a  slob.

Get feedback and correction on YOUR English!

Learn more & Sign up

More Espresso English Lessons:

About the author.

Shayna Oliveira

Shayna Oliveira is the founder of Espresso English, where you can improve your English fast - even if you don’t have much time to study. Millions of students are learning English from her clear, friendly, and practical lessons! Shayna is a CELTA-certified teacher with 10+ years of experience helping English learners become more fluent in her English courses.

• ELT Concourse home
• A-Z site index
• Teacher training index
• Teacher development
• For teachers
• For trainers
• For managers
• For learners
• About language
• Language questions
• Other areas
• Academic English
• Business English
• Entering ELT
• Courses index
• Basic ELT course
• Language analysis
• Training to train
• Transcription

Correcting learners

Correcting learners is a key teaching skill.  It can be overdone and some learners feel it gets tedious so handle with some care. In this guide, we are mostly concerned with correcting learners' production.  However, if you have followed the guide to the essentials of error analysis (linked below), you will know that learners also make receptive errors.  That is to say, they misunderstand or misinterpret what they hear or read. The following assumes you have followed the essential guide to error and understand terms such as referential, covert, phonological and syntactical error etc. If you don't try that guide first by opening it in a new tab .

Here is where teachers need to think on their feet.  There are questions to ask whenever you hear an error in the classroom or see one in your learners' written work.

We said above that correction is a key teaching skill and, like all skills, it improves with practice.  There are, however, some tried and trusted methods which we can learn outside the classroom and then apply with increasing levels of confidence and appropriateness. Here are some of them:

It is often enough just to give a few clues or hints to lead the learner to the correct answer.  This is especially the case if you suspect that the learner can self-correct or be led carefully to do so with questions and suggestions such as     There's something wrong with the order of the words.     What preposition do we need here?     What tense should this be?     Who did the work?     Are we talking about tomorrow or today?     Is this a long 'a' sound or a short one? and so on. If all else fails, however, there are, obviously, times when providing the right answer is the best approach providing you make sure that the learner can produce the correct language independently after you have done so.

This only applies to times when you know for certain that the learner can self correct.  If you use the technique at other times, for example, when the learners clearly have no idea what the right word is, how to pronounce something or how to form a correct bit of syntax, then you will frustrate and irritate them.  That's not good. For example:

This is a technique which works very well for simple syntactical errors such as     We arrived to the hotel very late in the evening in which the learner has not recognised that, in English, the verb arrive is usually followed by a prepositional phrase with at .  This is an understandable mistake because we do say:     She came to my house     We got to the station etc. The technique involves using the fingers to count and stopping and grabbing the third finger with the other hand. The learner is then primed to notice where the error lies rather than starting to doubt that the whole sentence is wrong (which it isn't).

Phonological errors are traditionally addressed by some sort of mini-drill and there's a guide to drilling on this site, linked below. A particularly useful technique, explained there is called back chaining. Other techniques include tapping out the rhythm of a sentence to get the stress right or using the phonemic script (if the learners are familiar with it) to show the difference between, e.g., sit and seat or hop and hope (/sɪt/ and /siːt/ or /hɒp/ and /həʊp/). Rhymes are also useful tools because if a learner can pronounce, e.g., station then the fact that a difficult word such as nationalisation rhymes is some help to being able to pronounce it. Isolating sounds is another way to help.  If, for example, a learner can correctly pronounce the short i sound in hit, bit, sit etc. you can lead her to the pronunciation of the second syllable in contribution quite painlessly.

When teaching a syntactical or structural point, most people will opt for a model sentence or sentences which will exemplify the issues.  For example, when teaching simple time adjuncts, people might got for displaying and explaining:

He lived here during his studies She left an hour ago I have been here since 1998

However, leaving it at that is not adequate if you want the learners to notice the critical issues a syntactical error is likely to arise unless you revisit the board and have something like:

and even then you will need to expand that to something like:

and with that in front of your learners, you can easily point out:

• the correct tense form (past simple vs. present perfect)
• the prepositions ( during and since )
• the postposition ( ago )
• the appropriate form of time expression (events, periods, dates)

so, when they make a mistake, you can quickly point out which bit of the table they have got wrong.

This technique relies on getting learners to notice the salient features of the language.

This is more than simply repeating what a learner has just said (which is useless and deeply irritating, by the way). Echo correction means taking the learner's statement and stressing the bit that you want to focus on.  For example:     You said you SEE him yesterday?     There were three CHILD ?

This is a subtler way to correct and requires the learner to be paying some attention because the aim is to get the learner to notice the gap, not just the structure as we saw above under the model. Again, you have to make sure they can do that by stressing the feature in your production which differs from what has been produced. For example:     Learner: I will taking the train.     Teacher: Oh, you will BE TAKING the train. or     Learner: I should to go.     Teacher: Oh, you should GO .

Correction, especially if badly times, can be interruptive and frustrate learners who are trying to get on and communicate something important. So, during communicative activities, unless the error is very serious (an preventing communication), keep quiet and take notes.  Then, when you reach the end of the activity, you can call everyone's attention to the errors and see if they can self-correct. If they can't, you need to backtrack, of course, because something has gone very wrong with the teaching and learning procedure.

One of a teacher's many chores is correcting learners' written work.  It may be a chore but learners appreciate the guidance and help you can give when not under pressure in the classroom. The same considerations apply here in many cases.  It is not very motivating to receive a piece of homework covered with lots of red marks, crossings out and rewritten sections.  So, try:

We can encouraging peer-correction by having learners write together (with all of them writing the same text or agreeing on the right answers) and helping each other.  We can also ask the learners to give their writing to others for comments and correction. Do not overdo this for the sake of authenticity.  Writing is often a skill that we practise alone.

Just as we saw concerning spoken error in the classroom, it is often wise to ignore some written errors. This is especially true if learners attempt language so far beyond their current mastery level that correcting it would be confusing and frustrating. It is also true if you see something which is obviously just a slip or a typographical error.

Contact | FAQs | Copyright notice | ELT Concourse charter | Disclaimer and Privacy statement | Search ELT Concourse

Navigation Menu

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests..., provide feedback.

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

• Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

Graduation design of automatic homework correction system

JingkaiYi/Automatic-homework-correction-system

Folders and files.

Repository files navigation

Automatic-homework-correction-system.