Chinese language teachers’ agency in homework practices in a Xinjiang minority county

Chinese language teachers’ agency in homework practices in a Xinjiang minority county | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Chinese language teachers’ agency in homework practices in a Xinjiang minority county Shenji Zhou, Xingzi Xu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7725633/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 8 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Grounded in Archer’s critical realist framework, this study investigates how Chinese language teachers in Xinjiang exercised agency in assigning homework. Using a mixed-methods design, it examines the dynamics between teachers’ concerns regarding the functions of homework, the modes of action through which they assigned it, and the personal as well as contextual properties that conditioned these processes. Teachers who espoused more constructivist orientations toward literacy often reverted to traditional, exam-oriented tasks, shaped by students’ limited proficiency in the national language and the pressures of high-stakes assessment. Parental involvement further complicated this landscape: although intended to support learning, it was frequently interpreted by teachers through a deficit lens, with local cultural norms seen as signaling indifference or even counterproductive behavior, which deepened their concerns. Together, these dynamics steered teachers toward pragmatic, utilitarian forms of homework, sustaining rather than transforming established routines. The analysis demonstrates how teacher agency in minority contexts emerges through reflexive accommodation to structural and cultural conditions, offering insight into the bounded nature of action under monolingual policy priorities. Social science/Education Humanities/Language and linguistics Social science/Language and linguistics ethnic region Chinese language language teacher homework teacher agency Figures Figure 1 Introduction Across the world, governments continue to wrestle with the balance between honoring linguistic diversity and promoting a national standard language. Language policy has historically leaned toward monolingual priorities, evident in cases such as France (Blanchet & Armstrong, 2006 ), Spain (Bruzos et al., 2018 ), and, at certain times, parts of the United States (Schmid, 2001 ). Similar patterns persist across parts of Asia, where language planning continues to privilege national standard languages over minority ones (Hamid & Ali, 2022 ). Such choices are often informed by the assumption that a shared linguistic code can foster social cohesion and a sense of national identity. As Philips ( 2018 , p. 564) notes, “One basic tenet of the ideology that each country needs a national language is that ideally there should be only one standard language that functions as a national language.” China’s policy reflects this broader pattern: it seeks to safeguard multilingualism as a cultural and political resource while also advancing Putonghua as a national lingua franca (Wu & Silver, 2025 ; Zhang & Adamson, 2023 ; Zhou, 2019 ). This dual orientation was articulated in the 2020 Opinions on Comprehensively Strengthening the Work of Spoken and Written Chinese for a New Era , which called for “scientifically protecting the languages and scripts of all ethnic groups” while at the same time emphasizing the expansion of Putonghua proficiency in ethnic regions, particularly through strengthening teacher training in the national language. Empirical research further indicates that, in a context where the Han constitute the majority population, proficiency in Chinese contributes to minority students’ long-term educational success (Cui & De Costa, 2022 ) as well as their participation in labor markets and social integration (Han & Cassels Johnson, 2021 ; Xu, 2019 ; Zhou, 2019 ). Situated within this broader backdrop, this study explores how teachers exercise agency in assigning homework in the national standard language. In contexts where students have limited daily exposure to that language, homework functions not only as reinforcement of classroom learning but also as one of the few sustained opportunities for practice beyond school. Nevertheless, little is known about how teachers exercise their agency in designing and implementing such assignments, leaving a significant gap in understanding how language policy is enacted in daily pedagogical practice. Literature review A critical realist perspective on teacher agency In Chinese language teaching, teacher agency is anchored in the dynamics of action: teachers adapt, modify, add, or omit learning tasks to strengthen students’ linguistic knowledge and communicative competence (Bao et al., 2020 ), or introduce new perspectives into instruction (Yang & Han, 2022 ). Policy rhetoric at times overstates teacher agency. The widely circulated “teachers matter” discourse (OECD, 2005 ) subtly exemplifies this tendency, carrying the risk of obscuring systemic constraints and leaving teachers disempowered when held accountable for outcomes beyond their structural reach (Stylianou & Zembylas, 2020 ). A critical realist perspective offers a counterweight, insisting that educational phenomena are not reducible to isolated variables but shaped by interacting mechanisms that co-construct the social world (Parra et al., 2021 ). From this view, teacher agency does not stand apart but emerges within—and is delimited by—structural and policy constraints. Archer’s ( 1995 , 2003 ) perspective deepens this view by stressing that agency is exercised in relation to an individual’s concerns and shaped through reflexive deliberation. An active agent is consciously aware of these concerns and “deliberates over their ranking, patterning, and pursuit” (Archer, 2003 , p. 27). Through such reflexive work, concerns are translated into a modus vivendi , a practical way of living out what matters to them. Of note, reflexive deliberation is always contextual. Structural and cultural properties impinge upon agents involuntarily, for they constitute the very situations in which action becomes possible (Archer, 2003 ). For Chinese language teachers in ethnic minority regions, the educational and familial contexts they inhabit set conditions that they cannot simply sidestep. Still, as Archer ( 1995 ) reminds us, “no conditional influence works as a hydraulic pressure, but is subject to reflective (if often imperfect) evaluation by agents who weigh it against their other concerns” (p. 184). Structural and cultural conditions acquire causal efficacy only when mediated through teachers’ concerns and thereby rendered consequential in practice (Archer, 1995 , 2003 ). In this sense, drawing on Archer’s critical realist perspective, this study treats homework as a site of teacher agency, with particular attention to the concerns Chinese language teachers hold, their modes of action, and the personal and contextual factors that that shape the relative salience of concerns. Homework as a site of teacher agency Teachers often regard homework as a particularly significant element of instruction, especially in contexts where students from non-dominant backgrounds face linguistic or resource-related challenges (Brock et al., 2007 ). What teachers believe homework should accomplish, in turn, strongly shapes their assignment practices (Rosário et al., 2015 ). As Cooper ( 2007 ) observed, homework rarely serves a single purpose but typically fulfills multiple ones, from consolidating classroom learning to fostering independence and responsibility. Building on later studies (Fitzmaurice et al., 2020 ; Tam, 2009; Tam & Chan, 2016 ), four key functions of homework that teachers are particularly concerned with can be identified. Serving immediate learning goals. Homework is designed primarily to consolidate or extend classroom instruction through practice of newly acquired knowledge and skills. Although often criticized as repetitive, such tasks remain central and widespread (Kukk et al., 2015 ; Kukliansky et al., 2016 ). Teachers may aspire to create “child-friendly” homework that enriches learning, yet in practice they frequently rely on vocabulary memorization, reading aloud, dictation, and copying (Holte, 2016 ), reflecting a concern with reinforcing immediate teaching objectives (Cooper, 2007 ). Serving long-term learning goals. Teachers also regard homework as a form of “self-disciplining technology” (Strandberg, 2013 ), fostering durable dispositions such as interest, study habits, self-control, independence, and time management that reach beyond immediate achievement. This concern reflects the hope that assignments can build responsibility and motivation, particularly among disadvantaged students (McCrory Calarco et al., 2022 ). Still, questions remain over whether such long-term aims can be achieved through homework alone (Holland et al., 2021 ). Enhancing home-school communication : Teachers are also concerned with homework as a bridge between school and family (Strandberg, 2013 ). Rather than an end in itself, assignments provide a platform for parents to engage with their children’s learning, thereby fostering home-school collaboration (Cooper, 2007 ; Grinshtain & Harpaz, 2021 ). In minority contexts, some teachers make this concern explicit by using homework to encourage parental involvement (Baxter & Nolan, 2024 ; Thelamour & Jacobs, 2014 ). Meeting external demands : Meeting external demands. Teachers are also concerned with homework as a way of responding to expectations from parents, schools, or districts (Brock et al., 2007 ; Tam & Chan, 2016 ). Under such pressures, assignments may be used less to advance learning than to signal diligence or control. In this context, some teachers resort to punitive forms of homework, using it as a disciplinary tool to demonstrate accountability when students fall short of standards. Although relatively uncommon, research indicates that such practices persist (Kukliansky et al., 2016 ). Teachers act on these concerns through the ways they design and assign homework (Holland et al., 2021 ). In Chinese national standard language, formats range from copying, recitation, extended reading, and writing to more creative or hands-on tasks such as producing newsletters, conducting interviews, or carrying out surveys (Wang et al., 2016 ). Research further distinguishes between drilling homework, centered on repetition and memorization, and non-drilling homework, which emphasizes imagination, reading, collaboration, and parental engagement (Tam & Chan, 2016 ). These modes of action show how teachers translate pedagogical concerns into concrete practices. Personal and contextual conditions for agency: Teaching beliefs and parental engagement Following Archer’s ( 1995 , 2003 ) view of agency as shaped by both personal and contextual conditions, this study considers homework through two factors: teaching beliefs serve as a personal anchor, orienting teachers toward what they regard as worthwhile ends, while parental engagement constitutes a contextual force that teachers must interpret and respond to. Teachers’ beliefs about how literacy should be taught shape the concerns they bring to homework, especially the functions they expect it to fulfill. In Chinese language education, such beliefs often crystallize into two contrasting orientations. Bottom-up approaches stress direct instruction in character recognition and form, gradually moving toward comprehension, whereas top-down approaches encourage students to draw on prior knowledge and language resources to construct meaning (Lü & Lavadenz, 2014 ). These orientations parallel phonics and whole-language methods, respectively (Li, 2015 ). Beliefs matter because teachers’ “perceptions and choices in creating the learning process impact the scope and content of homework” (Kukk et al., 2015 , p. 136). At the same time, research shows that teachers’ practices do not always align with their stated beliefs, as systemic pressures (e.g., examinations and students’ academic preparedness) may constrain the enactment of reform-oriented approaches (Tam, 2006 ). This tension underscores that what teachers regard as educationally worthwhile may not always materialize in their everyday assignments. Parental engagement often reflects, in miniature, the wider educational culture that teachers navigate. While parental attitudes toward academic involvement are often deeply ingrained and stable (Fitzmaurice et al., 2020 ), in minority families this may manifest as role confusion, with parents uncertain about how best to support their children’s learning (Grinshtain & Harpaz, 2021 ). Such engagement is sometimes mischaracterized as deficient, when in fact families may participate in ways that diverge from dominant norms (Thelamour & Jacobs, 2014 ). Teachers’ perceptions of parental involvement influence how homework is conceived. When they see parents as having limited capacity, teachers often design independent tasks that reduce reliance on family input; when they value family dialogue, they deliberately set assignments that bring parents into the learning process (Baxter & Nolan, 2024 ). High levels of involvement can increase teachers’ sense of accountability and pressure to meet parental expectations, while limited participation prompts them to adjust homework toward greater student independence (Fitzmaurice et al., 2020 ; Sayers et al., 2022 ). Methodology Mixed-methods design This study adopts an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, following Haynes-Brown’s ( 2023 ) model of integrating theory throughout the research process. Archer’s ( 1995 , 2003 ) critical realist perspective not only frames the initial quantitative phase but is also iteratively refined through qualitative inquiry, ensuring that the integration of findings remains theoretically grounded. In the quantitative phase, structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to examine the interplay among three dimensions derived from Archer’s framework: teachers’ concerns regarding the functions of homework, their modes of action as reflected in format choices, and the conditions for agency represented by literacy teaching beliefs and perceptions of parental involvement. The subsequent qualitative phase employed semi-structured interviews with Chinese language teachers. Interviews were designed to probe areas of ambiguity from the quantitative analysis (Haynes-Brown, 2023 ) and to situate teachers’ practices within the broader institutional and cultural settings that condition them, consistent with the critical realist idea of “macro regress” (Sayer, 2010 , p. 81). Teachers were asked to reflect on their rationales for assigning particular types of homework, the role of parental engagement in their decisions, and the constraints and opportunities they encountered in practice. These accounts enriched the statistical findings, showing how teachers’ concerns were activated and mediated within specific educational and familial contexts. X County in southern Xinjiang is a predominantly ethnic region, with Uyghurs comprising 98% of the population. Compared with other areas, the county has relatively low population mobility and limited diffusion of the national standard language (Li & Ren, 2021 ). These conditions make language teaching especially demanding, as many children, particularly in rural areas, grow up without a supportive home environment for Chinese national language and thus enter school with weak proficiency (Clothey, 2024 ). Quantitative phase The quantitative phase was carried out following a professional development workshop for Chinese language teachers in primary schools in X County. A total of 120 valid questionnaires were obtained from voluntary participants. Guided by Archer’s ( 1995 , 2003 ) framework, the instruments measured three core dimensions of teacher agency in homework. First, concerns regarding homework functions were measured with the Teachers’ Perceptions of Homework Functions Scale , adapted from Tam and Chan ( 2016 ). The instrument comprised 12 items distributed across four domains: serving immediate goals, supporting long-term goals, meeting external demands, and enhancing home-school communication. Second, modes of action in homework assignment were measured with the Homework Format Preferences Scale , also adapted from Tam and Chan ( 2016 ). This instrument covered seven formats that can be categorized into drilling and non-drilling types. Third, conditions for agency were assessed using two instruments. Teaching beliefs were assessed using an adapted version of the Chinese Literacy Teaching Beliefs Questionnaire (Lü & Lavadenz, 2014 ), which retained 9 items spanning top-down and bottom-up orientations. Parental involvement was measured with 6 items adapted from the home-based dimension of Li and Hung’s ( 2012 ) Parental Involvement Scale , adjusted to capture the specific context of Chinese language learning at home. Figure 1 presents the hypothesized structural model. Sample adequacy was confirmed through power analysis, and data were analyzed using SmartPLS 3.3.3. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was chosen because it is well suited to modest sample sizes, accommodates non-normal data distributions, and is designed for examining predictive and mediating relations rather than prioritizing overall model fit (Hair et al., 2019 ). Figure 1 . Schematic of the Structural Equation Model (SEM) Qualitative phase Among the teachers who voluntarily agreed to participate in follow-up interviews, we purposively selected four cases (Table 1 ). To sharpen the analytic focus, we concentrated on Han teachers. As native speakers of the national standard language, they occupy a position at the intersection of state policy imperatives and local cultural realities (Clothey, 2024 ), making their homework practices a particularly revealing site for examining how institutional demands and community conditions shape teacher agency. Selection was guided by literacy teaching beliefs, identified in the survey as a key condition influencing homework concerns and modes of action. To ensure variation, we included teachers with contrasting orientations (i.e., top-down and bottom-up), and within each orientation chose cases that illustrated different ways in which beliefs translated into homework practices. Table 1 Interviewees’ Information Pseudonyms Gender Exp. Ethnicity Degree Major Amy Female 3 yrs Han Bachelor’s Degree Primary Education Betty Female 5 yrs Han Bachelor’s Degree Education Management Carrie Female 7 yrs Han Bachelor’s Degree English Education Dina Female 5 yrs Han Bachelor’s Degree Chinese Language and Literature Table 1 . Interviewees’ Information Interviews followed a two-stage realist format (Pawson & Tilley, 1997 ). In the first round, each teacher was introduced to the conceptual framework derived from the quantitative phase and invited to discuss how it resonated with their own experiences. The interviewer then used open-ended prompts to elicit teachers’ perspectives on why they assigned particular types of homework, how they understood parental involvement, and what constraints or opportunities they faced. Each interview lasted about 90 minutes and was conducted in a “teacher-as-expert” style, encouraging participants to critique or expand on the framework rather than simply validate it. A second, shorter round was conducted to revisit emerging explanations, clarify ambiguities, and test whether participants endorsed the interpretations developed by the researchers. Analysis combined emic and etic perspectives (Maxwell, 2012 ). Transcripts were first coded inductively to capture teachers’ own categories and rationales. These substantive categories were then re-specified through Archer’s framework, highlighting how conditions, concerns, and actions connected in practice. Comparison across cases identified common mechanisms, while within-case analysis examined the “contiguity” of categories, or the ways in which contextual conditions shaped the patterning of concerns and actions. This iterative movement between teachers’ accounts and theoretical categories is consistent with Haynes-Brown’s ( 2023 ) argument for embedding theory throughout mixed methods research. Quantitative research findings Assessing the measurement model The reliability and validity of all constructs were well established. Factor loadings ranged from 0.752 to 0.965, Cronbach’s α from 0.751 to 0.944, and composite reliability from 0.899 to 0.964. AVE values (0.696–0.898) exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.50, confirming convergent validity. Discriminant validity was supported by HTMT ratios (0.196–0.892), all below 0.90. As shown in Table 2 , teachers rated serving immediate learning goals as the most important function of homework, meeting external demands as least important, and expressed a stronger preference for drilling than for non-drilling formats. These patterns suggest a pragmatic orientation, with teachers valuing functions and formats that deliver immediate, tangible returns in students’ learning. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Variables Variable M SD Bottom-up teaching belief (BUB) 3.71 0.832 Top-down teaching belief (TDB) 3.73 0.833 Parental involvement (PI) 2.52 0.927 Serving immediate learning goals (ILG) 3.99 0.694 Serving long-term learning goals (LLG) 3.91 0.761 Meeting external demands (MED) 3.21 0.962 Enhancing home-school communication (HSC) 3.57 0.977 Drilling homework (DH) 3.90 0.752 Non-drilling homework (NDH) 3.27 0.918 Table 2 . Descriptive Statistics for Variables Assessing the structural model No collinearity issues were detected (VIF = 1.113–4.181). Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples supported the significance of the estimated paths. The model showed moderate explanatory power for most endogenous constructs, with R² values from 0.35 (immediate goals) to 0.54 (drilling homework). The exception was meeting external demands (R² = 0.078), where explained variance was weak. Predictive relevance was acceptable overall (Q² = 0.292–0.383), but again low for meeting external demands (Q² = 0.048), indicating limited predictive utility for this dimension. Table 3 summarizes the significant effects, which can be grouped into four main findings: Table 3 Path Coefficients of the Model (Significant Paths Only) Path Path Coefficients (Original Sample) Path Coefficients (Bootstrapped Mean) Confidence Interval TDB > > ILG 0.277 0.279 (0.057, 0.471) TDB > > DH 0.282 0.294 (0.082, 0.509) BUB > > ILG 0.36 0.363 (0.134, 0.564) BUB > > LLG 0.389 0.393 (0.199, 0.584) BUB > > MED 0.299 0.313 (0.045, 0.558) BUB > > HSC 0.633 0.634 (0.441, 0.8) PI > > LLG 0.162 0.163 (0.009, 0.307) PI > > HSC 0.174 0.179 (0.034, 0.319) ILG > > DH 0.315 0.312 (0.055, 0.531) LLG > > NDH 0.426 0.427 (0.185, 0.691) MED > > NDH 0.206 0.213 (0.021, 0.394) HSC > > NDH 0.326 0.327 (0.105, 0.532) Functions guiding formats. Immediate goals predicted stronger reliance on drilling tasks, whereas long-term goals, external demands, and home-school communication were associated with non-drilling formats. Top-down beliefs. Teachers holding top-down literacy beliefs emphasized immediate goals and showed stronger preferences for drilling tasks, suggesting a paradox between progressive beliefs and traditional practices. Bottom-up beliefs. Bottom-up beliefs enhanced teachers’ recognition of all four homework functions, but did not directly influence format preferences, indicating a broader sense of purpose without specific behavioral translation. Parental involvement. Teachers perceiving greater parental involvement gave more weight to long-term goals and home-school communication, highlighting its role in enabling more future-oriented functions of homework. Table 3 . Path Coefficients of the Model (Significant Paths Only) Overall, the model maps how literacy beliefs and parental involvement condition teachers’ concerns and format choices. Two tensions warrant closer attention in the qualitative phase: the disjunction between meaning-oriented (top-down) beliefs and drilling practices, and the way parental involvement reframes the purposes assigned to homework. Our qualitative analysis therefore probes how teachers interpret and navigate these dynamics in day-to-day decision-making. Qualitative research findings From beliefs to practices: Navigating language constraints, utilitarian goals, and resource enablements Teachers’ top-down and bottom-up literacy beliefs did not translate directly into homework practices but revealed both alignment and tension. These beliefs, though grounded in pedagogical orientations, were continually reshaped by the realities of practice (e.g., students’ weak foundation in Chinese language, the pressure to prepare for high-stakes examinations, and instructional resources available). Amy: top-down, exam-oriented practice Teaching a graduating primary class led Amy to adopt what appeared to be a top-down orientation, though more from necessity than choice. She explained: “In first and second grade, we still teach character structure, but by third grade it’s all about learning characters in context. By fifth and sixth grade, I didn’t even teach characters anymore. It was a waste of time.” Two considerations drove this stance: the pressure of preparing students for the Xinjiang Class program 1 , a pathway to inland schooling and upward mobility, and her conviction that literacy foundations “must be laid in first and second grade” or they were no longer worth reteaching. Her homework assignments reflected this pragmatism. She favored practice tests and exam-style tasks aimed at short-term readiness: “When assigning homework, I mostly thought about what would be on the final exam. Would this question come up, and could they answer it?” Homework thus became an instrument of short-term exam readiness, shaped less by an educational philosophy than by the utilitarian demands of mobility and selection. Betty: bottom-up, parental involvement in basic tasks Betty’s beliefs reflected a bottom-up orientation that centered on consolidating basic literacy skills. For her students—young learners with fragile language foundations—homework was not about extension but reinforcement. “The main thing is for them to remember what we learned today. If we covered four new characters, they should just remember those four.” Her expectations were deliberately modest: “As long as they grasp 80 to 90 percent of what we learned today, that’s fine.” A key feature of Betty’s practice was the way she mobilized parents to support these elementary goals. As she explained, “If we learned five initials today, I ask parents to help out using sound cards. Once the children have memorized the order of the initials—‘b [p], p [pʰ], m [m], f [f]’—I ask the parents to mix them up, perhaps read one aloud and have the child pick the matching card.” In Betty’s account, parental involvement was most effective when tasks were concrete and accessible, allowing families to reinforce classroom learning in ways that matched their capacities. Carrie: bottom-up, diversified practice Like Betty, Carrie also worked from a bottom-up orientation, prioritizing basic literacy and writing. Yet, unlike Betty’s emphasis on repetition and parental reinforcement, Carrie treated homework as a natural continuation of classroom teaching and sought to enrich it with variety. “I generally treat assigning homework as an extension of the teaching process, always aligned with the lesson objectives,” she explained. Alongside copying and memorization, the structure of textbooks and workbooks encouraged her to assign tasks that fostered divergent thinking (e.g., asking students to draw, continue a short story, or retell the day’s lesson). She even introduced “Chinese language newsletters,” where children organized vocabulary, synonyms, and antonyms. In this way, Carrie balanced the consolidation of fundamentals with creative engagement, broadening the role of homework beyond simple repetition. Dina: top-down, balancing ideals and realities Dina’s top-down beliefs were grounded in the conviction that language learning should nurture students as whole persons. “Grades don’t matter; being a good, happy person is what’s most important!” she stressed, aiming to cultivate students’ enjoyment of reading and writing through rich, creative experiences. In principle, such beliefs pointed toward more open-ended and imaginative homework. However, the reality of her students’ weak foundation in the national standard language made her resort to rote copying and memorization, which she admitted “took up more than half” of her assignments. Tasks designed to foster holistic growth became the minority. Dina’s case illustrates the tension between pedagogical ideals and classroom constraints, where creative ambitions were continually compromised by the perceived necessity of drills. Summary The four teachers illustrated contrasting ways in which literacy beliefs shaped homework practices. Amy and Dina, though both aligned with top-down orientations, directed their assignments largely toward short-term goals such as character mastery, relying heavily on copying and testing. By contrast, Betty and Carrie, grounded in bottom-up beliefs, placed greater emphasis on consolidation and parental involvement, drawing on instructional materials to diversify tasks and extend the role of homework beyond rote repetition. These contrasts echo the survey findings, underscoring how distinct belief orientations translate into distinct strategies. Yet across these differences, a shared pragmatic orientation was evident, as all four teachers sought practices they regarded as workable within the constraints of students’ proficiency and institutional expectations. Three factors proved decisive in shaping these patterns. First, concerns about students’ fragile Chinese foundations drove teachers toward training-oriented practices, privileging basic skills over more creative tasks—an instance of what Kukliansky et al. ( 2016 ) describe as the “difficulty in aligning reality with the optimal conditions of the views” (p. S245). Second, high-stakes opportunities such as the Xinjiang Class reinforced a utilitarian framing of homework as a vehicle for academic mobility. With parents having limited capacity to provide support, teachers assumed central responsibility for guiding students toward these selective pathways (Su et al., 2020 ). Even when they voiced idealistic visions, they often recast “purpose-oriented homework to maximize classroom productivity” (Kukk et al., 2015 , p. 136) as a pragmatic strategy for securing students’ immediate prospects. Third, when expectations for literacy instruction were modest and clearly defined, the environment became more conducive to diverse practices: parents could assist with simple tasks, and textbooks provided concrete scaffolds for structuring assignments. Parental academic involvement in homework: Complex roles and cultural conditioning The quantitative phase suggested that parental academic involvement pushed teachers toward long-term goals and home-school communication. Yet the interviews revealed a more complex picture. Positive involvement was uncommon, and when it did occur, it was often ambivalent—sometimes reinforcing learning, sometimes complicating teachers’ practices. Amy: absence of support Amy spoke with deep frustration about the lack of parental support for her students’ homework. She used the phrase “five plus two equals zero” to describe how the Chinese language knowledge accumulated during the five days of school was undone by the two days at home in the family language. Her repeated efforts to encourage parents to speak Chinese with their children or to treat language learning as a priority made little difference. For Amy, this absence of support meant that parents could not be relied upon to reinforce classroom learning. Rather than serving as partners in fostering long-term goals or building channels of communication, they appeared to her as a counterforce that left homework almost entirely in the hands of the school. Betty: cultural disengagement Betty felt that meaningful parental involvement was difficult to expect in the local context, pointing to the absence of an academic culture. “There’s just no culture of learning here. People simply don’t study,” she observed. For many families, agricultural work and daily routines left little space for valuing Chinese language learning, and some parents openly resisted her expectations. She recalled being told, “I’m only a farmer; you can’t expect too much from my child.” For Betty, such comments revealed how cultural orientations toward education limited the scope for home-school collaboration. Parental disengagement, in her view, stemmed less from indifference than from the reproduction of structural inequalities. At the same time, she noted that some parents did try to help but in ways that proved counterproductive. Recalling a child with speech difficulties, she described how late-night drilling ended in tears as the mother, overwhelmed with frustration, resorted to scolding. In Betty’s eyes, this kind of “ineffective involvement” turned intended support into an additional obstacle to learning. Carrie: confused participation Carrie, like Betty, observed that some parents were not absent but rather unsure of how to contribute, a form of role confusion also noted in previous research (Grinshtain & Harpaz, 2021 ). Many expressed a desire to help yet lacked the strategies or confidence to do so, leaving their involvement fragmented and uncertain. Carrie described this as “helpless frustration” ( ganzhaoji ), where parents corrected homework by simply saying, “This is wrong, that’s wrong,” without offering guidance. Children in turn felt stuck and discouraged, while parents grew increasingly agitated. Such tensions sometimes escalated into scolding or even punishment, dynamics known to harm students’ socio-emotional well-being and academic engagement (Pomerantz et al., 2007 ). For Carrie, these patterns complicated homework design, as she had to anticipate not only students’ needs but also the unintended consequences of parental involvement. Dina: policy resistance Dina observed that parents’ views on learning were strongly conditioned by the local culture, where academic achievement was not always seen as worth sustained effort or as a pathway to better futures. In her account, this orientation was compounded by the Double Reduction Policy (DRP), which sought to reduce homework and curb private tutoring in order to recentralize learning within schools (MoE, 2021). While intended to ease students’ burdens, Dina noted that parents often appropriated the policy to resist schoolwork altogether. As she recalled, “Whenever I assigned homework, parents would say, ‘Teacher, hasn’t the Double Reduction policy been implemented? Why are you still assigning homework? Aren’t you tired? Isn’t my child tired?’” This dynamic placed her in a difficult position. While parents disparaged repetitive copying as mechanical and unnecessary, Dina regarded it as indispensable for consolidating literacy. The possibility of complaints, however, made her increasingly cautious. To navigate this tension, she sometimes conveyed the value of practice indirectly through students, asking them to request notebooks from parents or invite their help in checking stroke order. At other times, she labeled tasks as “voluntary,” a gesture that signaled compliance with policy while allowing her to preserve a measure of academic rigor. Such compromises, though far from ideal, amounted to a fragile and uneasy balance between parental resistance, policy constraints, and her professional responsibility. Summary Parental involvement emerged as one factor shaping teachers’ homework decisions, influencing both their reasoning and daily practice. However, this influence was rarely straightforward. First, it was not simply a matter of “more or less”: involvement could be complex and sometimes counterproductive, showing that “more is not always better” (Pomerantz et al., 2007 ). Observed instances of punitive parental involvement commonly produced demotivation and emotional strain in students (Holland et al., 2021 ), prompting teachers to reassess both the aims and format of homework.Second, teachers interpreted the cultural milieu of X County as shaping parents’ orientations toward schooling in ways that constrained constrained their capacity to engage and made structuring homework more difficult. The DRP, intended to relieve student burden and enhance instructional quality, introduced further complications, as some parents appropriated it to resist homework. Taken together, these dynamics suggest that, from teachers’ perspectives, their agency was negotiated at the intersection of parental involvement, local cultural orientations, and policy constraints. Discussion This study adopted a mixed-methods design to investigate the agency of Chinese language teachers in assigning homework in X County, Xinjiang. Drawing on Archer’s ( 1995 , 2003 ) critical realist perspective, we examined how literacy teaching beliefs and perceived parental involvement conditioned teachers’ concerns about the functions of homework and the modes of action through which they acted. In doing so, the study deepens understanding of how teacher agency unfolds within the cultural and institutional constraints of a minority context. Teaching beliefs under constraint: Why pragmatic orientations dominate homework The translation of teachers’ literacy beliefs into homework practice was never linear. Their concerns were continually refracted through contextual conditions, most visibly students’ limited proficiency in the national standard language, as well as structural pressures from textbooks and examinations. For instance, although Dina valued constructing meaning through natural reading, she frequently reverted to rote memorization and copying. Language limitations, in particular, exerted a decisive influence on how teachers’ concerns were enacted in practice. Whether adopting a top-down or bottom-up approach, teachers tended to favor traditional homework functions and formats, perceiving them as more effective in addressing students’ weak Chinese language proficiency. Chinese language teachers’ emphasis on drills, memorization, and comprehension resonates with a traditional view of learning, where repetition is seen as integral to deep understanding (Li, 2012 ; Marton et al., 1997 ). The particular demands of Chinese literacy further reinforced this orientation. As Chan ( 1999 , p. 299) notes, “an average person would require knowledge in the range of 3,500–6,000 characters,” a threshold that underscores why rote memorization and repetitive practice remain central to the acquisition of script competence. Indeed, for many learners, repeated practice and rote strategies are perceived as effective means of consolidating script knowledge, even when teachers employ more varied pedagogical approaches (Liang et al., 2025 ). The institutional setting steered teachers toward practices they perceived as controllable and practical, emphasizing instrumental over broader functions of homework. Homework was widely regarded as a critical tool for strengthening proficiency in the national standard language and preparing students for examinations, which were seen as gateways to future opportunities. Consequently, teachers aligned assignments closely with exam preparation to maximize students’ prospects of success. As Kennedy ( 2016 , p. 410) notes, “improvement… was seen as an instrumental value for assessment, keeping students engaged and enabling them to do what was expected of them by their families and society.” In the Chinese context, this dynamic was intensified by the continuing perception of examinations as a mechanism for safeguarding equity in selection and mobility (Deng, 2024 ), prompting teachers to concentrate students’ efforts along this pathway. Similar tendencies have been documented elsewhere: research in Scotland, for instance, found that when examinations were viewed as a route to social justice and mobility, teachers likewise turned to rote learning as a pragmatic strategy for promoting students’ futures (Accardi, 2023 ). Perceptions of parental involvement: ambivalence and constraint The relationship between parental academic involvement and teachers’ homework practices proved to be complex and multifaceted. Quantitative findings suggested that teachers in X County generally perceived parental involvement as low, though higher levels were associated with more positive views of homework’s role in fostering long-term learning goals and home-school communication. Yet the qualitative evidence added a sharper nuance: involvement varied not only in its degree but also in its form, and some forms were counterproductive, even leading to negative socio-emotional outcomes for students. This resonates with research showing that parental support is most effective only when underpinned by shared understandings between schools and families about the value and purpose of homework (Fitzmaurice et al., 2020 ; Grinshtain & Harpaz, 2021 ). As Hartas ( 2012 , p. 874) cautions, “Approaching parental learning support as a key strategy to reducing underachievement without considering families’ social ecology may be overly simplistic and potentially ineffective.” The qualitative cases showed that, from teachers’ perspectives, parental involvement was shaped by the interplay of local cultural dispositions and institutional signals. At the cultural level, households were often described as lacking an academic orientation, with ingrained family habits seen as limiting parents’ ability to support learning and thus reinforcing patterns of social reproduction (Fitzmaurice et al., 2020 ). At the policy level, Dina’s case showed how the DRP was appropriated by some parents as a rationale for resisting assignments. When these cultural orientations converged with policy signals, disengagement was reinforced, narrowing the concerns teachers could realistically pursue and constraining their agency in using homework as a pedagogical resource. From an Archerian perspective, contexts trigger concerns through mediatory mechanisms: conditions outside teachers’ control generate both constraints and enablements, yet “the agent holds the scales of worth and establishes her own weights and measures” (Archer, 2003 , p. 137). In X County, however, teachers seldom regarded parents as resources to be mobilized (Baxter & Nolan, 2024 ). Instead, they framed involvement as absent or counterproductive (Thelamour & Jacobs, 2014 ), often attributing this to a lack of “academic culture”. This deficit-based reflexivity linked local dispositions to parental behaviors and, in turn, to pedagogical choices, steering homework toward pragmatic, utilitarian functions. While research has long urged a shift toward asset-based approaches that integrate families’ cultural wealth into instruction (Vega et al., 2025 ), such a move remains exceptionally difficult in this context. Agency within structural priorities Although agency is a personal emergent property, Sayer’s ( 2010 , p. 81) notion of “macro regress” underscores the need to trace it back to the structural conditions and generative forces that shape its expression. In X County, the examination system—arguably the most salient institutional environment—positioned teachers within what Archer ( 1995 ) terms “vested interests”: benefits tied to established practices that render deviation costly for both teachers and students. Their reliance on compromise, where “the promotion of vested interests has to be a cautious balancing act, a weighting of gains against losses” (Archer, 1995 , p. 224), illustrates this point. What we observed reflects not only the weight of external constraints but also the way teachers’ conservative orientation toward established practices reproduced the existing order. Their concerns coalesced around navigating students’ pathways within the exam track. More broadly, these concerns were not simply individual calculations but part of a wider structuring logic: language policy and examinations produced what Rancière ( 1999 ) terms “the configuration of the perceptible” (p. 29). In this configuration, the techniques of governing are recast as natural laws of the social order, rendering it self-evident that teachers should guide students toward the “right” identity within the mainstream rather than challenge the order itself. Much like the Scottish history teachers in Accardi’s ( 2023 ) study, the teachers here did not unsettle this configuration through dissensus but worked within it to secure pathways for their students. Admittedly, this orientation, centered on supporting students’ pathways within the examination system, may seem problematic and even adverse to their ethnic identity. However, the picture is more complex. The point here is not to pass judgment on such outcomes, but to situate teachers’ agency within a policy environment defined by monolingual priorities. Where teachers perceived family involvement as limited or counterproductive, an emphasis on the national language could also act as a propulsion toward mainstream participation. As Wang ( 2022 ) observes, minority students who later pursue education in inland schools often “do not have a defensive attitude toward the mainstream culture embodied by their schools,” and “they do not consider that Chinese learning jeopardizes the preservation of their ethnic identity” (p. 91). On the contrary, intellectual engagement with the national language can deepen self-understanding, equipping them to recognize and negotiate cultural differences from a more empowered position. Conclusion remarks In sum, the limited Chinese proficiency of students, the rigid demands of the examination system, and entrenched local cultural values intersect to constrain teachers’ practices in ways that surpass individual control. Holding teachers solely responsible for overcoming these barriers is therefore both unrealistic and unjust. From Archer’s ( 1995 , 2003 ) critical realist perspective, agency always emerges within conditions of constraint and enablement, but in this context the scope for transformative action remains tightly circumscribed. A realist response must address the structural roots of inequality within the broader educational ecosystem (Stylianou & Zembylas, 2020 ), rather than rely on isolated pedagogical fixes. Only by reshaping these conditions can teachers exercise their reflexive capacities more fully and realize their agency in meaningful ways. Declarations Data availability The quantitative dataset generated and analyzed during this study is publicly available at Science Data Bank, DOI: 10.57760/sciencedb.28985. Due to the sensitive nature of interview transcripts and to protect participant confidentiality, these qualitative data are not publicly available but can be accessed upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to ethical approval. Competing interests The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. Ethical approval This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Ethics Review Committee of the Faculty of Education at Beijing Normal University (IRB reference number: BNU202407100046). Informed consent Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were fully informed about the purpose of the study, their rights, and their freedom to withdraw at any point without penalty. Anonymity and confidentiality were strictly maintained, and qualitative interview data remain confidential due to privacy considerations. Funding Declaration This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 1243300004), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72574028), and the Zhejiang Provincial Education Science Planning Project (Grant No. 2024SC327). Author Contribution S.Z. led the data analysis, prepared the figures, and drafted the manuscript. X.X. was responsible for project administration and data collection, and also contributed to the data analysis. Both authors jointly contributed to the study design, interpretation of findings, and revision of the manuscript. References Accardi C (2023) It’s rote learning, but it gets the mark: Exploring Scottish history teachers’ (dis)engagements with social justice education. Dissertation, University of Strathclyde Archer MS (1995) Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Archer MS (2003) Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Bao M, Ren W, Wang D (2020) Understanding the professional practice of teachers of Chinese as an additional language through the lens of teacher agency. Sustainability 12(18):7493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187493 Baxter G, Nolan A (2024) (Re)framing teachers’ family engagement practice as cultural work. Pedagogy Cult Soc 32(3):721–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2023.2181537 Blanchet P, Armstrong N (2006) The sociolinguistic situation of ‘contemporary dialects of French’ in France today: An overview of recent contributions on the dialectalisation of Standard French. J Fr Lang Stud 16(3):251–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269506002538 Brock CH, Lapp D, Flood J, Fisher D, Han KT (2007) Does homework matter? An investigation of teacher perceptions about homework practices for children from nondominant backgrounds. Urban Educ 42(4):349–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304273 Bruzos A, Erdocia I, Khan K (2018) The path to naturalization in Spain: Old ideologies, new language testing regimes and the problem of test use. Lang Policy 17(4):419–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-017-9443-1 Chan S (1999) The Chinese learner—a question of style. Educ Train 41(6/7):294–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919910285345 Clothey R (2024) Equity and access to higher education for rural Uyghur students in China: A consideration of policy and structural barriers. Chin Educ Soc 57(1–2):141–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2024.2332103 Cooper H (2007) The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents. Corwin, Thousand Oaks Cui Y, De Costa P (2022) I never knew I could have so many future possibilities: A case study of an ethnic minority student in mainstream higher education in China. J Multiling Multicult Dev. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2077780 Deng T (2024) The interdependence of educational alienation and equality: Rethinking China’s examination-oriented education system. Cogent Educ 11(1):2385770. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2385770 Fitzmaurice H, Flynn M, Hanafin J (2020) Primary teachers’ homework practices: Identity, expectations, policies and cultural values. Issues Educ Res 30(3):897–919 Grinshtain Y, Harpaz G (2021) Whose homework is it? Different types of parents’ dependent help-giving in homework. Elem Sch J 122(2):233–256. https://doi.org/10.1086/716012 Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev 31(1):2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Hamid MO, Ali MM (2022) Language planning and education in Asia. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1595 Han Y, Cassels Johnson D (2021) Chinese language policy and Uyghur youth: Examining language policies and language ideologies. J Lang Identity Educ 20(3):183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1838800 Hartas D (2012) Inequality and the home learning environment: Predictions about seven-year-olds’ language and literacy. Br Educ Res J 38(5):859–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.588315 Haynes-Brown TK (2023) Using theoretical models in mixed methods research: An example from an explanatory sequential mixed methods study exploring teachers’ beliefs and use of technology. J Mixed Methods Res 17(3):243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898231164727 Holland M, Courtney M, Vergara J, McIntyre D, Nix S, Marion A, Shergill G (2021) Homework and children in grades 3–6: Purpose, policy and non-academic impact. Child Youth Care Forum 50:631–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09599-1 Holte K (2016) Homework in primary school: Could it be made more child-friendly? Studia Paedagog 21(4):13–33. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2016-4-2 Kennedy KJ (2016) Exploring the influence of culture on assessment: The case of teachers’ conceptions of assessment in Confucian Heritage Cultures. In: Brown GTL, Harris LR (eds) Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment. Routledge, New York, pp 404–419 Kukliansky I, Shosberger I, Eshach H (2016) Science teachers’ voice on homework: Beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Int J Sci Math Educ 14:229–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9596-7 Kukk A, Rajalaane R, Rei ML, Piht S (2015) Parents’ opinions on homework in the II stage of primary school (Estonian example). Procedia Soc Behav Sci 171:134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.102 Li CK, Hung CH (2012) The interactive effects of perceived parental involvement and personality on teacher satisfaction. J Educ Admin 50(4):501–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211238611 Li H (2015) Teaching Chinese literacy in the early years: Psychology, pedagogy and practice. Routledge, London Li J (2012) Cultural foundations of learning, east and west. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Li Z, Ren Y (2021) Population mobility drives national common language skills of Xinjiang minorities. Appl Linguistics 3:69–79 Liang Y, Li S, Nguyen HA (2025) Revisiting out-of-class L2 exposure: Insights from learning Chinese character writing in CFL contexts. Lang Learn J. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2025.2338901 Lü C, Lavadenz M (2014) Native Chinese-speaking K–12 language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Foreign Lang Ann 47(4):630–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12092 Marton F, Watkins D, Tang C (1997) Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learn Instr 7(1):21–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-4 Maxwell JA (2012) A realist approach to qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks McCrory Calarco J, Horn IS, Chen GA (2022) You need to be more responsible: The myth of meritocracy and teachers’ accounts of homework inequalities. Educ Res 51(8):515–523. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221131294 Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2021) The General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the Opinions on further reducing the burden of homework and off-campus training for students in compulsory education. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-07/24/content_5627132.htm . Accessed 25 Sept 2025 OECD (2005) Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. OECD, Paris Parra JD, Said-Hung E, Montoya-Vargas J (2021) (Re)introducing critical realism as a paradigm to inform qualitative content analysis in causal educational research. Int J Qual Stud Educ 34(2):168–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1761478 Pawson R, Tilley N (1997) Realistic evaluation. Sage, London Philips SU (2018) Language ideologies. In: Tannen D, Hamilton HE, Schiffrin D (eds) The handbook of discourse analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 557–575 Pomerantz EM, Moorman EA, Litwack SD (2007) The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Rev Educ Res 77(3):373–410. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305567 Rancière J (1999) Dis-agreement. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Rosário P, Núñez JC, Vallejo G, Cunha J, Nunes T, Mourão R, Pinto R (2015) Does homework design matter? The role of homework’s purpose in student mathematics achievement. Contemp Educ Psychol 43:10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001 Sayer A (2010) Method in social science: A realist approach. Routledge, London Sayers J, Petersson J, Marschall G, Andrews P (2022) Teachers’ perspectives on homework: Manifestations of culturally situated common sense. Educ Rev 74(5):905–926. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1776918 Schmid C (2001) The politics of English only in the United States: Historical, social, and legal aspects. Language ideologies. Routledge, London, pp 62–86 Strandberg M (2013) Homework—is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from Sweden. Educ Res 55(4):325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844941 Stylianou A, Zembylas M (2020) Teachers’ disempowerment and inclusive education: A critical realist view. In: de Barros SM, de Jesus DM (eds) What is critical in language studies. Routledge India, New Delhi, pp 34–51 Su X, Harrison N, Moloney R (2020) The value of Xinjiang class education to ethnic minority students, their families and community: A capability approach. Qual Rep 25(11):3847–3863 Tam C (2006) How teaching beliefs of Chinese language teachers influence their teaching practice. J Curric Stud 1(2):97–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270600576339 Tam VC, Chan R (2016) What is homework for? Hong Kong primary school teachers’ homework conceptions. Sch Community J 26(1):25–44 Thelamour B, Jacobs DAL (2014) Homework practices of English and non-English-speaking parents. Urban Educ 49(5):528–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913478623 Vega H, Crook KM, Howell E, Rowe LW, Bates CC (2025) From deficit to wealth: Amplifying voices and cultural capital of Latiné families to support multilingual learner education. Lang Educ. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2025.2345211 Wang L (2022) Collective belonging or individual calling: Language and ethnic identity of minorities in China. Comp Educ Rev 66(1):80–101. https://doi.org/10.1086/717150 Wang X, Wen J, Dong H, Ke Z (2016) An investigation of homework in the eyes of middle school students. Global Educ 45(10):21–28 Wu Y, Silver RE (2025) Trilingualism, education and ethnic language subjectivities. J Lang Identity Educ 24(4):753–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2025.2352781 Xu H (2019) Putonghua as admission ticket to linguistic market in minority regions in China. Lang Policy 18(1):17–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-017-9451-1 Yang S, Han J (2022) Perspectives of transformative learning and professional agency: A native Chinese language teacher’s story of teacher identity transformation in Australia. Front Psychol 13:949673. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.949673 Zhang P, Adamson B (2023) Multilingual education in minority-dominated regions in Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China. J Multiling Multicult Dev 44(10):968–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2130272 Zhou M (2019) Language ideology and order in rising China. Springer, Singapore Footnotes The Xinjiang Class is a Chinese government initiative launched in 2000 to provide ethnic minority students from Xinjiang, particularly Uyghurs, with opportunities for secondary education in inland cities. The program aims to improve educational access, promote ethnic integration, and cultivate a generation of students more aligned with national identity and values (Su et al., 2020 ). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 26 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 20 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 17 Nov, 2025 Editor invited by journal 23 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 15 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 15 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7725633","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":577782426,"identity":"e6c7ab53-b56c-49b2-ab0e-e3cac396f589","order_by":0,"name":"Shenji Zhou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shenji","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhou","suffix":""},{"id":577782427,"identity":"209a5197-3fab-48a6-94ab-bdf227dbb33d","order_by":1,"name":"Xingzi Xu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Beijing Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xingzi","middleName":"","lastName":"Xu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-27 03:53:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7725633/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7725633/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100873984,"identity":"bfd40d06-727e-4550-957f-0eba5c7a5c69","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:49","extension":"png","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":136565,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/d2c565f89d0c3b87a918066b.png"},{"id":100873970,"identity":"b721fd27-2f2c-404f-a10e-1b425f42bd6c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:45","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":116301,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"20250927blinded.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/782ea8e320272c149b314b6d.docx"},{"id":100873894,"identity":"2819eba9-64bd-4653-af01-98f4aa0f5997","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:26","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14285,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/099b4f7f5beccd6a69674d51.docx"},{"id":100873986,"identity":"7462e9df-803f-474c-8a18-8c714586be74","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:49","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14100,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table2DescriptiveStatisticsforVariables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/b39f888e8b46a59f43885deb.docx"},{"id":100873929,"identity":"4391cd12-69a1-46c1-9e76-e7c11c6eac72","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:41","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14547,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table3PathCoefficientsoftheModel.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/1dfaa122507adbbacb59244b.docx"},{"id":100950004,"identity":"d28b9f72-9641-44b3-a5ba-e84f7b2e289b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 07:06:40","extension":"json","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4452,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4ef8856d261c4b249a44adea3ad8dfc6.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/9e0aba6d0d4dd6b350cceec4.json"},{"id":100873997,"identity":"28ebb0a7-a7a2-4b8c-85cb-f06a09a1c8b1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:54","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":151576,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4ef8856d261c4b249a44adea3ad8dfc61enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/77cf8296314a1b3774ca5dde.xml"},{"id":100873989,"identity":"d4f86a07-32b6-4d8c-b901-f0273260dd67","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:52","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":136565,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/90fd8cfb18d87b8c7cde1ec6.png"},{"id":100873999,"identity":"5da84591-3f1d-4116-9612-d821d1c4fc59","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:54","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":52699,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/4fc5d980f1625dcb24b4fe97.jpeg"},{"id":100873946,"identity":"8036b45d-8b31-4fde-8b74-8bc598c9729d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:44","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":30932,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/90f5f20b6809ab335f896bee.png"},{"id":100873973,"identity":"c080abbe-0f17-4712-adeb-11fc6e889cc1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:48","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":27977,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinegroupimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/7b1fd4758c5da38614198f19.png"},{"id":100873985,"identity":"b697e389-ad11-4d48-a27c-790bc44dd9b9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:49","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":148799,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4ef8856d261c4b249a44adea3ad8dfc61structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/4ce4f6a325dbfa8c1d48dbe5.xml"},{"id":100873987,"identity":"1db2ca32-dc07-4e20-b2b7-802bf3b533ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:57:50","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":158958,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/f280b878c87620fca53b48b8.html"},{"id":100874035,"identity":"b6b66419-04af-4bfc-b051-93e6450ec17f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-22 09:58:08","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":212413,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic of the Structural Equation Model (SEM)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/bb83f6e99d392d3f5de6a369.png"},{"id":100952693,"identity":"d3c363dc-a1d5-4637-8c84-baad91afe8d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-23 07:17:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1158358,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7725633/v1/37e66fc7-9237-4b68-b778-9661672d1390.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Chinese language teachers’ agency in homework practices in a Xinjiang minority county","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcross the world, governments continue to wrestle with the balance between honoring linguistic diversity and promoting a national standard language. Language policy has historically leaned toward monolingual priorities, evident in cases such as France (Blanchet \u0026amp; Armstrong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), Spain (Bruzos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and, at certain times, parts of the United States (Schmid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Similar patterns persist across parts of Asia, where language planning continues to privilege national standard languages over minority ones (Hamid \u0026amp; Ali, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Such choices are often informed by the assumption that a shared linguistic code can foster social cohesion and a sense of national identity. As Philips (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, p. 564) notes, \u0026ldquo;One basic tenet of the ideology that each country needs a national language is that ideally there should be only one standard language that functions as a national language.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChina\u0026rsquo;s policy reflects this broader pattern: it seeks to safeguard multilingualism as a cultural and political resource while also advancing Putonghua as a national \u003cem\u003elingua franca\u003c/em\u003e (Wu \u0026amp; Silver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang \u0026amp; Adamson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zhou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This dual orientation was articulated in the 2020 \u003cem\u003eOpinions on Comprehensively Strengthening the Work of Spoken and Written Chinese for a New Era\u003c/em\u003e, which called for \u0026ldquo;scientifically protecting the languages and scripts of all ethnic groups\u0026rdquo; while at the same time emphasizing the expansion of Putonghua proficiency in ethnic regions, particularly through strengthening teacher training in the national language. Empirical research further indicates that, in a context where the Han constitute the majority population, proficiency in Chinese contributes to minority students\u0026rsquo; long-term educational success (Cui \u0026amp; De Costa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) as well as their participation in labor markets and social integration (Han \u0026amp; Cassels Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Xu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Zhou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSituated within this broader backdrop, this study explores how teachers exercise agency in assigning homework in the national standard language. In contexts where students have limited daily exposure to that language, homework functions not only as reinforcement of classroom learning but also as one of the few sustained opportunities for practice beyond school. Nevertheless, little is known about how teachers exercise their agency in designing and implementing such assignments, leaving a significant gap in understanding how language policy is enacted in daily pedagogical practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLiterature review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eA critical realist perspective on teacher agency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Chinese language teaching, teacher agency is anchored in the dynamics of action: teachers adapt, modify, add, or omit learning tasks to strengthen students\u0026rsquo; linguistic knowledge and communicative competence (Bao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), or introduce new perspectives into instruction (Yang \u0026amp; Han, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Policy rhetoric at times overstates teacher agency. The widely circulated \u0026ldquo;teachers matter\u0026rdquo; discourse (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) subtly exemplifies this tendency, carrying the risk of obscuring systemic constraints and leaving teachers disempowered when held accountable for outcomes beyond their structural reach (Stylianou \u0026amp; Zembylas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). A critical realist perspective offers a counterweight, insisting that educational phenomena are not reducible to isolated variables but shaped by interacting mechanisms that co-construct the social world (Parra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). From this view, teacher agency does not stand apart but emerges within\u0026mdash;and is delimited by\u0026mdash;structural and policy constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eArcher\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) perspective deepens this view by stressing that agency is exercised in relation to an individual\u0026rsquo;s concerns and shaped through reflexive deliberation. An active agent is consciously aware of these concerns and \u0026ldquo;deliberates over their ranking, patterning, and pursuit\u0026rdquo; (Archer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e, p. 27). Through such reflexive work, concerns are translated into a \u003cem\u003emodus vivendi\u003c/em\u003e, a practical way of living out what matters to them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf note, reflexive deliberation is always contextual. Structural and cultural properties impinge upon agents involuntarily, for they constitute the very situations in which action becomes possible (Archer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). For Chinese language teachers in ethnic minority regions, the educational and familial contexts they inhabit set conditions that they cannot simply sidestep. Still, as Archer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) reminds us, \u0026ldquo;no conditional influence works as a hydraulic pressure, but is subject to reflective (if often imperfect) evaluation by agents who weigh it against their other concerns\u0026rdquo; (p. 184). Structural and cultural conditions acquire causal efficacy only when mediated through teachers\u0026rsquo; concerns and thereby rendered consequential in practice (Archer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this sense, drawing on Archer\u0026rsquo;s critical realist perspective, this study treats homework as a site of teacher agency, with particular attention to the concerns Chinese language teachers hold, their modes of action, and the personal and contextual factors that that shape the relative salience of concerns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHomework as a site of teacher agency\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers often regard homework as a particularly significant element of instruction, especially in contexts where students from non-dominant backgrounds face linguistic or resource-related challenges (Brock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). What teachers believe homework should accomplish, in turn, strongly shapes their assignment practices (Ros\u0026aacute;rio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). As Cooper (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) observed, homework rarely serves a single purpose but typically fulfills multiple ones, from consolidating classroom learning to fostering independence and responsibility. Building on later studies (Fitzmaurice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tam, 2009; Tam \u0026amp; Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), four key functions of homework that teachers are particularly concerned with can be identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eServing immediate learning goals.\u003c/b\u003e Homework is designed primarily to consolidate or extend classroom instruction through practice of newly acquired knowledge and skills. Although often criticized as repetitive, such tasks remain central and widespread (Kukk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Kukliansky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers may aspire to create \u0026ldquo;child-friendly\u0026rdquo; homework that enriches learning, yet in practice they frequently rely on vocabulary memorization, reading aloud, dictation, and copying (Holte, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), reflecting a concern with reinforcing immediate teaching objectives (Cooper, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eServing long-term learning goals.\u003c/b\u003e Teachers also regard homework as a form of \u0026ldquo;self-disciplining technology\u0026rdquo; (Strandberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), fostering durable dispositions such as interest, study habits, self-control, independence, and time management that reach beyond immediate achievement. This concern reflects the hope that assignments can build responsibility and motivation, particularly among disadvantaged students (McCrory Calarco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Still, questions remain over whether such long-term aims can be achieved through homework alone (Holland et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEnhancing home-school communication\u003c/b\u003e: Teachers are also concerned with homework as a bridge between school and family (Strandberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than an end in itself, assignments provide a platform for parents to engage with their children\u0026rsquo;s learning, thereby fostering home-school collaboration (Cooper, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Grinshtain \u0026amp; Harpaz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In minority contexts, some teachers make this concern explicit by using homework to encourage parental involvement (Baxter \u0026amp; Nolan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Thelamour \u0026amp; Jacobs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMeeting external demands\u003c/b\u003e: Meeting external demands. Teachers are also concerned with homework as a way of responding to expectations from parents, schools, or districts (Brock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Tam \u0026amp; Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Under such pressures, assignments may be used less to advance learning than to signal diligence or control. In this context, some teachers resort to punitive forms of homework, using it as a disciplinary tool to demonstrate accountability when students fall short of standards. Although relatively uncommon, research indicates that such practices persist (Kukliansky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers act on these concerns through the ways they design and assign homework (Holland et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In Chinese national standard language, formats range from copying, recitation, extended reading, and writing to more creative or hands-on tasks such as producing newsletters, conducting interviews, or carrying out surveys (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Research further distinguishes between drilling homework, centered on repetition and memorization, and non-drilling homework, which emphasizes imagination, reading, collaboration, and parental engagement (Tam \u0026amp; Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These modes of action show how teachers translate pedagogical concerns into concrete practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePersonal and contextual conditions for agency: Teaching beliefs and parental engagement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing Archer\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) view of agency as shaped by both personal and contextual conditions, this study considers homework through two factors: teaching beliefs serve as a personal anchor, orienting teachers toward what they regard as worthwhile ends, while parental engagement constitutes a contextual force that teachers must interpret and respond to.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs about how literacy should be taught shape the concerns they bring to homework, especially the functions they expect it to fulfill. In Chinese language education, such beliefs often crystallize into two contrasting orientations. Bottom-up approaches stress direct instruction in character recognition and form, gradually moving toward comprehension, whereas top-down approaches encourage students to draw on prior knowledge and language resources to construct meaning (L\u0026uuml; \u0026amp; Lavadenz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These orientations parallel phonics and whole-language methods, respectively (Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Beliefs matter because teachers\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;perceptions and choices in creating the learning process impact the scope and content of homework\u0026rdquo; (Kukk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, p. 136). At the same time, research shows that teachers\u0026rsquo; practices do not always align with their stated beliefs, as systemic pressures (e.g., examinations and students\u0026rsquo; academic preparedness) may constrain the enactment of reform-oriented approaches (Tam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This tension underscores that what teachers regard as educationally worthwhile may not always materialize in their everyday assignments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParental engagement often reflects, in miniature, the wider educational culture that teachers navigate. While parental attitudes toward academic involvement are often deeply ingrained and stable (Fitzmaurice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), in minority families this may manifest as role confusion, with parents uncertain about how best to support their children\u0026rsquo;s learning (Grinshtain \u0026amp; Harpaz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Such engagement is sometimes mischaracterized as deficient, when in fact families may participate in ways that diverge from dominant norms (Thelamour \u0026amp; Jacobs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of parental involvement influence how homework is conceived. When they see parents as having limited capacity, teachers often design independent tasks that reduce reliance on family input; when they value family dialogue, they deliberately set assignments that bring parents into the learning process (Baxter \u0026amp; Nolan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). High levels of involvement can increase teachers\u0026rsquo; sense of accountability and pressure to meet parental expectations, while limited participation prompts them to adjust homework toward greater student independence (Fitzmaurice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sayers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMixed-methods design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopts an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, following Haynes-Brown\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) model of integrating theory throughout the research process. Archer\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) critical realist perspective not only frames the initial quantitative phase but is also iteratively refined through qualitative inquiry, ensuring that the integration of findings remains theoretically grounded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the quantitative phase, structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to examine the interplay among three dimensions derived from Archer\u0026rsquo;s framework: teachers\u0026rsquo; concerns regarding the functions of homework, their modes of action as reflected in format choices, and the conditions for agency represented by literacy teaching beliefs and perceptions of parental involvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe subsequent qualitative phase employed semi-structured interviews with Chinese language teachers. Interviews were designed to probe areas of ambiguity from the quantitative analysis (Haynes-Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and to situate teachers\u0026rsquo; practices within the broader institutional and cultural settings that condition them, consistent with the critical realist idea of \u0026ldquo;macro regress\u0026rdquo; (Sayer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, p. 81). Teachers were asked to reflect on their rationales for assigning particular types of homework, the role of parental engagement in their decisions, and the constraints and opportunities they encountered in practice. These accounts enriched the statistical findings, showing how teachers\u0026rsquo; concerns were activated and mediated within specific educational and familial contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eX County in southern Xinjiang is a predominantly ethnic region, with Uyghurs comprising 98% of the population. Compared with other areas, the county has relatively low population mobility and limited diffusion of the national standard language (Li \u0026amp; Ren, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These conditions make language teaching especially demanding, as many children, particularly in rural areas, grow up without a supportive home environment for Chinese national language and thus enter school with weak proficiency (Clothey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuantitative phase\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quantitative phase was carried out following a professional development workshop for Chinese language teachers in primary schools in X County. A total of 120 valid questionnaires were obtained from voluntary participants. Guided by Archer\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) framework, the instruments measured three core dimensions of teacher agency in homework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, concerns regarding homework functions were measured with the \u003cem\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Homework Functions Scale\u003c/em\u003e, adapted from Tam and Chan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The instrument comprised 12 items distributed across four domains: serving immediate goals, supporting long-term goals, meeting external demands, and enhancing home-school communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, modes of action in homework assignment were measured with the \u003cem\u003eHomework Format Preferences Scale\u003c/em\u003e, also adapted from Tam and Chan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This instrument covered seven formats that can be categorized into drilling and non-drilling types.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, conditions for agency were assessed using two instruments. Teaching beliefs were assessed using an adapted version of the \u003cem\u003eChinese Literacy Teaching Beliefs Questionnaire\u003c/em\u003e (L\u0026uuml; \u0026amp; Lavadenz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), which retained 9 items spanning top-down and bottom-up orientations. Parental involvement was measured with 6 items adapted from the home-based dimension of Li and Hung\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) \u003cem\u003eParental Involvement Scale\u003c/em\u003e, adjusted to capture the specific context of Chinese language learning at home.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the hypothesized structural model. Sample adequacy was confirmed through power analysis, and data were analyzed using SmartPLS 3.3.3. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was chosen because it is well suited to modest sample sizes, accommodates non-normal data distributions, and is designed for examining predictive and mediating relations rather than prioritizing overall model fit (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Schematic of the Structural Equation Model (SEM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQualitative phase\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the teachers who voluntarily agreed to participate in follow-up interviews, we purposively selected four cases (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). To sharpen the analytic focus, we concentrated on Han teachers. As native speakers of the national standard language, they occupy a position at the intersection of state policy imperatives and local cultural realities (Clothey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), making their homework practices a particularly revealing site for examining how institutional demands and community conditions shape teacher agency. Selection was guided by literacy teaching beliefs, identified in the survey as a key condition influencing homework concerns and modes of action. To ensure variation, we included teachers with contrasting orientations (i.e., top-down and bottom-up), and within each orientation chose cases that illustrated different ways in which beliefs translated into homework practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviewees\u0026rsquo; Information\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePseudonyms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExp.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthnicity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 yrs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachelor\u0026rsquo;s Degree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 yrs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachelor\u0026rsquo;s Degree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation Management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarrie\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 yrs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachelor\u0026rsquo;s Degree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDina\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 yrs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHan\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachelor\u0026rsquo;s Degree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChinese Language and Literature\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eInterviewees\u0026rsquo; Information\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews followed a two-stage realist format (Pawson \u0026amp; Tilley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). In the first round, each teacher was introduced to the conceptual framework derived from the quantitative phase and invited to discuss how it resonated with their own experiences. The interviewer then used open-ended prompts to elicit teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives on why they assigned particular types of homework, how they understood parental involvement, and what constraints or opportunities they faced. Each interview lasted about 90 minutes and was conducted in a \u0026ldquo;teacher-as-expert\u0026rdquo; style, encouraging participants to critique or expand on the framework rather than simply validate it. A second, shorter round was conducted to revisit emerging explanations, clarify ambiguities, and test whether participants endorsed the interpretations developed by the researchers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis combined emic and etic perspectives (Maxwell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Transcripts were first coded inductively to capture teachers\u0026rsquo; own categories and rationales. These substantive categories were then re-specified through Archer\u0026rsquo;s framework, highlighting how conditions, concerns, and actions connected in practice. Comparison across cases identified common mechanisms, while within-case analysis examined the \u0026ldquo;contiguity\u0026rdquo; of categories, or the ways in which contextual conditions shaped the patterning of concerns and actions. This iterative movement between teachers\u0026rsquo; accounts and theoretical categories is consistent with Haynes-Brown\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) argument for embedding theory throughout mixed methods research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQuantitative research findings\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAssessing the measurement model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reliability and validity of all constructs were well established. Factor loadings ranged from 0.752 to 0.965, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α from 0.751 to 0.944, and composite reliability from 0.899 to 0.964. AVE values (0.696\u0026ndash;0.898) exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.50, confirming convergent validity. Discriminant validity was supported by HTMT ratios (0.196\u0026ndash;0.892), all below 0.90. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, teachers rated serving immediate learning goals as the most important function of homework, meeting external demands as least important, and expressed a stronger preference for drilling than for non-drilling formats. These patterns suggest a pragmatic orientation, with teachers valuing functions and formats that deliver immediate, tangible returns in students\u0026rsquo; learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics for Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBottom-up teaching belief (BUB)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.832\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop-down teaching belief (TDB)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.833\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParental involvement (PI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.927\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eServing immediate learning goals (ILG)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.694\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eServing long-term learning goals (LLG)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.761\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeeting external demands (MED)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.962\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnhancing home-school communication (HSC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.977\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrilling homework (DH)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.752\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-drilling homework (NDH)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.918\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eDescriptive Statistics for Variables\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAssessing the structural model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo collinearity issues were detected (VIF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.113\u0026ndash;4.181). Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples supported the significance of the estimated paths. The model showed moderate explanatory power for most endogenous constructs, with R\u0026sup2; values from 0.35 (immediate goals) to 0.54 (drilling homework). The exception was meeting external demands (R\u0026sup2; = 0.078), where explained variance was weak. Predictive relevance was acceptable overall (Q\u0026sup2; = 0.292\u0026ndash;0.383), but again low for meeting external demands (Q\u0026sup2; = 0.048), indicating limited predictive utility for this dimension.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the significant effects, which can be grouped into four main findings:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath Coefficients of the Model (Significant Paths Only)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath Coefficients (Original Sample)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath Coefficients (Bootstrapped Mean)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConfidence Interval\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTDB\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;ILG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.277\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.057, 0.471)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTDB\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;DH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.294\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.082, 0.509)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBUB\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;ILG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.363\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.134, 0.564)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBUB\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;LLG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.389\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.393\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.199, 0.584)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBUB\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;MED\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.299\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.313\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.045, 0.558)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBUB\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;HSC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.633\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.634\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.441, 0.8)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;LLG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.162\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.163\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.009, 0.307)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;HSC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.174\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.179\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.034, 0.319)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eILG\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;DH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.315\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.312\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.055, 0.531)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLLG\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;NDH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.426\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.427\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.185, 0.691)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMED\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;NDH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.206\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.213\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.021, 0.394)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHSC\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;NDH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.326\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.327\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.105, 0.532)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunctions guiding formats. Immediate goals predicted stronger reliance on drilling tasks, whereas long-term goals, external demands, and home-school communication were associated with non-drilling formats.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop-down beliefs. Teachers holding top-down literacy beliefs emphasized immediate goals and showed stronger preferences for drilling tasks, suggesting a paradox between progressive beliefs and traditional practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eBottom-up beliefs. Bottom-up beliefs enhanced teachers\u0026rsquo; recognition of all four homework functions, but did not directly influence format preferences, indicating a broader sense of purpose without specific behavioral translation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eParental involvement. Teachers perceiving greater parental involvement gave more weight to long-term goals and home-school communication, highlighting its role in enabling more future-oriented functions of homework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003ePath Coefficients of the Model (Significant Paths Only)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the model maps how literacy beliefs and parental involvement condition teachers\u0026rsquo; concerns and format choices. Two tensions warrant closer attention in the qualitative phase: the disjunction between meaning-oriented (top-down) beliefs and drilling practices, and the way parental involvement reframes the purposes assigned to homework. Our qualitative analysis therefore probes how teachers interpret and navigate these dynamics in day-to-day decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQualitative research findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFrom beliefs to practices: Navigating language constraints, utilitarian goals, and resource enablements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; top-down and bottom-up literacy beliefs did not translate directly into homework practices but revealed both alignment and tension. These beliefs, though grounded in pedagogical orientations, were continually reshaped by the realities of practice (e.g., students\u0026rsquo; weak foundation in Chinese language, the pressure to prepare for high-stakes examinations, and instructional resources available).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmy: top-down, exam-oriented practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeaching a graduating primary class led Amy to adopt what appeared to be a top-down orientation, though more from necessity than choice. She explained: \u0026ldquo;In first and second grade, we still teach character structure, but by third grade it\u0026rsquo;s all about learning characters in context. By fifth and sixth grade, I didn\u0026rsquo;t even teach characters anymore. It was a waste of time.\u0026rdquo; Two considerations drove this stance: the pressure of preparing students for the \u003cem\u003eXinjiang Class\u003c/em\u003e program\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e, a pathway to inland schooling and upward mobility, and her conviction that literacy foundations \u0026ldquo;must be laid in first and second grade\u0026rdquo; or they were no longer worth reteaching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHer homework assignments reflected this pragmatism. She favored practice tests and exam-style tasks aimed at short-term readiness: \u0026ldquo;When assigning homework, I mostly thought about what would be on the final exam. Would this question come up, and could they answer it?\u0026rdquo; Homework thus became an instrument of short-term exam readiness, shaped less by an educational philosophy than by the utilitarian demands of mobility and selection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetty: bottom-up, parental involvement in basic tasks\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetty\u0026rsquo;s beliefs reflected a bottom-up orientation that centered on consolidating basic literacy skills. For her students\u0026mdash;young learners with fragile language foundations\u0026mdash;homework was not about extension but reinforcement. \u0026ldquo;The main thing is for them to remember what we learned today. If we covered four new characters, they should just remember those four.\u0026rdquo; Her expectations were deliberately modest: \u0026ldquo;As long as they grasp 80 to 90 percent of what we learned today, that\u0026rsquo;s fine.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key feature of Betty\u0026rsquo;s practice was the way she mobilized parents to support these elementary goals. As she explained, \u0026ldquo;If we learned five initials today, I ask parents to help out using sound cards. Once the children have memorized the order of the initials\u0026mdash;\u0026lsquo;b [p], p [pʰ], m [m], f [f]\u0026rsquo;\u0026mdash;I ask the parents to mix them up, perhaps read one aloud and have the child pick the matching card.\u0026rdquo; In Betty\u0026rsquo;s account, parental involvement was most effective when tasks were concrete and accessible, allowing families to reinforce classroom learning in ways that matched their capacities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarrie: bottom-up, diversified practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLike Betty, Carrie also worked from a bottom-up orientation, prioritizing basic literacy and writing. Yet, unlike Betty\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on repetition and parental reinforcement, Carrie treated homework as a natural continuation of classroom teaching and sought to enrich it with variety. \u0026ldquo;I generally treat assigning homework as an extension of the teaching process, always aligned with the lesson objectives,\u0026rdquo; she explained. Alongside copying and memorization, the structure of textbooks and workbooks encouraged her to assign tasks that fostered divergent thinking (e.g., asking students to draw, continue a short story, or retell the day\u0026rsquo;s lesson). She even introduced \u0026ldquo;Chinese language newsletters,\u0026rdquo; where children organized vocabulary, synonyms, and antonyms. In this way, Carrie balanced the consolidation of fundamentals with creative engagement, broadening the role of homework beyond simple repetition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDina: top-down, balancing ideals and realities\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDina\u0026rsquo;s top-down beliefs were grounded in the conviction that language learning should nurture students as whole persons. \u0026ldquo;Grades don\u0026rsquo;t matter; being a good, happy person is what\u0026rsquo;s most important!\u0026rdquo; she stressed, aiming to cultivate students\u0026rsquo; enjoyment of reading and writing through rich, creative experiences. In principle, such beliefs pointed toward more open-ended and imaginative homework. However, the reality of her students\u0026rsquo; weak foundation in the national standard language made her resort to rote copying and memorization, which she admitted \u0026ldquo;took up more than half\u0026rdquo; of her assignments. Tasks designed to foster holistic growth became the minority. Dina\u0026rsquo;s case illustrates the tension between pedagogical ideals and classroom constraints, where creative ambitions were continually compromised by the perceived necessity of drills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe four teachers illustrated contrasting ways in which literacy beliefs shaped homework practices. Amy and Dina, though both aligned with top-down orientations, directed their assignments largely toward short-term goals such as character mastery, relying heavily on copying and testing. By contrast, Betty and Carrie, grounded in bottom-up beliefs, placed greater emphasis on consolidation and parental involvement, drawing on instructional materials to diversify tasks and extend the role of homework beyond rote repetition. These contrasts echo the survey findings, underscoring how distinct belief orientations translate into distinct strategies. Yet across these differences, a shared pragmatic orientation was evident, as all four teachers sought practices they regarded as workable within the constraints of students\u0026rsquo; proficiency and institutional expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree factors proved decisive in shaping these patterns. First, concerns about students\u0026rsquo; fragile Chinese foundations drove teachers toward training-oriented practices, privileging basic skills over more creative tasks\u0026mdash;an instance of what Kukliansky et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) describe as the \u0026ldquo;difficulty in aligning reality with the optimal conditions of the views\u0026rdquo; (p. S245). Second, high-stakes opportunities such as the Xinjiang Class reinforced a utilitarian framing of homework as a vehicle for academic mobility. With parents having limited capacity to provide support, teachers assumed central responsibility for guiding students toward these selective pathways (Su et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Even when they voiced idealistic visions, they often recast \u0026ldquo;purpose-oriented homework to maximize classroom productivity\u0026rdquo; (Kukk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, p. 136) as a pragmatic strategy for securing students\u0026rsquo; immediate prospects. Third, when expectations for literacy instruction were modest and clearly defined, the environment became more conducive to diverse practices: parents could assist with simple tasks, and textbooks provided concrete scaffolds for structuring assignments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParental academic involvement in homework: Complex roles and cultural conditioning\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quantitative phase suggested that parental academic involvement pushed teachers toward long-term goals and home-school communication. Yet the interviews revealed a more complex picture. Positive involvement was uncommon, and when it did occur, it was often ambivalent\u0026mdash;sometimes reinforcing learning, sometimes complicating teachers\u0026rsquo; practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmy: absence of support\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmy spoke with deep frustration about the lack of parental support for her students\u0026rsquo; homework. She used the phrase \u0026ldquo;five plus two equals zero\u0026rdquo; to describe how the Chinese language knowledge accumulated during the five days of school was undone by the two days at home in the family language. Her repeated efforts to encourage parents to speak Chinese with their children or to treat language learning as a priority made little difference. For Amy, this absence of support meant that parents could not be relied upon to reinforce classroom learning. Rather than serving as partners in fostering long-term goals or building channels of communication, they appeared to her as a counterforce that left homework almost entirely in the hands of the school.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetty: cultural disengagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetty felt that meaningful parental involvement was difficult to expect in the local context, pointing to the absence of an academic culture. \u0026ldquo;There\u0026rsquo;s just no culture of learning here. People simply don\u0026rsquo;t study,\u0026rdquo; she observed. For many families, agricultural work and daily routines left little space for valuing Chinese language learning, and some parents openly resisted her expectations. She recalled being told, \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;m only a farmer; you can\u0026rsquo;t expect too much from my child.\u0026rdquo; For Betty, such comments revealed how cultural orientations toward education limited the scope for home-school collaboration. Parental disengagement, in her view, stemmed less from indifference than from the reproduction of structural inequalities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e At the same time, she noted that some parents did try to help but in ways that proved counterproductive. Recalling a child with speech difficulties, she described how late-night drilling ended in tears as the mother, overwhelmed with frustration, resorted to scolding. In Betty\u0026rsquo;s eyes, this kind of \u0026ldquo;ineffective involvement\u0026rdquo; turned intended support into an additional obstacle to learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarrie: confused participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarrie, like Betty, observed that some parents were not absent but rather unsure of how to contribute, a form of role confusion also noted in previous research (Grinshtain \u0026amp; Harpaz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Many expressed a desire to help yet lacked the strategies or confidence to do so, leaving their involvement fragmented and uncertain. Carrie described this as \u0026ldquo;helpless frustration\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eganzhaoji\u003c/em\u003e), where parents corrected homework by simply saying, \u0026ldquo;This is wrong, that\u0026rsquo;s wrong,\u0026rdquo; without offering guidance. Children in turn felt stuck and discouraged, while parents grew increasingly agitated. Such tensions sometimes escalated into scolding or even punishment, dynamics known to harm students\u0026rsquo; socio-emotional well-being and academic engagement (Pomerantz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). For Carrie, these patterns complicated homework design, as she had to anticipate not only students\u0026rsquo; needs but also the unintended consequences of parental involvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDina: policy resistance\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDina observed that parents\u0026rsquo; views on learning were strongly conditioned by the local culture, where academic achievement was not always seen as worth sustained effort or as a pathway to better futures. In her account, this orientation was compounded by the Double Reduction Policy (DRP), which sought to reduce homework and curb private tutoring in order to recentralize learning within schools (MoE, 2021). While intended to ease students\u0026rsquo; burdens, Dina noted that parents often appropriated the policy to resist schoolwork altogether. As she recalled, \u0026ldquo;Whenever I assigned homework, parents would say, \u0026lsquo;Teacher, hasn\u0026rsquo;t the Double Reduction policy been implemented? Why are you still assigning homework? Aren\u0026rsquo;t you tired? Isn\u0026rsquo;t my child tired?\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis dynamic placed her in a difficult position. While parents disparaged repetitive copying as mechanical and unnecessary, Dina regarded it as indispensable for consolidating literacy. The possibility of complaints, however, made her increasingly cautious. To navigate this tension, she sometimes conveyed the value of practice indirectly through students, asking them to request notebooks from parents or invite their help in checking stroke order. At other times, she labeled tasks as \u0026ldquo;voluntary,\u0026rdquo; a gesture that signaled compliance with policy while allowing her to preserve a measure of academic rigor. Such compromises, though far from ideal, amounted to a fragile and uneasy balance between parental resistance, policy constraints, and her professional responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParental involvement emerged as one factor shaping teachers\u0026rsquo; homework decisions, influencing both their reasoning and daily practice. However, this influence was rarely straightforward. First, it was not simply a matter of \u0026ldquo;more or less\u0026rdquo;: involvement could be complex and sometimes counterproductive, showing that \u0026ldquo;more is not always better\u0026rdquo; (Pomerantz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Observed instances of punitive parental involvement commonly produced demotivation and emotional strain in students (Holland et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), prompting teachers to reassess both the aims and format of homework.Second, teachers interpreted the cultural milieu of X County as shaping parents\u0026rsquo; orientations toward schooling in ways that constrained constrained their capacity to engage and made structuring homework more difficult. The DRP, intended to relieve student burden and enhance instructional quality, introduced further complications, as some parents appropriated it to resist homework. Taken together, these dynamics suggest that, from teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives, their agency was negotiated at the intersection of parental involvement, local cultural orientations, and policy constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study adopted a mixed-methods design to investigate the agency of Chinese language teachers in assigning homework in X County, Xinjiang. Drawing on Archer’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) critical realist perspective, we examined how literacy teaching beliefs and perceived parental involvement conditioned teachers’ concerns about the functions of homework and the modes of action through which they acted. In doing so, the study deepens understanding of how teacher agency unfolds within the cultural and institutional constraints of a minority context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTeaching beliefs under constraint: Why pragmatic orientations dominate homework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe translation of teachers’ literacy beliefs into homework practice was never linear. Their concerns were continually refracted through contextual conditions, most visibly students’ limited proficiency in the national standard language, as well as structural pressures from textbooks and examinations. For instance, although Dina valued constructing meaning through natural reading, she frequently reverted to rote memorization and copying. Language limitations, in particular, exerted a decisive influence on how teachers’ concerns were enacted in practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhether adopting a top-down or bottom-up approach, teachers tended to favor traditional homework functions and formats, perceiving them as more effective in addressing students’ weak Chinese language proficiency. Chinese language teachers’ emphasis on drills, memorization, and comprehension resonates with a traditional view of learning, where repetition is seen as integral to deep understanding (Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Marton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). The particular demands of Chinese literacy further reinforced this orientation. As Chan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, p. 299) notes, “an average person would require knowledge in the range of 3,500–6,000 characters,” a threshold that underscores why rote memorization and repetitive practice remain central to the acquisition of script competence. Indeed, for many learners, repeated practice and rote strategies are perceived as effective means of consolidating script knowledge, even when teachers employ more varied pedagogical approaches (Liang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe institutional setting steered teachers toward practices they perceived as controllable and practical, emphasizing instrumental over broader functions of homework. Homework was widely regarded as a critical tool for strengthening proficiency in the national standard language and preparing students for examinations, which were seen as gateways to future opportunities. Consequently, teachers aligned assignments closely with exam preparation to maximize students’ prospects of success. As Kennedy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e, p. 410) notes, “improvement… was seen as an instrumental value for assessment, keeping students engaged and enabling them to do what was expected of them by their families and society.” In the Chinese context, this dynamic was intensified by the continuing perception of examinations as a mechanism for safeguarding equity in selection and mobility (Deng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), prompting teachers to concentrate students’ efforts along this pathway. Similar tendencies have been documented elsewhere: research in Scotland, for instance, found that when examinations were viewed as a route to social justice and mobility, teachers likewise turned to rote learning as a pragmatic strategy for promoting students’ futures (Accardi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePerceptions of parental involvement: ambivalence and constraint\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between parental academic involvement and teachers’ homework practices proved to be complex and multifaceted. Quantitative findings suggested that teachers in X County generally perceived parental involvement as low, though higher levels were associated with more positive views of homework’s role in fostering long-term learning goals and home-school communication. Yet the qualitative evidence added a sharper nuance: involvement varied not only in its degree but also in its form, and some forms were counterproductive, even leading to negative socio-emotional outcomes for students. This resonates with research showing that parental support is most effective only when underpinned by shared understandings between schools and families about the value and purpose of homework (Fitzmaurice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Grinshtain \u0026amp; Harpaz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). As Hartas (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, p. 874) cautions, “Approaching parental learning support as a key strategy to reducing underachievement without considering families’ social ecology may be overly simplistic and potentially ineffective.”\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe qualitative cases showed that, from teachers’ perspectives, parental involvement was shaped by the interplay of local cultural dispositions and institutional signals. At the cultural level, households were often described as lacking an academic orientation, with ingrained family habits seen as limiting parents’ ability to support learning and thus reinforcing patterns of social reproduction (Fitzmaurice et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). At the policy level, Dina’s case showed how the DRP was appropriated by some parents as a rationale for resisting assignments. When these cultural orientations converged with policy signals, disengagement was reinforced, narrowing the concerns teachers could realistically pursue and constraining their agency in using homework as a pedagogical resource.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an Archerian perspective, contexts trigger concerns through mediatory mechanisms: conditions outside teachers’ control generate both constraints and enablements, yet “the agent holds the scales of worth and establishes her own weights and measures” (Archer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e, p. 137). In X County, however, teachers seldom regarded parents as resources to be mobilized (Baxter \u0026amp; Nolan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Instead, they framed involvement as absent or counterproductive (Thelamour \u0026amp; Jacobs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), often attributing this to a lack of “academic culture”. This deficit-based reflexivity linked local dispositions to parental behaviors and, in turn, to pedagogical choices, steering homework toward pragmatic, utilitarian functions. While research has long urged a shift toward asset-based approaches that integrate families’ cultural wealth into instruction (Vega et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), such a move remains exceptionally difficult in this context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAgency within structural priorities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough agency is a personal emergent property, Sayer’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, p. 81) notion of “macro regress” underscores the need to trace it back to the structural conditions and generative forces that shape its expression. In X County, the examination system—arguably the most salient institutional environment—positioned teachers within what Archer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) terms “vested interests”: benefits tied to established practices that render deviation costly for both teachers and students. Their reliance on compromise, where “the promotion of vested interests has to be a cautious balancing act, a weighting of gains against losses” (Archer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, p. 224), illustrates this point. What we observed reflects not only the weight of external constraints but also the way teachers’ conservative orientation toward established practices reproduced the existing order. Their concerns coalesced around navigating students’ pathways within the exam track. More broadly, these concerns were not simply individual calculations but part of a wider structuring logic: language policy and examinations produced what Rancière (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) terms “the configuration of the perceptible” (p. 29). In this configuration, the techniques of governing are recast as natural laws of the social order, rendering it self-evident that teachers should guide students toward the “right” identity within the mainstream rather than challenge the order itself. Much like the Scottish history teachers in Accardi’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) study, the teachers here did not unsettle this configuration through dissensus but worked within it to secure pathways for their students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdmittedly, this orientation, centered on supporting students’ pathways within the examination system, may seem problematic and even adverse to their ethnic identity. However, the picture is more complex. The point here is not to pass judgment on such outcomes, but to situate teachers’ agency within a policy environment defined by monolingual priorities. Where teachers perceived family involvement as limited or counterproductive, an emphasis on the national language could also act as a propulsion toward mainstream participation. As Wang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) observes, minority students who later pursue education in inland schools often “do not have a defensive attitude toward the mainstream culture embodied by their schools,” and “they do not consider that Chinese learning jeopardizes the preservation of their ethnic identity” (p. 91). On the contrary, intellectual engagement with the national language can deepen self-understanding, equipping them to recognize and negotiate cultural differences from a more empowered position.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Conclusion remarks","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn sum, the limited Chinese proficiency of students, the rigid demands of the examination system, and entrenched local cultural values intersect to constrain teachers’ practices in ways that surpass individual control. Holding teachers solely responsible for overcoming these barriers is therefore both unrealistic and unjust. From Archer’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) critical realist perspective, agency always emerges within conditions of constraint and enablement, but in this context the scope for transformative action remains tightly circumscribed. A realist response must address the structural roots of inequality within the broader educational ecosystem (Stylianou \u0026amp; Zembylas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), rather than rely on isolated pedagogical fixes. Only by reshaping these conditions can teachers exercise their reflexive capacities more fully and realize their agency in meaningful ways.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eData availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe quantitative dataset generated and analyzed during this study is publicly available at Science Data Bank, DOI: 10.57760/sciencedb.28985. Due to the sensitive nature of interview transcripts and to protect participant confidentiality, these qualitative data are not publicly available but can be accessed upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to ethical approval.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Ethics Review Committee of the Faculty of Education at Beijing Normal University (IRB reference number: BNU202407100046).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were fully informed about the purpose of the study, their rights, and their freedom to withdraw at any point without penalty. Anonymity and confidentiality were strictly maintained, and qualitative interview data remain confidential due to privacy considerations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 1243300004), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72574028), and the Zhejiang Provincial Education Science Planning Project (Grant No. 2024SC327).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eS.Z. led the data analysis, prepared the figures, and drafted the manuscript. X.X. was responsible for project administration and data collection, and also contributed to the data analysis. Both authors jointly contributed to the study design, interpretation of findings, and revision of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAccardi C (2023) It\u0026rsquo;s rote learning, but it gets the mark: Exploring Scottish history teachers\u0026rsquo; (dis)engagements with social justice education. Dissertation, University of Strathclyde\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArcher MS (1995) Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArcher MS (2003) Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBao M, Ren W, Wang D (2020) Understanding the professional practice of teachers of Chinese as an additional language through the lens of teacher agency. Sustainability 12(18):7493. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12187493\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12187493\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaxter G, Nolan A (2024) (Re)framing teachers\u0026rsquo; family engagement practice as cultural work. Pedagogy Cult Soc 32(3):721\u0026ndash;740. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2023.2181537\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14681366.2023.2181537\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlanchet P, Armstrong N (2006) The sociolinguistic situation of \u0026lsquo;contemporary dialects of French\u0026rsquo; in France today: An overview of recent contributions on the dialectalisation of Standard French. J Fr Lang Stud 16(3):251\u0026ndash;275. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269506002538\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0959269506002538\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrock CH, Lapp D, Flood J, Fisher D, Han KT (2007) Does homework matter? An investigation of teacher perceptions about homework practices for children from nondominant backgrounds. Urban Educ 42(4):349\u0026ndash;372. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304273\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0042085907304273\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBruzos A, Erdocia I, Khan K (2018) The path to naturalization in Spain: Old ideologies, new language testing regimes and the problem of test use. Lang Policy 17(4):419\u0026ndash;441. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-017-9443-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10993-017-9443-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChan S (1999) The Chinese learner\u0026mdash;a question of style. Educ Train 41(6/7):294\u0026ndash;305. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/00400919910285345\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/00400919910285345\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClothey R (2024) Equity and access to higher education for rural Uyghur students in China: A consideration of policy and structural barriers. Chin Educ Soc 57(1\u0026ndash;2):141\u0026ndash;157. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2024.2332103\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10611932.2024.2332103\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCooper H (2007) The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and parents. Corwin, Thousand Oaks\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCui Y, De Costa P (2022) I never knew I could have so many future possibilities: A case study of an ethnic minority student in mainstream higher education in China. J Multiling Multicult Dev. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2077780\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01434632.2022.2077780\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeng T (2024) The interdependence of educational alienation and equality: Rethinking China\u0026rsquo;s examination-oriented education system. Cogent Educ 11(1):2385770. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2385770\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2331186X.2024.2385770\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFitzmaurice H, Flynn M, Hanafin J (2020) Primary teachers\u0026rsquo; homework practices: Identity, expectations, policies and cultural values. Issues Educ Res 30(3):897\u0026ndash;919\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrinshtain Y, Harpaz G (2021) Whose homework is it? Different types of parents\u0026rsquo; dependent help-giving in homework. Elem Sch J 122(2):233\u0026ndash;256. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/716012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1086/716012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev 31(1):2\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamid MO, Ali MM (2022) Language planning and education in Asia. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1595\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1595\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHan Y, Cassels Johnson D (2021) Chinese language policy and Uyghur youth: Examining language policies and language ideologies. J Lang Identity Educ 20(3):183\u0026ndash;196. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1838800\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15348458.2020.1838800\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHartas D (2012) Inequality and the home learning environment: Predictions about seven-year-olds\u0026rsquo; language and literacy. Br Educ Res J 38(5):859\u0026ndash;879. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.588315\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01411926.2011.588315\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaynes-Brown TK (2023) Using theoretical models in mixed methods research: An example from an explanatory sequential mixed methods study exploring teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs and use of technology. J Mixed Methods Res 17(3):243\u0026ndash;263. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15586898231164727\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15586898231164727\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolland M, Courtney M, Vergara J, McIntyre D, Nix S, Marion A, Shergill G (2021) Homework and children in grades 3\u0026ndash;6: Purpose, policy and non-academic impact. Child Youth Care Forum 50:631\u0026ndash;651. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09599-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10566-020-09599-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolte K (2016) Homework in primary school: Could it be made more child-friendly? Studia Paedagog 21(4):13\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5817/SP2016-4-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5817/SP2016-4-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKennedy KJ (2016) Exploring the influence of culture on assessment: The case of teachers\u0026rsquo; conceptions of assessment in Confucian Heritage Cultures. In: Brown GTL, Harris LR (eds) Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment. Routledge, New York, pp 404\u0026ndash;419\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKukliansky I, Shosberger I, Eshach H (2016) Science teachers\u0026rsquo; voice on homework: Beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Int J Sci Math Educ 14:229\u0026ndash;250. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9596-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10763-014-9596-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKukk A, Rajalaane R, Rei ML, Piht S (2015) Parents\u0026rsquo; opinions on homework in the II stage of primary school (Estonian example). Procedia Soc Behav Sci 171:134\u0026ndash;144. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.102\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.102\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi CK, Hung CH (2012) The interactive effects of perceived parental involvement and personality on teacher satisfaction. J Educ Admin 50(4):501\u0026ndash;518. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211238611\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/09578231211238611\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi H (2015) Teaching Chinese literacy in the early years: Psychology, pedagogy and practice. Routledge, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi J (2012) Cultural foundations of learning, east and west. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Z, Ren Y (2021) Population mobility drives national common language skills of Xinjiang minorities. Appl Linguistics 3:69\u0026ndash;79\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiang Y, Li S, Nguyen HA (2025) Revisiting out-of-class L2 exposure: Insights from learning Chinese character writing in CFL contexts. Lang Learn J. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2025.2338901\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09571736.2025.2338901\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026uuml; C, Lavadenz M (2014) Native Chinese-speaking K\u0026ndash;12 language teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs and practices. Foreign Lang Ann 47(4):630\u0026ndash;652. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/flan.12092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarton F, Watkins D, Tang C (1997) Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learn Instr 7(1):21\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaxwell JA (2012) A realist approach to qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCrory Calarco J, Horn IS, Chen GA (2022) You need to be more responsible: The myth of meritocracy and teachers\u0026rsquo; accounts of homework inequalities. Educ Res 51(8):515\u0026ndash;523. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221131294\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3102/0013189X221131294\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Education of the People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China (2021) The General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the Opinions on further reducing the burden of homework and off-campus training for students in compulsory education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-07/24/content_5627132.htm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-07/24/content_5627132.htm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 25 Sept 2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2005) Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. OECD, Paris\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParra JD, Said-Hung E, Montoya-Vargas J (2021) (Re)introducing critical realism as a paradigm to inform qualitative content analysis in causal educational research. Int J Qual Stud Educ 34(2):168\u0026ndash;182. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1761478\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09518398.2020.1761478\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePawson R, Tilley N (1997) Realistic evaluation. Sage, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePhilips SU (2018) Language ideologies. In: Tannen D, Hamilton HE, Schiffrin D (eds) The handbook of discourse analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 557\u0026ndash;575\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePomerantz EM, Moorman EA, Litwack SD (2007) The how, whom, and why of parents\u0026rsquo; involvement in children\u0026rsquo;s academic lives: More is not always better. Rev Educ Res 77(3):373\u0026ndash;410. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305567\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3102/003465430305567\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRanci\u0026egrave;re J (1999) Dis-agreement. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRos\u0026aacute;rio P, N\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;ez JC, Vallejo G, Cunha J, Nunes T, Mour\u0026atilde;o R, Pinto R (2015) Does homework design matter? The role of homework\u0026rsquo;s purpose in student mathematics achievement. Contemp Educ Psychol 43:10\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSayer A (2010) Method in social science: A realist approach. Routledge, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSayers J, Petersson J, Marschall G, Andrews P (2022) Teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives on homework: Manifestations of culturally situated common sense. Educ Rev 74(5):905\u0026ndash;926. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1776918\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00131911.2020.1776918\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchmid C (2001) The politics of English only in the United States: Historical, social, and legal aspects. Language ideologies. Routledge, London, pp 62\u0026ndash;86\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStrandberg M (2013) Homework\u0026mdash;is there a connection with classroom assessment? A review from Sweden. Educ Res 55(4):325\u0026ndash;346. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.844941\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00131881.2013.844941\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStylianou A, Zembylas M (2020) Teachers\u0026rsquo; disempowerment and inclusive education: A critical realist view. In: de Barros SM, de Jesus DM (eds) What is critical in language studies. Routledge India, New Delhi, pp 34\u0026ndash;51\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSu X, Harrison N, Moloney R (2020) The value of Xinjiang class education to ethnic minority students, their families and community: A capability approach. Qual Rep 25(11):3847\u0026ndash;3863\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTam C (2006) How teaching beliefs of Chinese language teachers influence their teaching practice. J Curric Stud 1(2):97\u0026ndash;124. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00220270600576339\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220270600576339\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTam VC, Chan R (2016) What is homework for? Hong Kong primary school teachers\u0026rsquo; homework conceptions. Sch Community J 26(1):25\u0026ndash;44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThelamour B, Jacobs DAL (2014) Homework practices of English and non-English-speaking parents. Urban Educ 49(5):528\u0026ndash;542. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913478623\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0042085913478623\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVega H, Crook KM, Howell E, Rowe LW, Bates CC (2025) From deficit to wealth: Amplifying voices and cultural capital of Latin\u0026eacute; families to support multilingual learner education. Lang Educ. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2025.2345211\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09500782.2025.2345211\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang L (2022) Collective belonging or individual calling: Language and ethnic identity of minorities in China. Comp Educ Rev 66(1):80\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/717150\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1086/717150\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang X, Wen J, Dong H, Ke Z (2016) An investigation of homework in the eyes of middle school students. Global Educ 45(10):21\u0026ndash;28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu Y, Silver RE (2025) Trilingualism, education and ethnic language subjectivities. J Lang Identity Educ 24(4):753\u0026ndash;774. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2025.2352781\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15348458.2025.2352781\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu H (2019) Putonghua as admission ticket to linguistic market in minority regions in China. Lang Policy 18(1):17\u0026ndash;37. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-017-9451-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10993-017-9451-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang S, Han J (2022) Perspectives of transformative learning and professional agency: A native Chinese language teacher\u0026rsquo;s story of teacher identity transformation in Australia. Front Psychol 13:949673. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.949673\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.949673\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang P, Adamson B (2023) Multilingual education in minority-dominated regions in Xinjiang, People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China. J Multiling Multicult Dev 44(10):968\u0026ndash;980. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2130272\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01434632.2022.2130272\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou M (2019) Language ideology and order in rising China. Springer, Singapore\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Xinjiang Class is a Chinese government initiative launched in 2000 to provide ethnic minority students from Xinjiang, particularly Uyghurs, with opportunities for secondary education in inland cities. The program aims to improve educational access, promote ethnic integration, and cultivate a generation of students more aligned with national identity and values (Su et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"ethnic region, Chinese language, language teacher, homework, teacher agency","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7725633/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7725633/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eGrounded in Archer\u0026rsquo;s critical realist framework, this study investigates how Chinese language teachers in Xinjiang exercised agency in assigning homework. Using a mixed-methods design, it examines the dynamics between teachers\u0026rsquo; concerns regarding the functions of homework, the modes of action through which they assigned it, and the personal as well as contextual properties that conditioned these processes. Teachers who espoused more constructivist orientations toward literacy often reverted to traditional, exam-oriented tasks, shaped by students\u0026rsquo; limited proficiency in the national language and the pressures of high-stakes assessment. Parental involvement further complicated this landscape: although intended to support learning, it was frequently interpreted by teachers through a deficit lens, with local cultural norms seen as signaling indifference or even counterproductive behavior, which deepened their concerns. Together, these dynamics steered teachers toward pragmatic, utilitarian forms of homework, sustaining rather than transforming established routines. The analysis demonstrates how teacher agency in minority contexts emerges through reflexive accommodation to structural and cultural conditions, offering insight into the bounded nature of action under monolingual policy priorities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Chinese language teachers’ agency in homework practices in a Xinjiang minority county","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-22 09:56:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7725633/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-26T15:39:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"270434943478576299319264585177700726131","date":"2026-01-20T15:07:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"301751121568069720036672116768899392555","date":"2026-01-20T12:51:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-20T12:36:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-17T18:12:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-23T05:01:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-16T03:23:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-10-16T03:20:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0cfff9f5-bdf4-4612-a13c-998f127f59b9","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 22nd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":61471431,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":61471432,"name":"Humanities/Language and linguistics"},{"id":61471433,"name":"Social science/Language and linguistics"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-22T09:56:29+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-22 09:56:24","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7725633","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7725633","identity":"rs-7725633","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}