Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Related Literature 2

Related Literature 2

Ratings: (0)|Views: 193|Likes:
Published by Jiordan Simon

More info:

Published by: Jiordan Simon on Dec 19, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





This chapter presents a review of related literature. It also presents the conceptualframework, the hypothesis and definition of terms operational to the survey.The Main topic is the “Comparative study of hours spent for studying amongstsophomores in CSQC and PSHS”, a case study from Study Hacks (2008) discussed on“Why the number of hours you spend in studying means nothing”, it goes with such anoutrageous number of hours spent hitting the books, this student expected to breezethrough the class. Then he took the first exam. He got a 70 — well below the average.There are literally no more waking hours left in the day for this student to study. Studytwo hours after lunch, every other day, and a good chunk of time on Sunday morning. Inother words, for improving his grade in this class is to study much, much less. Study twohours after school, every other day, and a good chunk of time on Sunday mornings.A common myth plaguing students is that grades are a function of smarts andhours spent studying. Since you can’t change your smarts, your only option to increaseyour grade is to study more. This story is that unless he is taking the absolute mostdifficult human physiology course ever taught in the history of mankind,
his experiencecompletely invalidates the study hour quantity myth. In other words, if devoting every possible waking hour to a single course doesn’t budge your grade, there must besomething else
more important playing a major role in determining your score.This is why the student has to significantly reduce his work hours. Once this slash and burn is complete, he can turn his attention to the
question at the core of the studying
 process: what’s the most efficient way to transform the
inputs, arriving in the form of lectures, into outputs, leaving in the form of exam answers? (Study Hacks, 2008)Another study in children 6-12 spent more time studying in 2003 than in 1997.Two-thirds of children studied on a given day/week in 2003 and study time was up about23% overall. In 2003, 64% of 6-8 year olds studied on a given weekday, compared with53% in 1997. The average weekly time 6-8 year olds spent studying was 2 hours and 36minutes in 2003, compared with 2 hours in 1997, an increase of about 30%. Children 6-8spent about 30 minutes per day studying in 2003, including those who did not study.Among those who studied, children studied about 4 hours per week, about 48 minutes per day.In 2003 about 68% of 9-12 year olds studied on a given weekday, compared with62% in 1997. The average weekly time spent studying was 4 hours and 24 minutes in2003, compared to 3 hours and 36 minutes in 1997, an increase of about 20%. Children9-12 spent about 50 minutes per day studying in 2003, including those who did not study.Among those who studied, the total weekly time spent studying was about 6 hours and 20minutes, or about 1 hour and 15 minutes a day.The increased time children spent studying fits with the federal government'sfocus over the period on improving children's academic test scores (No Child Left BehindAct of 2001). An increase in study time that occurred for all demographic groups, but thatwas stronger for younger than older children, is very consistent with the increased mathtest scores for younger (4th graders) but not older children (8th graders) that weredocumented in the National Assessment of Educational Progress over the period.
Data come from time diaries filled out by a national sample of 1,448 children in 1997 and1,343 children in 2003 (S. Hofferth, 2006). Now let us correlate this to another study based on economics: Has leisureincreased over the last century? Standard measures of hours worked suggest that it has. Inthis paper, they develop a comprehensive measure of non-leisure hours that includesmarket work, home production, commuting and schooling for the last 105 years. Theyalso present empirical and theoretical arguments for a definition of “per capita” thatencompasses the entire population. The new measures reveal a number of interesting 20
Century trends. First, 70 percent of the decline in hours worked has been offset by anincrease in hours spent in school. Second, contrary to conventional wisdom, averagehours spent in home production are actually slightly higher now than they were in theearly part of the 20
Century. Finally, leisure per capita is approximately the same now asit was in 1900. (Ramey & Neville, 2006)A guideline in basic study techniques was discussed in Texas A&M University,Student Counselling Service where they found out that their university students have been having trouble in managing their study habit. They have extreme practices inspending hours for studying from loafing to overly studying most of the time. (TexasA&M University, 2004). Trockel (2000) found out that the health behaviours caused bythe insufficient and irregular sleep and improper habits of a student affects his or her grades as well.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->