Long-term students’ management strategies and parental involvement in homework at the elementary level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the evolution of children’s homework management strategies and their parents’ involvement in homework over a 3-year span, taking into account student gender and achievement, family structure and parent educational level. It also investigated the relationships between children’s strategies and parental help in homework. The sample consisted of 157 parent-child dyads from geographically and economically diverse regions in Quebec. The study found no link between child gender and achievement and parent educational level and reported elementary students’ homework management strategies. As children grew older, from grade 4 to grade 6, they took fewer initiatives to motivate completion of homework (monitoring motivation), to eliminate unwanted emotions, and to budget time (monitoring and controlling emotions / managing time). Parental help declined over the years, more importantly for girls than for boys. Parental help in homework seemed to foster among girls strategies in monitoring motivation and among boys, strategies in structuring their workspace at home (arranging environment), in dealing with frustration and in keeping track of the remaining available time for homework (monitoring and controlling emotions / managing time). Evidently, grade 6 students still benefit from parents being involved with their homework. Moreover, overtime findings, from grade 4 to grade 6, confirm the contribution of parental involvement in fostering desirable study habits, notably, monitoring motivation and monitoring and controlling emotion and managing time strategies. Those findings are of paramount importance in counterbalancing the observed decline in these same strategies over the 3-year span period.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".