Exploring the effects of homework on secondary school adolescents’ leisure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project investigated the extent to which homework affects secondary school adolescents' leisure. This was important because the majority of research within this area focused on the effects of homework on adolescents' academic development. This project explored the other, non-academic effects on leisure. An interpretivist sequential mixed methods research design was used to explore the actual versus expected time spent on homework, time spent on leisure and/or non-academic responsibilities. This was achieved from the perspective of the parents, adolescents, and teachers using questionnaire in stage one and then follow-up semi-structured interviews for parents and adolescents during stage two. The research project took place in three secondary schools in the East Midlands, United Kingdom. \n \nThe findings indicate that there is a lack of consistency in the time spent on homework, leisure, and non-academic responsibilities. The adolescents reported intense academic pressure but also indicated an awareness that engaging in leisure helps to cope with these pressures, however, they did not always have the opportunity to engage in leisure activities. Three themes emerged from the data: (1) wellbeing and holistic development, (2) perceptions of homework, and (3) parental influence. Conflicting findings were noted between parent and adolescent perspectives of leisure tie, with parents suggesting leisure time was present but the adolescent reporting they had none. Identification of this mirrored the emerging research highlighting that definitions of leisure vary from different perspectives. This means that parents and adolescents do not necessarily hold the same interpretations of leisure, thus what parents consider leisure, adolescents do not necessarily agree. Future research should consider the extent to which adolescents experience leisure and what this looks like from their perspective in relation to leisure time and their school's expectation of homework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".