Congruence between teachers’ and parents’ role construction and expectations about their involvement in homework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores individual, family and student factors in relation to parents’ and teachers’ role construction and mutual expectations regarding homework. Survey data were collected in spring 2005 from parents and teachers at both the elementary and the secondary levels. Parents’ positive attitudes toward homework are associated with more perceived responsibilities on their part. Contrary to parents at the secondary level, parents of elementary students with learning difficulties, as compared to parents of students who succeed well, do not believe as much that “checking homework and making sure that it is done” is part of their parental role. There is no difference among teachers regarding the understanding of their role in homework, regardless of attitude and work experience. At both the primary and secondary levels, teachers have higher expectations of the parents’ role in homework than parents do. Obviously, more work needs to be done related to the activities parents think that they are responsible for with respect to homework. Relative incongruence between parents’ role construction in homework and teachers’ expectations about their role should not be overlooked if we are to promote more positive family-school relationships.This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The two authors are regular researchers at the Centre de Recherche et d’Intervention sur la Réussite Scolaire (CRIRES).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".