Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urpy20

Download by: [Tufts University] Date: 03 April 2017, At: 14:25

Reading Psychology

ISSN: 0270-2711 (Print) 1521-0685 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

How Parental Support During HomeworkContributes to Helpless Behaviors AmongStruggling Readers

Melissa Orkin, Sidney May & Maryanne Wolf

To cite this article: Melissa Orkin, Sidney May & Maryanne Wolf (2017): How Parental SupportDuring Homework Contributes to Helpless Behaviors Among Struggling Readers, ReadingPsychology, DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2017.1299822

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1299822

Published online: 27 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

HOW PARENTAL SUPPORT DURING HOMEWORK

CONTRIBUTES TO HELPLESS BEHAVIORS AMONG

STRUGGLING READERS

MELISSA ORKIN , SIDNEY MAY, and MARYANNE WOLFCenter for Reading, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts

This research investigated the influence of parental practices on helplessbehaviors of struggling readers during homework tasks. Parents (N D 36) ofelementary students reported on their children’ s helpless behaviors, such as taskavoidance and negative affect, during homework assignments, and on thenature and frequency of their support. Distinctions were made between parentalsupport considered to be strategic, compensatory, or intrusive. Additionalvariables that influence achievement behaviors were assessed, includingchildren’ s language skills, academic abilities, and behavior regulation. Parentsupport considered intrusive, such as unsolicited interruptions and corrections,along with children’ s behavior regulation abilities, accounted for the greatestvariation in struggling readers’ helpless behaviors.

There is a bevy of anecdotal and quantitative evidence thatdepicts homework as being a grueling experience for childrenand parents alike (Bryan, Nelson, & Mathur, 1995; Dudley-Marling, 2003; Lareau, 2000; Margolis, 2005; McDermott,Goldman, & Varenne, 1984; Pomerantz, Wang, & Ng, 2005;Varenne & McDermott, 1999; Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, Whetsel,& Green, 2004). In addition to its cognitive demands, homeworkcan be emotionally charged (Xu, 2011), eliciting both strongnegative emotional and behavioral responses from children,including task avoidance, and negative attitudes towards learn-ing. These behaviors can lead to increased friction betweenparents and children (Cooper, 2001), and result in higher levelsof parental stress (Katz, Buzukashvili, & Feingold, 2012; Nicholls,McKenzie, & Shufro, 1994; Warton, 2001). Tackling nightlyhomework assignments is particularly challenging for the

Address correspondence to Melissa Orkin, Center for Reading, Tufts University,210 Packard Ave., Medford, MA 02155. E-mail: melissaorkin@gmail.com

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online atwww.tandfonline.com/urpy.

1

Reading Psychology, 0:1–36, 2017Copyright � Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702711.2017.1299822

families of struggling readers, as skill deficiencies often exacer-bate children’s negative affect and task avoidance (Aunola,Nurmi, Niemi, Lerkkanen, & Rasku-Puttonen, 2002; Chapman &Tunmer, 2003; Hagborg, 1999; Humphrey, 2002; Lepola,Salonen, & Vauras, 2000; Lepola, Poskipart, Laakkonen, &Niemi, 2005; Margolis, McCabe, & Alber, 2004; Onatsu-Arvilommi, & Nurmi, 2000; Polychroni, Koukoura, & Anagnos-tou, 2006; Sideridis, Morgan, Botsas, Padeliadu, & Fuchs, 2006;Stone & May, 2002; Tabassam & Grainger, 2002).

When parents assist their struggling readers with homework,they typically strive to develop their children’s skills, and whennecessary, compensate for a lack of ability by reading or writing(scribing) for their children (Bryan, Burstein, & Bryan, 2001;Bryan & Nelson, 1994; Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997; Salend &Gajria, 1995). Yet, despite their worthy intentions, parents maylack knowledge about the best practices for fostering indepen-dent engagement, and unknowingly employ controlling or coer-cive practices that further contribute to their children’sfrustration with and avoidance of challenging academics tasks(Grolnick, 2009; Moroni, Dumont, Trautwein, Niggli, &Baeriswyl, 2015; Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007).

The co-occurrence of frustration and avoidance is connectedto the phenomenon of helplessness (Diener & Dweck, 1980;Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Moorman & Pomerantz, 2008; Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001; Vala

�s,

2001), in which children seek to avoid challenging tasks becausethey may feel incompetent at managing academic demands, andmight attribute their failure to a lack of ability (Dweck & Leggett,1988; Jose & Bellamy, 2012; Marsh, 1984; Marsh, Cairns, Ralich,Barnes, & Debus, 1984; Moorman & Pomerantz, 2008; Moorman& Pomerantz, 2010; Smiley & Dweck, 1994; Vala

�s, 2001). Chil-

dren who struggle with learning are particularly vulnerable tohelpless behavior and, in the face of challenging tasks, oftendemonstrate three behavioral components of helplessness,including reduced effort, negative affect, and lack of positivity(Butkowski & Willows, 1980; Licht et al., 1985; Sideridis, 2003;Smiley, Coulson, Greene, & Bono, 2010; Vala

�s, 2001; Wilgosh,

1984). This constellation of maladaptive behaviors is especiallytroubling when one considers the detrimental impact of taskavoidance on the development of critical literacy skills (Onatsu-

2 M. Orkin et al.

Arvilommi & Nurmi, 2000; Stanovich, 1986), and subsequentachievement (Burhans & Dweck, 1995; Duckworth & Seligman,2005).

Therefore, a greater understanding of the cognitive, emo-tional, and environmental variables that contribute to helplessbehaviors among struggling readers is extremely important inaiding both parent and child. The current investigation exploredaspects of children’s cognitive and academic skills, including:written and oral language abilities, executive functions (behaviorregulation and metacognition), as well as the practices parentsemploy to support their children during homework tasks. Theresults of the current investigation will be used to better under-stand the differential effects of these influences.

Achievement Behaviors and Helplessness

Achievement behaviors refer to children’s behavioral responsesin situations where their performance is being evaluated(Bandura, 1977; Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 1984; Weiner, 1979).Achievement behaviors are thought to be the result of a combi-nation of internal factors, such as ability, beliefs, and self-regulation, and external factors, such as parenting practices(Bandura, 1997; Bergold & Steinmayr, 2016; Deci & Ryan, 2000;Dinkelmann, & Buff, 2016; Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 1989).Some students react to challenges with enthusiasm andincreased effort, whereas others become anxious, passive, ortask avoidant (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Burhans & Dweck,1995). Certain achievement behaviors are associated with posi-tive outcomes. For example, in recent years there has beenrenewed interest in the importance of persistence, engagement,and willingness to attempt challenges—a collection of behaviorssometimes referred to as grit (Duckworth, 2016), or self-regu-lated learning (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Schunk & Zimmer-man, 2001; 2012). These traits are associated with long-termpositive outcomes like greater retention of knowledge (Duck-worth & Gross, 2014; Zimmerman, 1998). Conversely, helplessbehaviors like frustration and avoidance are considered mal-adaptive because they do not promote students’ performanceand skill development (Bandura, 1993; Diener & Dweck, 1980;Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002; Thomas, 1979; Vala

�s, 2001).

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 3

Learned helplessness refers to a constellation of affect andbehaviors (e.g., negative affect, reduced persistence, and passivity)associated with a perceived lack of control over one’s experiences(Seligman & Maier, 1967). Initially, the phenomenon was discov-ered in experimental trials with animals, but subsequent researchhas confirmed the existence of learned helplessness amongchildren with respect to achievement outcomes (e.g., Butkowski &Willows, 1980; Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973; Licht et al.,1985; Marsh, 1984; Marsh et al., 1984; Palmer et al., 1982; Sideri-dis, 2003; Vala

�s, 2001; Wilgosh, 1984). In educational settings, the

predictive relationship between helpless behaviors and achieve-ment appears to be mediated by children’s perceived efficacy. Spe-cifically, low feelings of efficacy among children are typicallyassociated with reduced task initiation, persistence, and perfor-mance (Burhans & Dweck, 1995; Schunk, 1989; Smiley et al.,2010), and increased negative affect and frustration (Fincham,Hokoda, & Sanders, 1989; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).

Helpless behavior, in particular, often references the“learned” component, implying that environments send cues toindividuals about the “appropriate” behavioral response in theface of a challenge (Seligman & Maier, 1967; Dweck, 1975).Learning environments, like classroom and home environments,convey achievement messages through various instructional com-ponents, such as the nature of assignments, teacher feedback,and metrics of evaluation. Learning environments that conveyrigid or conflicting messages about the nature of success are asso-ciated with greater levels of helplessness among students, com-pared to environments that convey consistently flexible or fluidmessages about achievement (Hokoda & Fincham, 1995;Moorman & Pomerantz, 2010). For example, when childrenreceive cues that academic success is fluid and achieved througheffort and strategy-use, and that the process of learning is valuedas equal to the products of knowledge, frustration, and avoidancebehaviors are infrequent. In contrast, when success is evaluatedthrough rigid standards and perceived as related to inherent abil-ity (i.e., intelligence or trait), children display a high number ofhelpless behaviors (Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck, 2007;Diener & Dweck, 1980; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Fincham & Cain,1986; Hokoda & Fincham, 1995; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Smileyet al., 2016).

4 M. Orkin et al.

Helplessness in Struggling Readers

Children who struggle to meet academic benchmarks, includingthose with learning disabilities, have consistently been found todiffer in their motivational and behavioral profiles from their typi-cal peers (Chapman & Tunmer, 1997, 2003; Edmunds & Bauser-man, 2006; Polychroni, Koukoura, & Anagnostou, 2006; Sideridiset al., 2006). More specifically, struggling readers tend to reportlower levels of efficacy compared with their typical peers(Chapman & Tunmer, 2003). Further, struggling readers reportattributional beliefs that leave them susceptible to a constellationof behaviors often described as helpless, as well as prone toresignation in the face of academic challenges (Butkowski &Willows, 1980; Guthrie & Davis, 2003; Walker & Rivers, 2003).

Struggling readers begin to demonstrate patterns of task avoid-ance early in their educational careers. Pre-readers who exhibitdecreased abilities in the reliable predictors of reading (e.g., phone-mic awareness, letter knowledge, and rapid naming) also exhibitfewer task-oriented coping strategies, such as problem-solving orpersistence, and a greater number of ego-defensive or avoidancestrategies compared to children with better precursor skills (Lepolaet al., 2005; Morgan, Fuchs, Compton, Cordray, & Fuchs, 2008). Aschildren mature, the desire to avoid reading-related tasks candevelop into maladaptive behavioral patterns that negatively impactskill development and subsequent motivation (Guthrie & Davis,2003; Morgan, Farkas, Tufis, & Sperling, 2008; Stanovich, 1986).This is particularly true as reading becomes a primary mean foracquiring knowledge (Lepola, Salonen, & Vauras, 2000). Previousinvestigations into supporting struggling readers during homeworkhave found that assignments are often aligned with grade-levelbenchmarks and can therefore exceed a child’s skill level (Margolis,2005), resulting in a greater likelihood of frustration and task avoid-ance during assignment completion (Bryan et al., 2001; Bryan &Nelson, 1994; Epstein et al., 1997; Salend &Gajria, 1995).

Role of Behavioral Regulation

The frequency and magnitude of helpless behaviors are influ-enced by a variety of intra-individual factors including cognitive

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 5

challenges, as discussed earlier, and regulatory processes. Execu-tive function is one framework for studying self-regulation inchildhood, and provides insights into the inter-related processesthat exert control over one’s attention, cognition, and behavioraltendencies (Blair, Zelazo, & Greenberg, 2005) as children pursuegoal-directed activities over time and across contexts (Karoly,1993). Children’s ability to initiate and persist through tasks,monitor performance, inhibit behavior appropriately, shift atten-tion as the task demands, and regulate emotional responsesappropriately are all related to executive functions (Gioia,Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000).

When students exhibit learning-related behavior problems,it is important to discern whether their responses are due toweaknesses in domain-specific content areas, such as linguisticprocesses, or weaknesses in regulatory executive control pro-cesses (Gioia et al., 2000). It may also be that the relationshipbetween reading behaviors and self-regulation deficits is bidirec-tional (Morgan et al., 2008). For example, children with poorregulation abilities are more likely to both struggle academicallyand exhibit negative achievement behaviors, such as failure topay attention, stay on task, and inhibit impulses (Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009; Fitzpatrick & Pagani,2013). There are some models that attempt to explain the co-occurrence of reading difficulties and behavior problems (e.g.,frustration, avoidance, and withdrawal from learning tasks) (Mor-gan et al., 2008; Spira & Fischel, 2005). Unsurprisingly, deficits inexecutive functioning appear to emerge as a crucial factor in thiscycle (Brock et al., 2009; Pennington, Groisser, & Welsh, 1993).The purpose of this study is not to disentangle the intrinsicallyrelated interactions among these three factors; rather, this studyexamines struggling readers’ executive functioning as a predictorof their helpless behaviors during learning-related tasks.

Role of Parenting Practices in Achievement Behaviorsof Struggling Readers

Environmental factors, specifically parental involvement, are con-sidered highly influential of achievement behaviors duringhomework assignments. In recent years, parents have received

6 M. Orkin et al.

emphatic messages from multiple resources, ranging from pedi-atric organizations to public campaigns, about the benefits ofsupporting literacy activities at home (Bus, Van Ijzendoorn, &Pellegrini, 1995; Crosby, Rasinski, Padak, & Yildirim, 2015;S�en�echal & LeFevre, 2014; S�en�echal & Young, 2008). Parentalinvolvement in children’s homework takes many forms, but thereis strong evidence to suggest that children’s achievement at theelementary level is heavily influenced by the quality, not simplythe quantity, of involvement (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001;Moroni et al., 2015; Pomerantz et al., 2007). Controlling andemotionally rigid parenting practices can have deleterious effectson children’s motivation to learn (Baker, Mackler, Sonnen-schein, & Serpell, 2001; Cooper, Lindsay, & Nye, 2000). Highlycontrolling parents often engage in invasive monitoring andoffer obtrusive forms of assistance (Grolnick & Pomerantz, 2009;Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001). These practices have been found toinhibit children’s performance at school (Cooper et al., 2000;Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993; Grolnick, Gurland, DeCourcey, &Jacob, 2002; Grolnick, Kurowski, Dunlap, & Hevey, 2000;Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Ng, Kenney-Benson, & Pomerantz, 2004;Pomerantz et al., 2007). Conversely, parental support that fulfillschildren’s intrinsic need for autonomy in the learning process(Deci & Ryan, 1985) can boost motivation and satisfaction, and,in turn, improve academic performance (Cooper et al., 2000;d’Ailly, 2003; Dumont, Trautwein, L€udtke, Neumann, Niggli, &Schnyder, 2012; Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993; Grolnick & Ryan,1987; Grolnick, Raftery-Helmer, & Flamm, 2012; Pomerantzet al., 2005; Pomerantz et al., 2007).

Critically, parents of children who struggle academically aremore likely to employ controlling practices such as intrusive moni-toring (i.e., checking children’s homework) and helping (i.e.,teaching/guiding children in completing homework) (Margalit& Heiman, 1986; Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001; Silinskas, Niemi,Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2013), often because they believe theirintrusion will make a positive difference in the child’s ability(Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001). Yet, longitudinal studies indicatethat an increased quantity of parental support does not necessarilycontribute to the development of children’s academic perfor-mance (Levin et al., 1997; Silinskas et al., 2013). In fact, amongstruggling students, including those with learning disabilities,

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 7

increased parental involvement with homework has been relatedto reduced perceptions of academic efficacy in children (Gonida& Cortina, 2014), and greater tension between parents and chil-dren (Levin et al., 1997). In other words, parents of struggling stu-dents who engage in intrusive-support practices to assist theirchildren may unwittingly be fostering helplessness in their chil-dren. It is therefore critical to identify predictors of helplessbehaviors among struggling learners in order to provide parentswith the tools to reinforce positive achievement behaviors in theirchildren, as well as to improve the learning experience for bothparents and children.

Research Questions

The current study was designed as a pilot study aimed at pushingour understanding of how individual and environmental factorscontribute to helpless behaviors among struggling readers asthey complete homework tasks. The study was designed to investi-gate specific contributions of two sets of internal variables(linguistic skills and regulatory functions) and environmentalfactors (parenting practices). To this end, the following researchquestions were explored: To what extent do children’s (1)written language abilities and comprehension; (2) oral languagecomprehension; (3) perceived efficacy in reading; (4) executivefunction skills; and (5) parents’ practices predict children’shelpless behaviors during homework tasks.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 36 predominantly Caucasian parent-child dyads (see Table 1). Children (61.1% boys) ranged in agefrom 6.1 to 12.8 years (mean D 8.92). Children were from differ-ent school districts in the northeastern United States and identi-fied by their parents and teachers as struggling readers. Of thesechildren, 26 were on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs),and two students were attending a school specialized in teachingstudents with learning and attention issues. The parents (97.2%

8 M. Orkin et al.

mothers) were predominantly married and highly educated, and41.7% of parents reported personal struggles with learning. Fami-lies were recruited through emails and fliers distributed to publicand independent schools and groups for individuals with dys-lexia. The recruitment materials advertised a research study thatexplored the interactions between parents and struggling readersas they completed homework assignments. Each family received a

TABLE 1 Descriptives of demographic variables

VariableFrequency(n D 36) Percent

CumulativePercent

RaceCaucasian/White 31 86.1 86.1African American/Black 1 2.8 88.9Multiracial 4 11.1 100.0

Grade LevelFirst Grade 1 2.8 2.8Second Grade 14 38.9 41.7Third Grade 13 36.1 77.8Fourth Grade 6 16.7 94.4Fifth Grade 1 2.8 97.2Sixth Grade 1 2.8 100.0

Diagnosis StatusNo Formal Diagnosis (No IEP) 8 22.2 22.2Formal Diagnosis (IEP) 26 72.2 94.4Attending Specialized School 2 5.6 100.0Reading Disorder 24 33.3Attention Disorder 9 25.0Communication Disorder 5 13.9Anxiety Disorder 2 5.6Developmental Disorder 0 0.0Fine Motor Disorder 1 2.8

Parent Education LevelHigh School Graduate 1 2.8 2.8Some College Credit, NoDegree

1 2.8 5.6

Bachelor’s Degree 18 50 55.6Master’s Degree 12 33.3 88.9Professional Degree orDoctorate

4 11.1 100.0

Marital StatusSingle, Never Married 1 2.8 2.8Married or DomesticPartnership

31 86.1 88.9

Divorced 4 11.1 100.0

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 9

score report detailing their child’s performance on the standard-ized measures of reading and language ability.

Overview of Procedure

Children were accompanied to our lab by the parent who servesas their primary homework support. Written consent wasobtained from parents while oral assent was obtained from chil-dren. All assessments of children’s reading skills, language ability,and motivation were administered one-on-one by a trainedresearch assistant. Breaks were offered as needed. In a separatearea of the lab, parents independently completed questionnairesregarding their parenting practices and their child’s behaviorand executive functioning skills. As part of a larger study, familiesalso worked together on a grade-level read-and-response tasktypical of a homework assignment. These tasks were recorded forlater coding of behaviors.

Measures

Assessments administered to parents and children covered a vari-ety of subjects and were presented in varying formats. Children’sreading and language abilities were assessed through standard-ized behavioral measures. Data about children’s executivefunction skills were gathered through a standardized parentreport measure. All standardized measures provide raw scoresand standardized scores on subtests or subscales. One half of thestandardized measures were randomly double-scored to ensurereliability.

Parents’ reports about their practices during homeworkcompletion and general parenting style were collected through aquestionnaire developed by the authors. Parenting practices weredistinguished from parenting styles. Whereas parenting practicescan be defined as specific behaviors that parents engage in whiledoing homework with their children (Darling & Steinberg,1993), parenting style refers to the overall approach employed,specifically around dimensions of control and warmth (Darling& Steinberg, 1993; Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Grolnick & Pomer-antz, 2009; Schaefer, 1965; Spera, 2005). Past literature cites bothparenting practices and styles as critical factors in the

10 M. Orkin et al.

development of children’s autonomy and school-related out-comes (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Grolnick et al., 2002; Grolnick &Pomerantz, 2009; Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001). Questionnairesutilized in this study generated raw scores for each subscale andare described in depth below.

Behaviors During Homework

PARENT PRACTICES

This self-report questionnaire organized the behaviors parentsemploy during homework into three categories, or subscales,which represent types of parental support during homeworktasks: strategic, compensatory, and intrusive practices. The measurewas created by the authors, and is based on previous findings thatthe quality of parental involvement in children’s achievementoften varies by degree, and capturing the nature of their assis-tance is critical for understanding achievement outcomes(Moroni et al., 2015; Pomerantz et al., 2007). The current mea-sure expands on previous research that examined the degree ofparental control, or intrusive support during homework(Pomerantz & Eaton, 2001), by including an additional subset ofbehaviors that compensate for a child’s lack, or perceived lack,of ability on a given task. This is particularly relevant for familiesof struggling readers.

Parent practices during homework were assessed using nineitems that asked parents to indicate, using a five-point Likertscale, the degree to which they engaged in specific behaviors dur-ing homework (5 D very often, 4 D pretty often 3 D often, 2 D some-times, 1 D rarely, never). Results of a principal components analysisusing varimax rotation supported the hypothesis that these nineitems could be reliably divided into three scales, comprised ofthree items each. The first scale, strategic practices, assessedparents’ encouragement of independent mastery and includeditems such as, “[I] encourage [my] child to keep persistingthrough challenges.” The second scale, compensatory practices,assessed parents’ compensatory behaviors during homework andincluded items such as, “[I] scribe for my child.” The third scale,intrusive practices, measured the degree to which parentsengaged in intrusive behaviors during homework and includeditems such as, “[I] correct [my] child’s mistakes when reading.”

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 11

In the principal components analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy exceeded 0.6, andthe Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, suggesting that theitems shared sufficient variance to warrant the use of principalcomponent analysis. The resulting three factor structureaccounted for 72% of the total variance among these items. TheCronbach alpha coefficients were a D 0.66 for strategic, a D 0.77for compensatory, and a D 0.83 for intrusive practices.

PARENTING STYLE

This self-report questionnaire gathered information about paren-ts’ overall style with which they raise their children. It was createdby the authors as a modified version of previous assessments ofparenting styles (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994; Grolnick,Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997; Grolnick & Pomerantz,2009; Grolnick, Raftery-Helmer, Marbell, Flamm, Cardemil, &Sanchez, 2014; Wang, Pomerantz, & Chen, 2007) that assessthe degree to which parents are autonomy supportive and emo-tionally responsive, compared to controlling and emotionallyunresponsive, during achievement tasks. The measure employs afive-point Likert scale on which parents indicate how often theyexhibit the stated belief or behavior (5D very often, 4D pretty often,3 D often, 2 D sometimes, 1 D rarely, never).

Results of a principal components analysis did not supportthe hypothesis that these 18 items could be reliably divided intotwo scales (e.g., autonomy supportive/emotionally responsive vs.controlling/emotionally rigid), comprised of 9 items each. Fur-thermore, neither parenting style subscale correlated with child-ren’s helplessness, and scores were therefore removed fromfurther analysis.

CHILDREN’S HELPLESS BEHAVIORS

Children’s helpless behaviors were assessed by an 8-item subscale on alarger questionnaire about achievement behaviors during home-work. Parents reported on their child’s behavior using a five-pointLikert scale to indicate the frequency of stated behaviors (5 D veryoften, 4 D pretty often, 3 D often, 2 D sometimes, 1 D rarely, never). Theminimum possible score a child can receive on this scale is 8, repre-senting little to no helplessness, whereas the maximum possiblescore a child can receive is 36, representing high levels of

12 M. Orkin et al.

helplessness. Items on the assessment include a constellation ofbehaviors commonly cited by previous literature on helplessness inchildren, including frustration and emotional outbursts duringassignments (Fincham et al., 1989), as well as task avoidance andtask refusal (Burhans & Dweck, 1995). Results of a principal compo-nents analysis supported the hypothesis that these 8 items could bereliably combined into one scale. The KMO exceeded 0.60, and theBartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, suggesting that the itemsshared sufficient variance to warrant the use of principal compo-nent analysis. Internal consistency for the scale was examined usingCronbach’s alpha, 0.86, suggesting good internal consistencyreliability.

Children’ s Reading and Language Skills

READING FLUENCY AND COMPREHENSION

The Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-5; Wiederholt & Bryant,2012) is an individually administered measure of oral reading flu-ency and comprehension. The GORT has been validated as a reli-able measure of reading fluency and comprehension, which has astrong correlation to academic ability (Wiederholt & Bryant,2012). The GORT is a standardized norm-referenced test, inwhich a scaled score of 10 represents the mean and scoresbetween 8–12 represent the average range. Children are asked toread passages of increasing complexity aloud, while deviationsfrom print are noted. Children are then asked a series of open-ended questions by the examiner about the content of the pas-sage. When reading a passage or story, children are required tointegrate all of their linguistic skills including phonological proc-essing, working memory, naming speed, efficiency in decodingand sight word recognition, and language comprehension.Often, children will perform well on individual linguistic skills,but struggle when asked to integrate these skills in order to readlonger, more complex texts. On this measure children receivedseparate scores for their reading fluency (the rate and accuracywith which they read) and their reading comprehension.

EXPRESSIVE AND RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE SKILLS

The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-5; Wiig,Semel, & Secord, 2013) is an individually administered measure oflanguage and communication ability. Like the GORT, the CELF is

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 13

a standardized norm-referenced test, in which scaled scoresbetween 8–12 represent the average range. Children’s expressive lan-guage skills were measured with two subtests—Word Classes and For-mulated Sentences. The Word Classes subtest evaluates children’sability to understand relationships between words based on seman-tic class features, function, or place or time of occurrence. On thistask, children are presented with visual and verbal stimuli and askedto name the two that go together best. The Formulated Sentences sub-test assesses children’s capacity to integrate semantic, syntactic, andpragmatic rules and constraints while using workingmemory. Chil-dren are shown pictures and must formulate sentences that areappropriate to the context of the stimulus picture and incorporatesthe stimulus word.

One aspect of children’s receptive language skills was evaluatedwith the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest which measures anindividual’s ability to sustain attention and focus while listening tospoken paragraphs. On this measure children were read a series oforal narratives and asked factual and inferential questions about thestories. The questions probe for understanding of the main idea,facts and details, sequence of events and require inferential analysis.

Children’ s Executive Function Skills

BEHAVIOR REGULATION SKILLS

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)Parent Form is an 86-item questionnaire assessing children’sexecutive function behaviors in the home environment (Gioiaet al., 2000). The BRIEF employs a normative scale in which rawscores are combined with age and gender in order to generate astandardized T score. A T score of 50 represents the mean,whereas scores between 40–60 represent the average range. TheBRIEF’s 86 items exist within eight clinical scales that measuredifferent aspects of executive functioning. They are Inhibit, Shift,Emotional Control, Initiate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize,Organization of Materials, and Monitor. The clinical scales com-bine to form two Indexes, Behavioral Regulation and Metacogni-tion. The Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) represents a child’scognitive shifting ability as well as their ability to modulate emo-tions and behavior. It is comprised of the Inhibit, Shift, and Emo-tional Control scales.

14 M. Orkin et al.

METACOGNITIVE SKILLS

The Metacognition Index (MI) reflects the child’s ability to initiatetasks and self-monitor performance. It is comprised of the Initi-ate, Working Memory, Plan/Organize, Organization of Materials,and Monitor scales.

Children’ s Perceived Efficacy for Reading

PERCEIVED EFFICACY

Children’s efficacy for reading was assessed as part of a largermeasure that collected information about their motivation forreading and perceived parental autonomy. Statements were mod-ified from the Reading Motivation Questionnaire (RMQ; Wig-field & Guthrie, 1995, 1997) and presented using a forced choiceformat, and a developmentally appropriate paradigm for measur-ing motivational beliefs among young children (Patrick, Mantzi-copoulos, Samarapungavan, & French, 2008). At the beginningof the assessment. children selected a pair of identical puppets,and provided different names for each puppet. The puppetsthen alternatively represent positive and negative statementsabout reading. For example, the puppet named Jimmy says“Reading has always been hard for me”; conversely the puppetnamed Marcos says, “Reading is getting easier for me.” For eachset of statements, the student was instructed to select the puppetthat “is most like them.” The efficacy subscale contained threeitems, and each item was scored 0 (negative statement) or 1 (pos-itive statement).

Although the efficacy scale had good internal consistency(a D 0.70), as a group participants’ scores appeared negativelyskewed, and results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic con-firmed the skewed distribution. These findings indicate thatthe participants reported high levels of efficacy for readingdespite weaknesses in literacy skills confirmed through stan-dardized assessment. Inflated reports of confidence are notuncommon for younger students, particularly struggling read-ers. A recent study with fourth graders who scored poorly onmeasures of reading comprehension reported confidence lev-els that far exceeded their actual ability (Kasperski & Katzir,2013). Thus, scores on the efficacy subtest were removed fromfurther analysis.

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 15

Results

Analytic Technique

The goal of the current analyses was to assess the links amongchild and parent characteristics and children’s helpless behav-iors during homework. As previously described, we were par-ticularly interested in the links between parent behavior andchildren’s helpless behaviors as previous research demon-strates that autonomy-supportive parenting practices are oftenable to be modified through intervention and instruction (Su& Reeve, 2011). Before beginning our analyses, patterns ofmissing data were observed. In all, there were 17 missing datapoints of a total of 468 data points, representing 3% of thedata. The missing data was spread among several variablessuch that no single variable appeared to be inordinatelyimpacted by missing data. Given the extremely small amountof missing data and the fact that missingness was spreadamong several variables rather than clustered with a smallgroup of variables, mean replacement with dummy variableadjustment was selected as the most robust of available miss-ing data techniques considering our small sample size.

Descriptive analyses of all analytical variables were conductedfirst, followed by bivariate analyses to identify variables associatedwith children’s helpless behaviors. Variables that were not associ-ated with children’s helpless behaviors were eliminated (includ-ing parenting style, defined by emotional responsivity). Next,hierarchical multiple regression was used to sequentially examinelinks between children’s helpless behaviors and each of the follow-ing variable sets: child demographic characteristics; reading skills;executive functioning; parenting behaviors during homework.Variables were entered into the regression equation in these fourtheoretical factors to observe the changes in the quality strengthof the prediction of children’s helpless behaviors as each set of var-iables was added to themodel. Following the hierarchicalmultipleregression, mediation analyses assessed whether parenting behav-iors during homework are mediated by children’s reading, lan-guage, and executive functioning skills. The results section belowfirst presents descriptive and correlational analyses, followed byhierarchical multiple regression andmediationmodels.

16 M. Orkin et al.

Descriptive Analyses

Descriptive analyses of all analytical variables were conducted (seeTable 2). Children scored in the below average to average rangeon all standardized measures of reading and language abilityaccording to the descriptive metrics of the GORT and CELF assess-ments, in which a scaled score of 10 represents the mean andscores between 8–12 represent the average range. Children werein the below average range on measures of their connected textfluency and reading comprehension (mean D 5.80, SD D 2.13;mean D 7.03, SD D 2.43). Children were in the average range onmeasures of oral language comprehension for single words(CELF-5:Word Classes;meanD 8.50, SDD 3.68) and narrative pas-sages (CELF-5: Understanding Spoken Paragraphs; mean D 9.72,SDD 3.80). Children were in the below average range on the mea-sure of structural linguistic knowledge and metalinguistic aware-ness (CELF-5: Formulated Sentences; meanD 7.81, SDD 3.54).

In order to assess children’s executive function skills, theparent report form of the BRIEF was employed. Composite Tscores were calculated to represent children’s overall ability tocognitively shift and modulate their emotions and behavior(Behavior Regulation Index: BRI) and initiate tasks and monitor

TABLE 2 Descriptives of analytical variables

Variable M (n D 36) SD Reliability

GORT Fluency 5.80 2.13GORT Comprehension 7.03 2.43CELF Word Classes 8.50 3.68CELF Understanding Spoken Paragraphs 9.72 3.80CELF Formulated Sentences 7.81 3.54BRIEF Behavioral Regulation 53.26 9.82 a D .94BRIEF Metacognition 60.00 11.36 a D .96Parents’ Strategic Practices 10.14 1.93 a D .70Parents’ Compensatory Practices 8.64 2.27 a D .72Parents’ Intrusive Practices 10.71 2.38 a D .83Helpless Behaviors 24.75 5.24 a D .86

Note. GORT D Gray Oral Reading Test, 5th Edition; CELF D Clinical Evaluations of Lan-guage Fundamentals, 5th Edition; BRIEF D Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Func-tion. GORT and CELF scores are age-based scaled scores (M D 10, SD D 3). BRIEF scoresare age- and gender-based t-scores (M D 50, SD D 10). Parental support scores are rawscores which range from 3–15. Helpless behaviors score is a raw score that ranges from8–40.

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 17

their own performance (Metacognition Index: MI). The BRIEFemploys a normative scale in which a T score of 50 represents themean, and T scores between 40–60 represent the average range.The current sample scored within the normative average rangeestablished by the BRIEF on both the BRI (mean D 53.26, SD D9.82), and the MI (mean D 60, SD D 11.36).

Correlations

Correlations among all analytical variables were conducted(see Table 3). The dependent variable of interest, children’s help-less behaviors, was significantly positively correlated with the twomajor factors of executive function: composite scores of Behav-ioral Regulation (BRI) (r D .56, p < .01) and Metacognition (MI)(r D .40, p < .05). Children’s helpless behaviors also significantlypositively correlated with two of the three types of strategies orpractices employed by parents during homework support:intrusive support (r D .40, p < .05) and compensatory support(r D .34, p < .05). The third parenting practice, strategic support,was found to positively correlate with helpless behaviors, but thecorrelation failed to reach significance (r D .21).

A significant negative correlation emerged between child-ren’s helpless behaviors and one measure of children’s languageability, the ability to categorize words that share similarities, asassessed by the Word Classes subtest on the CELF-5 (r D ¡.43,p< .05). Children’s helpless behaviors did not significantly corre-late with any measures of children’s reading ability.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression

Given that the total number of predictor variables was larger thanis usually acceptable for the number of participants in this study,they were first grouped into five conceptual categories and eachof these conceptual sets was entered into separate regressionanalyses, in which children’s helpless behavior served as the crite-rion. The first category included three variables measuring child-ren’s demographic characteristics (Grade, gender, and IEPstatus). Race was excluded from this category given the smallrepresentation of non-White children (see Table 1). The second

18 M. Orkin et al.

TABLE3Correlationsam

ongan

alyticalvariab

les

1.2.

3.4.

5.6.

7.8.

9.10

.11

.

1.GORTFluen

cy2.

GORTComprehen

sion

.81*

*

3.CELFWord

Classes

¡.06

.10

4.CELFForm

ulatedSe

ntences

.21

.40*

.58*

*

5.CELFUnderstan

dingSp

oke

nParagraphs

.07

.30

.62**

.80*

*

6.BRIEFBeh

avioralReg

ulation

¡.07

¡.01

¡.39

*¡.

09¡.

207.

BRIEFMetacogn

ition

¡.09

¡.10

¡.09

¡.17

¡.15

.57*

*

8.Paren

ts’StrategicSu

pport

¡.06

¡.01

¡.06

.15

.02

¡.05

¡.26

9.Paren

t’sCompen

satory

Support

¡.53

**

¡.55

**

¡.18

¡.51

**

¡.29

.21

.15

.19

10.P

aren

ts’Intrusive

Support

¡.02

¡.02

¡.34

¡.19

¡.09

.02

.17

.05

.22

11.H

elplessBeh

aviors

¡.21

¡.19

¡.43

*¡.

29¡.

27.56*

*.40*

.21

.34*

.40*

Note.GORTD

GrayOralR

eadingTest,5thEdition;C

ELFD

ClinicalEvaluationsofLan

guageFundam

entals,5

thEdition;

BRIEFD

Beh

aviorRatingInventory

ofExe

cutive

Function.G

ORTan

dCELFscoresareage-based

scaled

scores(M

D10

,SDD

3).B

RIEFscoresare

age-

andge

nder-based

t-scores(M

D50

,SD

D10

).Paren

talsupport

scoresarerawscoreswhichrange

from

3–15

.Helpless

beh

aviors

score

isaraw

score

that

range

sfrom

8–40

.*p<

.05.

**p<

.01.

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 19

was comprised of two measures of children’s reading ability(GORT Fluency and GORT Comprehension). The third wascomprised of three measures of children’s language ability(CELF Word Classes, CELF Formulated Sentences, and CELFUnderstanding Spoken Paragraphs). The fourth contained twomeasures of children’s executive function skills (BRIEF BRI andBRIEF MI). The fifth and final category was comprised of thethree parent practices variables (strategic support, compensatorysupport, and intrusive support). This process allowed for a thor-ough examination of the extent to which child and parent cate-gories independently contributed to the variance in children’shelpless behavior. It also served to identify the significant predic-tors within each category.

In the first model, none of the demographic variables weresignificantly linked with helpless behaviors; however, they repre-sent baseline covariates that are generally included in analyses ofchild behavior and were therefore included in the final model.The second model revealed that neither of the two GORT scaleswere significant predictors of helpless behaviors. In the thirdmodel, three subscales of the CELF measure were used andWord Classes emerged as the only significant predictor of help-less behavior (b D ¡1.24, p < .01). When the BRIEF BRI and MIscales were used in the fourth model, the BRI scale significantlypredicted helpless behaviors (b D 0.27, p < .01). In the fifthmodel, the three scales assessing parenting practices duringhomework were used, and intrusive support emerged as the onlysignificant predictor of helpless behaviors (b D 0.77, p < .05).Overall, these results offered empirical support for excludingscales from the final model that did not achieve significance.

Hierarchical multiple regression was performed next toassess the joint contributions of these four domains—demo-graphic characteristics, language ability, executive function skills,and parent behaviors (see Table 4). As before, children’s help-less behaviors served as the criterion. Helpless behaviors scoresranged from 14 to 36 (out of a possible minimum and maximumof 8 and 36, respectively) with a mean of 24.75 and a standarddeviation of 5.24.

The demographic characteristics (Grade, gender, and IEPstatus) entered in the first model (Model 1) accounted for no var-iance in children’s helpless behaviors. Adding language ability, as

20 M. Orkin et al.

assessed by the CELF Word Classes subscale, (Model 2)accounted for an additional 11% of the variance in children’shelpless behaviors (b D ¡0.65, p < 05). However, the addition ofWord Classes did not add a significant increment to the R2. Add-ing executive functioning skills (Model 3) accounted for an addi-tional 20% of variance in helpless behaviors, R2 change D 0.20, Fchange (2, 29) D 4.20, p < .05. Finally, adding intrusive support(Model 4) accounted for an additional 10% of the variance inscores, R2 change D 0.10, F change (1, 28) D 4.75, p < .05. Intru-sive support was found to be a significant predictor of helplessbehaviors (b D 0.79, p < .05), and the BRI gained significance (bD 0.23, p < .05). Language ability, however, lost significance inthe final model.

TABLE 4 Summary of models predicting helpless behaviors during momework(n D 36)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variable b SE b SE b SE b SE

Intercept 23.84** 5.05 27.36** 4.80 8.81 7.03 ¡0.32 7.53Demographic

characteristicsGrade ¡0.29 1.00 0.17 0.93 0.34 0.82 0.46 0.76Child Gender ¡0.14 1.92 0.15 1.76 0.70 1.56 0.05 1.46IEP 2.13 2.14 2.25 1.96 1.28 1.74 1.94 1.64

Language abilityCELF Word Classes ¡0.65* 0.24 ¡0.49* 0.23 ¡0.29 0.23

Executive functionBRIEF BRI 0.18 0.10 0.23* 0.10BRIEF Metacognition 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.08

Parent practicesIntrusive Support 0.79* 0.33

Model summaryF 0.44 1.85 3.27* 4.07**

(Degrees of freedom) (4, 31) (5, 30) (7, 28) (8, 27)R2 0 0.11 0.31 0.41R2 change 0.11 0.20 0.10F change 3.83 4.20* 4.75*

(Degrees of freedom) (1, 31) (2, 29) (1, 28)

Note. CELF D Clinical Evaluations of Language Fundamentals, 5th Edition; BRIEF DBehavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. CELF scores are age-based scaled scores(M D 10, SD D 3). BRIEF scores are age- and gender-based t-scores (M D 50, SD D 10).Parental support scores are raw scores which range from 3–15. Helpless behaviors score isa raw score that ranges from 8–40. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 21

The final model as a whole accounted for 41% of theexplained variance in helpless behaviors, F (8, 27)D 4.07, p< .01. Italso revealed that, controlling for other factors, children’s BRI (b D0.23, p < .05) and parents’ intrusive support (b D 0.79, p < .05)were the only significant predictors of children’s helpless behaviors.The relationships that we found in the final model between theindependent variables and children’s helpless behavior echoed theresults from the earlier models with fewer predictors.

To gauge the relative effects of children’s BRI and parents’intrusive support, effect sizes were calculated with the formula,d D b�SDiv

SDdv, and can be interpreted as the change, in standard devia-

tion units, in the dependent variable resulting from a one standarddeviation change in the independent variable. These calculationssuggested that for every one standard deviation increase in child-ren’s BRI, there was a 0.43 standard deviation increase in children’shelpless behaviors. Similarly, for every one standard deviationincrease in intrusive support, there was a corresponding 0.36 stan-dard deviation increase in children’s helpless behaviors.

Sobel Tests for Mediation

Sobel tests of mediation were used to consider whether the linkbetween intrusive support and children’s helpless behaviors ismediated by language, reading, or executive functioning. TheSobel tests considered whether there were indirect effects of par-enting through children’s language, reading, and executive func-tioning skills (Figure 1). None of the Sobel tests were statisticallysignificant, suggesting that the link between intrusive parenting

FIGURE 1 Model testing hypothesis that children’s cognitive ability mediates therelationship between parents’ intrusive support and children’s helpless behaviors.

22 M. Orkin et al.

practices during homework and children’s helpless behaviors isnot partially explained by children’s reading, language, and exec-utive functioning skills.

Discussion

Nightly homework can pose an emotional and logistical chal-lenge for families of struggling readers, which is frequentlycharacterized by task avoidance and resistance. The presentstudy was designed as a pilot study to better understand thedifferential contributions of cognitive, emotional, and envi-ronmental factors on helpless behaviors during homeworktasks. Findings indicated that the most salient predictors ofhelplessness within the sample were the children’s behaviorregulation abilities and their parents’ practices—more specifi-cally, their intrusive behaviors. Neither language nor readingability emerged as a significant predictor of helplessness. Fur-thermore, the link between intrusion and children’s helplessbehaviors was not mediated by children’s language skills, read-ing abilities, or executive functioning skills. These results sug-gest that, among struggling readers, both intra-individual andenvironmental factors influence helpless behaviors. Amongthis select population, however, the contributions of actuallanguage and reading skills appear to be negligible.

Children’s ability to regulate their behavior emerged as thesingle significant intra-individual factor in the final regressionmodel, a finding consistent with prior research on the importanceof executive functions as predictors of children’s academicachievement (Best, Miller, & Naglieri, 2011; Blair & Diamond,2008; Brock et al., 2009; Graziano, Reavis, Keane, & Calkins,2007). Weaknesses in emotional control, an aspect of behaviorregulation, have been associated with challenges in higher-ordercognitive skills, such as sustaining attention to directions and plan-ning assignments. Deficits in these areas can also result in reducedproductivity, accuracy, and lower levels of overall achievement(Brock et al., 2009). Furthermore, in-class and at-home assign-ments, which provide opportunities to demonstrate academic pro-ficiency, can trigger anxiety, defiance, and frustration in childrenwith poor emotion regulation skills (Graziano et al., 2007).

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 23

In contrast to behavioral regulation, metacognition did notemerge as a significant predictor in the final model. Althoughmetacognitive skills, such as initiation, working memory, plan-ning, monitoring, and organization of materials, are related toacademic work, it may be that typical homework assignments atthe elementary level are relatively straightforward, and do notexceed students’ higher level executive processes. Rather, theability to regulate behavior, especially with regards to frustration,features more prominently in task completion and academic suc-cess (Howse, Calkins, Anastopoulos, Keane, & Shelton, 2003).

In addition to behavior regulation, the means by which homelearning environments supports homework completion, specifi-cally the type of practices employed by parents were also exam-ined. Nuanced investigations into the quality of parental support,as opposed to simply the quantity of assistance, has demonstratedthe importance of particular practices on children’s achievement(Moroni et al., 2015; Pomerantz et al., 2007; Silinskas et al.,2013). An established body of work has posited a convincing argu-ment regarding the detrimental impact of controlling practices,which coerce, command, limit and/or intrude on children’sautonomy, or self-regulated learning (Grolnick, 2003; Grolnick,Deci, & Ryan, 1997; Hess & McDevitt, 1984; Grolnick & Pomer-antz, 2005). In the current study, intrusive practices during home-work emerged as the most important, significant environmentalpredictor of struggling readers’ helpless behaviors. For example,a pattern of intrusive corrections during reading or writing mayput struggling readers at greater risk for resorting to helplessbehaviors during their assignments. This finding extends previouswork and elucidates the impact of specific intrusive practices onthe achievement behaviors of struggling readers.

Practical Implications. Parental intrusion during homeworkmay be the inevitable result of parents’ desire and perceived pres-sure to remediate their child’s weaknesses (Pomerantz & Eaton,2001; Silinskas et al., 2013). Parents of struggling readers fre-quently correct errors and interrupt work in order to offer a“teaching moment” or help their child develop needed skills.Some parents perceive themselves to be as important as the teacherin building academic skills (Grolnick et al., 1997) and report them-selves as playing an important role in their child’s academic devel-opment. Certainly providing the proper pronunciation of a word is

24 M. Orkin et al.

helpful for children as they are learning to read but a persistent pat-tern of frequent intrusions may unintentionally send a cue to thechildren that they are incapable of managing tasks independently.Furthermore, interruptions to correct may convey themessage thateffort or strategy use alone is not sufficient for success, and thechild may feel pressure to achieve a prescribed standard of“performance.” Learning environments that endorse prescribedstandards of success, otherwise referred to as performance orienta-tions, are widely associated with helpless behaviors such as taskavoidance among students (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999, 2007; Nolen,1988; Urdan,Midgley & Anderman, 1998).

Although the child participants in this study were character-ized by both poor reading ability and helpless behaviors duringhomework, neither reading nor language ability emerged as pre-dictive variables, and mediation analysis confirmed that it did notinfluence intrusive parenting practices. These findings indicatethat a helpless behavioral response is not necessarily the result of adeficiency in actual academic or linguistic skills, rather, the child’sand/or parent’s’ perception of low ability. Children who struggleacademically are particularly sensitive to the nature of parentalinvolvement, because they often seek opportunities to validatetheir feelings of competency (Pomerantz et al., 2005). Thus,when parents act in a manner that is controlling or intrusive, theymay inadvertently conveymessages of incompetence.

Although they are not always an accurate reflection of theiractual abilities (Gonida & Cortina, 2014), parental perceptions ofchildren’s capabilities contribute to their child’s perceived efficacy(Frome & Eccles, 1998), and predict involvement in homeworktasks, in that the more parents perceive a weakness in their child’sskills, themore likely they are tomonitor homework and offer assis-tance (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004; Pomerantz &Eaton, 2001; Silinskas et al., 2013). The unintended outcome isincreased parental support during homework tasks can result indampened academic performance and self-regulated learning overtime, particularly among struggling learners (Silinskas et al., 2013).

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that should be noted wheninterpreting the findings. First, the study’s sample of 36 children

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 25

was relatively small and consisted entirely of parent- and/orteacher-identified struggling readers. Furthermore, parent par-ticipants were homogenous and predominantly Caucasian,female, and well-educated. This limits the generalizability of thefindings to typical readers, non-white and less-educated popula-tions, as well as to fathers and other caregivers. Based on the pur-pose of the investigation, data were collected through parentreports rather than teacher reports, and although these reportswere adapted from previous measures (e.g., Gottfried et al.,1994; Grolnick et al., 1997; Grolnick & Pomerantz, 2009; Grol-nick et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2007) that have been statisticallyvalidated, they have yet to be re-tested for reliability.

Despite these limitations, findings from the present studyhave important and encouraging implications for futureresearch and interventions. First and foremost, the helplessbehaviors of struggling readers during homework tasks werenot predicted by their actual linguistic and reading abilities;rather, they appear the outcome of a combination of regula-tory weaknesses and environmental influences. Autonomy isconsidered to be a crucial component in developing students’autonomous or intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) andwhen students’ need for self-determination are explicitlyaddressed through the structure of their learning environ-ment or task, reductions in task avoidance have beenobserved. As children feel more autonomy over their learningthey are more likely to engage in tasks, consolidate knowledgeand reduce stress. Although preliminary in nature, the find-ings from the current study lend support to the developmentof interventions that simultaneously offer scaffolds for sup-porting weaknesses in children’s behavior regulation, readingskills, and decreasing parents’ intrusive practices. Interven-tions that have targeted increasing autonomy-supportive prac-tices in school settings have demonstrated promising trendsin transforming achievement behaviors (Grolnick, Deci, &Ryan, 1997; Ng et al., 2004; Stoeger & Ziegler, 2008; Su &Reeve, 2001). At home, when parents structure learning expe-riences with clear expectations, predictable consequences,and process-based feedback, children are better able to regu-late their behavior during academic tasks and increase compe-tence (Farkas & Grolnick, 2010).

26 M. Orkin et al.

Conclusion

Homework in elementary school has only been found to haveminimal impact on long-term achievement (Grolnick & Slowiac-zek, 1994; Kohn, 2007; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002); however, theongoing pressure to efficiently remediate weaknesses in readingwill likely ensure the continued presence of home-based practice.The cumulative evidence in this article suggests that despiteparents’ best intentions to remediate the skills of struggling read-ers during homework tasks, intrusive behaviors may in fact con-tribute to the presence of helpless behaviors. Notably, they lendsupport to a body of research that emphasizes the importance ofthe quality rather than simply the quantity of parental support asessential to developing independence among impaired readers.Given the important influence of the quality of parental supportduring assignments, future research should be designed to bothcollect authentic data regarding parents’ current practices andperceptions of their role in the homework process and supportparents in fading intrusion and increasing autonomy-supportivestrategies.

Despite their best intentions, the notion that parents’ effortsto assist their children with homework may unintentionally resultin helpless behaviors, challenges the field to formulate alterna-tive expectations for successful homework experiences. Finding abalance between supporting and intruding on a child’s learningexperience is extremely challenging, and parents need guidancefrom researchers and educators on the practices that are mosteffective for eliciting positive achievement behaviors and ensur-ing experiences of “success” during homework tasks. Ongoingand interdisciplinary work in the fields of achievement motiva-tion and special education can provide guidelines and insightsfor families as they navigate their children’s educational experi-ences at home and create learning environments that supportpositive outcomes.

ORCID

Melissa Orkin http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8824-1906

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 27

References

Aunola, K., Nurmi, J., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2002).Developmental dynamics of achievement strategies, reading performanceand parental beliefs. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(3), 310–327.

Baker, L., Mackler, K., Sonnenschein, S., & Serpell, R. (2001). Parents’ interac-tions with their first-grade children during storybook reading and relationswith subsequent home reading activity and reading achievement. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 39(5), 415–438.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioralchange. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and func-tioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Bergold, S., & Steinmayr, R. (2016). The relation over time between achieve-

ment motivation and intelligence in young elementary school children: Alatent cross-lagged analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 228–240.

Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations between executivefunction and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representa-tive national sample. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 327–336.

Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and inter-vention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing schoolfailure. Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 899–911.

Blair, C., Zelazo, P. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). The measurement of execu-tive function in early childhood. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2), 561–571.

Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspec-tive on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231.

Brock, L. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Nathanson, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2009). Thecontributions of “hot” and “cool” executive function to children’s academicachievement, learning-related behaviors, and engagement in kindergarten.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(3), 337–349.

Bryan, T., Burstein, K., & Bryan, J. (2001). Students with learning disabilities: Home-work problems and promising practices. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 167–180.

Bryan, T., & Nelson, C. (1994). Doing homework perspectives of elementaryand junior high school students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 488–499.

Bryan, T., Nelson, C., & Mathur, S. (1995). Homework: A survey of primary stu-dents in regular, resource, and self-contained special education classrooms.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 85–90.

Burhans, K. K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The roleof contingent worth. Child Development, 66(6), 1719–1738.

Bus, A. G., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book readingmakes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerationaltransmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65(1), 1–21.doi:10.3102/00346543065001001

28 M. Orkin et al.

Butkowski, I. S., & Willows, D. M. (1980). Cognitive-motivational characteristicsof children varying in reading ability: Evidence for learned helplessness inpoor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 408–422.

Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1997). A longitudinal study of beginningreading achievement and reading self-concept. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 67, 279–291.

Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-relatedself-perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading& Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 5–24.

Cimpian, A., Arce, H. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguis-tic cues affect children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314–316.

Cooper, H. (2001). Homework for all—in moderation. Educational Leadership,58(7), 34–38.

Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in the home: How stu-dent, family, and parenting-style differences relate to the homework process.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 464–487.

Crosby, S. A., Rasinski, T., Padak, N., & Yildirim, K. (2015). A 3-year study of aschool-based parental involvement program in early literacy. The Journal ofEducational Research, 108(2), 165–172.

d’Ailly, H. (2003). Children’s autonomy and perceived control in learning: Amodel of motivation and achievement in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 95(1), 84–96.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrativemodel. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-deter-mination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11(4), 227–268.

Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. Theprocessing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5),940–952.

Dinkelmann, I., & Buff, A. (2016). Children’s and parents’ perceptions ofparental support and their effects on children’s achievement motivation andachievement in mathematics. A longitudinal predictive mediation model.Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 122–132.

Dudley-Marling, C. (2003). How school troubles come home: The impact ofhomework on families of struggling learners. Current Issues in Education, 6,1–11.

Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY:Scribner.

Duckworth, A., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-control and grit related but separabledeterminants of success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5),319–325.

Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in pre-dicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16(12),939–944.

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 29

Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., L€udtke, O., Neumann, M., Niggli, A., & Schnyder,I. (2012). Does parental homework involvement mediate the relationshipbetween family background and educational outcomes?. Contemporary Educa-tional Psychology, 37(1), 55–69.

Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviationof learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4),674–685.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivationand personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.

Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforce-ment responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 109–116.

Edmunds, K., & Bauserman, K. (2006). What teachers can learn about readingmotivation through conversations with children. The Reading Teacher, 59(5),414–424.

Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children’sachievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parentalinvolvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 96(4), 723–730.

Epstein, J. L., Simon, B. S., & Salinas, K. C. (1997). Involving parents in home-work in the middle grades. Research Bulletin, 18(4), 4.

Farkas, M. S., & Grolnick, W. S. (2010). Examining the components and con-comitants of parental structure in the academic domain. Motivation and Emo-tion, 34(3), 266–279.

Fincham, F. D., & Cain, K. M. (1986). Learned helplessness in humans: A devel-opmental analysis. Developmental Review, 6(4), 301–333.

Fincham, F. D., Hokoda, A., & Sanders, Jr., R. (1989). Learned helplessness, testanxiety, and academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. Child Develop-ment, 60(1), 138–145.

Fitzpatrick, C., & Pagani, L. S. (2013). Task-oriented kindergarten behavior paysoff in later childhood. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 34(2),94–101.

Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achieve-ment-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 435.

Ginsburg, G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children’sintrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation and academic performance.Child Development, 64(5), 1461–1474.

Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000). BRIEF: Behaviorrating inventory of executive function: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychologi-cal Assessment Resources.

Gonida, E. N., & Cortina, K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework:Relations with parent and student achievement�related motivationalbeliefs and achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3),376–396.

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental moti-vational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achieve-ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 104–113.

30 M. Orkin et al.

Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reas-sessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 574–587.

Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role ofemotion regulation in children’s early academic success. Journal of School Psy-chology, 45(1), 3–19.

Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parentingbackfires. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Grolnick, W. S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regu-lation for education. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 164–173.

Grolnick, W. S., Benjet, C., Kurowski, C. O., & Apostoleris, N. H. (1997). Predic-tors of parent involvement in children’s schooling. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 89(3), 538–548.

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within thefamily: The self- determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuc-zynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’ s internalization of values: A handbook ofcontemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New York, NY: Wiley.

Grolnick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., DeCourcey, W., & Jacob, K. (2002). Antecedentsand consequences of mothers’ autonomy support: An experimental investi-gation. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 143–155.

Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., Dunlap, K. G., & Hevey, C. (2000). Parentalresources and the transition to junior high. Journal of Research on Adolescence,10(4), 465–488.

Grolnick, W. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). Issues and challenges in studyingparental control: Toward a new conceptualization. Child Development Perspec-tives, 3(3), 165–170.

Grolnick, W. S., Raftery-Helmer, J. N. & Flamm, E. S. (2012). Parent involve-ment in learning. In A. J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guideto student achievement (pp. 101–103). New York, NY: Routledge.

Grolnick, W. S., Raftery-Helmer, J. N., Marbell, K. N., Flamm, E. S., Cardemil, E.V., & Sanchez, M. (2014). Parental provision of structure: Implementationand correlates in three domains.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60(3), 355–384.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: Anexperimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 52(5), 890–898.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’sself-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143–154.

Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’sschooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model.Child Development, 65(1), 237–252.

Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middleschool through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading &Writ-ing Quarterly, 19(1), 59–85.

Hagborg, W. (1999). Scholastic competence subgroups among high school stu-dents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22 (1), 3–10.

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 31

Hess, R. D., & McDevitt, T. M. (1984). Some cognitive consequences of mater-nal intervention techniques: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 55(6),2017–2030.

Hokoda, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Origins of children’s helpless and masteryachievement patterns in the family. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3),375–385.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M.,& Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psy-chologist, 36(3), 195–209.

Howse, R. B., Calkins, S. D., Anastopoulos, A. D., Keane, S. P., & Shelton, T. L.(2003). Regulatory contributors to children’s kindergarten achievement.Early Education and Development, 14(1), 101–120.

Humphrey, N. (2002). Teacher and pupil ratings of self-esteem in developmen-tal dyslexia. British Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 29–36.

Jose, P., & Bellamy, M. (2012). Relationship of parents’ theories of intelligencewith children’s persistence/learned helplessness: A cross-cultural compari-son. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 999–1018.

Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criti-cism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psy-chology, 35, 835–847.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(4), 330–358.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal ori-entation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184.

Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 44(1), 23–52.

Kasperski, R., & Katzir, T. (2013). Are confidence ratings test-or trait-driven?Individual differences among high, average, and low comprehenders infourth grade. Reading Psychology, 34(1), 59–84.

Katz, I., Buzukashvili, T., & Feingold, L. (2012). Homework stress: Construct val-idation of a measure. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(4), 405–421.

Kohn, A. (2007). The homework myth: Why our kids get too much of a bad thing. Cam-bridge, MA: Da Capo Press.

Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elemen-tary education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Lepola, J., Poskiparta, E., Laakkonen, E., & Niemi, P. (2005). Development ofand relationship between phonological and motivational processes and nam-ing speed in predicting word recognition in grade 1. Scientific Studies of Read-ing, 9(4), 367–399.

Lepola, J., Salonen, P., & Vauras, M. (2000). The development of motivationalorientations as a function of divergent reading careers from pre-school tothe second grade. Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 153–177.

Levin, I., Levy-Shiff, R., Appelbaum-Peled, T., Katz, I., Komar, M., & Meiran, N.(1997). Antecedents and consequences of maternal involvement in child-ren’s homework: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy-chology, 18(2), 207–227.

32 M. Orkin et al.

Licht, B. G., Kistner, J. A., Ozkaragoz, T., Shapiro, S., & Clausen, L. (1985).Causal attributions of learning disabled children: Individual differences andtheir implications for persistence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2),208–216.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs instudent engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quar-terly, 19(2), 119–137.

Margalit, M., & Heiman, T. (1986). Family climate and anxiety in families withlearning disabled boys. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25(6), 841–846.

Margolis, H. (2005). Resolving struggling learners’ homework difficulties:Working with elementary school learners and parents. Preventing School Fail-ure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 50(1), 5–12.

Margolis, H., McCabe, P. P., & Alber, S. R. (2004). Resolving strugglingreaders’ homework difficulties: How elementary school counselorscan help. Journal of Educational and psychological consultation, 15(1),79–110.

Marsh, H. (1984). Relations among dimensions of self-attribution, dimensionsof self-concept, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,76, 1291–1308.

Marsh, H., Cairns, L., Ralich, J., Barnes, J., & Debus, R. (1984). The relationshipbetween dimensions of self-attribution and dimensions of self-concept. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 76, 3–32.

McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (1984). When school goes home:Some problems in the organization of homework. The Teachers College Record,85(3), 391–409.

Moorman, E. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2008). Mothers’ cognitions about child-ren’s self-control: Implications for mothers’ responses to children’s helpless-ness. Social Development, 17(4), 960–979.

Moorman, E. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2010). Ability mindsets influence thequality of mothers’ involvement in children’s learning: An experimentalinvestigation. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1354.

Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Tufis, P. A., & Sperling, R. A. (2008). Are reading andbehavior problems risk factors for each other? Journal of Learning Disabilities,41(5), 417–436.

Morgan, P. L., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Cordray, D. S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008).Does early reading failure decrease children’s reading motivation? Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 41(5), 387–404.

Moroni, S., Dumont, H., Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., & Baeriswyl, F. (2015). Theneed to distinguish between quantity and quality in research on parentalinvolvement: The example of parental help with homework. The Journal ofEducational Research, 108(5), 417–431.

Ng, F. F., Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2004). Children’s achieve-ment moderates the effects of mothers’ use of control and autonomy sup-port. Child Development, 75(3), 764–780.

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 33

Nicholls, J. G., McKenzie, M., & Shufro, J. (1994). Schoolwork, homework, life’swork: The experience of students with and without learning disabilities. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 27(9), 562–569.

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and studystrategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 269–287.

Onatsu-Arvilommi, T., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). The role of task-avoidant and task-focused behaviors in the development of reading and mathematical skillsduring the first school year: A cross-lagged longitudinal study. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 92(3), 478–491.

Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., Samarapungavan, A., & French, B. F. (2008).Patterns of young children’s motivation for science and teacher-child rela-tionships. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 121–144.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions instudents’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitativeand quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.

Pennington, B. F., Groisser, D., & Welsh, M. C. (1993). Contrasting cognitivedeficits in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder versus reading disability.Developmental Psychology, 29(3), 511.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of studentmotivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 95(4), 667–686.

Polychroni, F., Koukoura, K., & Anagnostou, I. (2006). Academic self-concept,reading attitude and approaches to learning of children with dyslexia: Dothey differ from their peers? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(4),415–430.

Pomerantz, E. M., & Eaton, M. M. (2001). Maternal intrusive support in the aca-demic context: Transactional socialization processes. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 37(2), 174–186.

Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom,and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is notalways better. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 373–410.

Pomerantz, E. M., Wang, Q., & Ng, F. F. Y. (2005). Mothers’ affect in the home-work context: The importance of staying positive. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 414–427.

Salend, S. J. & Gajria, M. (1995). Increasing the homework completion rates ofstudents with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 271–278.

Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory.Child Development, 36(2), 413–424.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self�efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Edu-cational Psychologist, 19(1), 48–58.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psy-chology Review, 1(3), 173–208.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2012). Motivation and self-regulatedlearning: Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.

Seligman, M. E., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Jour-nal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 1–9.

34 M. Orkin et al.

Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development ofchildren’s reading skill: A 5-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73,445–460.

S�en�echal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2014). Continuity and change in the home liter-acy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. ChildDevelopment, 85(4), 1552–1568. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12222

S�en�echal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions onchildren’s acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-ana-lytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 880–907.

Sideridis, G. D. (2003). On the origins of helpless behavior of students withlearning disabilities: Avoidance motivation? International Journal of Educa-tional Research, 39(4), 497–517.

Sideridis, G. D., Morgan, P. L., Botsas, G., Padeliadu, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Pre-dicting LD on the basis of motivation, metacognition, and psychopathology:An ROC analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 215–229.

Silinskas, G., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2013). Child-ren’s poor academic performance evokes parental homework assis-tance—but does it help? International Journal of Behavioral Development,37(1), 44–56.

Smiley, P. A., Coulson, S. L., Greene, J. K., & Bono, K. L. (2010). Performanceconcern, contingent self-worth, and responses to repeated achievement fail-ure in second graders. Social Development, 19(4), 779–798.

Smiley, P. & Dweck, C. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goalsamong young children. Child Development, 65, 1723–1743.

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, par-enting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational PsychologyReview, 17(2), 125–146.

Spira, E. G., & Fischel, J. E. (2005). The impact of preschool inattention, hyper-activity, and impulsivity on social and academic development: A review. Jour-nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(7), 755–773.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of indi-vidual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,360–407.

Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2008). Evaluation of a classroom based training toimprove self-regulation in time management tasks during homework activi-ties with fourth graders.Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 207–230.

Stone, C. & May, A. (2002). The accuracy of academic self-evaluations in adoles-cents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 370–383.

Su, Y-L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventionprograms designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159–188.

Tabassam, W. & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept, attributional style and self-effi-cacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities with and without attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(2), 141–151.

Thomas, A. (1979). Learned helplessness and expectancy factors: Implicationsfor research in learning disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 49(2),208–221.

Homework Behaviors Among Struggling Readers 35

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goalstructure in students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 35(1), 101–122.

Vala�s, H. (2001). Learned helplessness and psychological adjustment II: Effects

of learning disabilities and low achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educa-tional Research, 45(2), 101–114.

Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1999). The Farrells and Kinneys at home: Liter-acies in action. In H. Varenne & R. McDermott (Eds.), Successful failure: Theschool America builds (pp. 45–62). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Vatterott, C. (2009). Rethinking homework: Best practices that support diverse needs.Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Walker, J. M., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Whetsel, D. R., & Green, C. L. (2004).Parental involvement in homework: A review of current research and its implicationsfor teachers, after school program staff, and parent leaders. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://kids-connect.org/homework.pdf

Walker, B. J., & Rivers, D. (2003). Supporting struggling readers (Vol. 41). NorthYork, Canada: Pippin Publishing Corporation.

Wang, Q., Pomerantz, E. M., & Chen, H. (2007). The role of parents’ control inearly adolescents’ psychological functioning: A longitudinal investigation inthe United States and China. Child Development, 78(5), 1592–1610.

Warton, P. M. (2001). The forgotten voices in homework: Views of students.Educational Psychologist, 36, 155–165.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 7(1), 3–25.

Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Test (5th ed.). Austin,TX: Pro-Ed.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of children’s motivations forreading: An initial study. Reading Research Report No. 34. College Park,MD: National Reading Research Center.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for read-ing to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 89(3), 420–432.

Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013). Clinical evaluations of languagefundamentals—fifth edition (CELF-5). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.

Wilgosh, L. (1984). Learned helplessness in normally achieving and learningdisabled girls.Mental Retardation and Learning Disability Bulletin, 12(2), 64–70.

Xu, J. (2011). Homework completion at the secondary school level: A multilevelanalysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 171–182.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personalskill: A self- regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2–3), 73–86.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and aca-demic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.

36 M. Orkin et al.