Junior High School Students and the No Homework Policy

Determining the Level of Awareness among Junior High School Students of the “No Homework Policy”

Introduction

  • Background: Homework can enhance academic performance and discipline.
    • Excessive assignments can lead to stress and health issues (Becker et al., 2020; Zhao & Yang, 2022).
    • The Philippines implemented the No Homework Policy on weekends (García et al., 2020).
    • Lawmakers advocate for nationwide bans due to homework's negative effects on student well-being (Carter et al., 2021).
  • Purpose of Study: This report examines student awareness of the No Homework Policy among grades 7-10 at a private school.

Research Goals and Questions

  • Objectives:

    • Assess the awareness level of the No Homework Policy among male and female students.
    • Investigate whether significant differences exist in awareness across grade levels and sexes.
  • Key Questions:

    • What is the overall level of awareness of the No Homework Policy amongst students?
    • Are there notable differences in awareness between male and female students?
    • What are students' opinions on the policy?

Hypotheses

  • Null Hypothesis (H0): No significant differences in awareness based on sex or grade.
  • Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Significant differences exist in awareness due to sex or grade level.

Theoretical Framework

  • Theory of Constructivism:
    • Emphasizes students' active role in learning (Piaget, 1950).
    • Students build their own understanding, influenced by social, cultural, and psychological factors.

Variables

  • Independent Variables:

    • Sex: Male, Female
    • Grade Level: Grade 7, 8, 9, 10
  • Dependent Variable:

    • Level of Awareness of the No Homework Policy.

Methodology

  • Study Design: Mixed-Methods Research Design (quantitative and qualitative).

  • Quantitative Aspects:

    • Descriptive Research with Stratified Random Sampling for representative selection.
    • Surveys used to collect data, analyzed with:
    • Frequencies & percentages
    • Mean & standard deviation
    • Statistical tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U).
  • Qualitative Aspects:

    • Thematic Analysis of responses from interviews.
  • Questionnaire Checklist:

    • Part I: Demographic data collection (grade level and gender).
    • Part II: Evaluates awareness and perceptions through structured questions and open-ended responses.

Sample Selection

  • Respondents: Junior High School students from Grades 7 to 10.

    • Ensures diverse representation considering grade and sex.
  • Sampling Technique: Stratified Random Sampling combined with Slovin’s Formula for proper sample size determination.

Statistical Analysis

  • Descriptive Statistics: Examine awareness levels (mean, median, mode).
  • Inferential Statistics:
    • Kruskal-Wallis Test: p = 0.943 (no significant difference across grades).
    • Mann-Whitney U Test: p = 0.312 (no significant difference based on gender).
  • Qualitative Analysis: Thematic analysis for open-ended responses.

Results

  • Awareness Levels:

    • General awareness is noted among students across all grades and between genders.
    • No significant differences were observed in awareness based on sex or grade level.
  • Student Perspectives:

    • Support for the policy highlights positive effects on stress reduction.
    • Mixed views regarding its impact on academic discipline and preparedness.

Conclusions

  • Students generally display awareness of the No Homework Policy, with no discernable differences based on gender or grade level.
  • Majority support the policy for its stress-reducing benefits, while some express concerns about its potential negative impact on learning discipline.

Recommendations

  • Suggestions for stakeholders including:
    • Students: Engage in discussions regarding homework balance.
    • Teachers & Parents: Collaborate on monitoring policy effects.
    • Curriculum Developers: Consider implications of homework policies in curriculum design.
    • School Administrators & Policymakers: Facilitate discussions regarding educational policies moving forward.
    • Future Researchers: Explore further influenced perceptions and outcomes from the implementation of the policy.