team time sigma xi presentation

Using the First-Year Seminar to Reduce Academic Procrastination

Mark Connelly and Bianca Bramblett

70% of college students procrastinate (Ferrari, 1995).

Leads to missing deadlines for submitting assignments, claiming test anxiety, obtaining low course and semester grades, and low cumulative GPA (Beswick, Rothblum, & Mann, 1988; Rothblum, Solomon, & Murakami, 1986; Watson, 2001).

Procrastination

Students who procrastinate report more

◦ colds and flu

◦ gastrointestinal problems

◦ insomnia (Ferrari, 2004).

Procrastination and Health

There are three different time perspectives

◦ Past (positive and negative)

◦ Present (hedonistic or “pleasure-seeking” and fatalistic or “fate based”)

◦ Future (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999.)

Time Perspective

The Big Five Mini-Marker is a shortened version of the Big Five Aspect Scale.◦ Conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of

procrastination (Schouwenberg & Lay,1995).

Personality

1. Will an intervention reduce the amount of procrastination displayed by college students?

2. Will students with different time perspectives react differently to the intervention?

3. How do personality factors influence procrastination?

Research Questions

1. Can GPA be a predictor of procrastination?

2. Will the students turn essays in faster after the intervention than they did before it?

3. Will students become more aware of their cognitive processes?

Research Questions Cont.

Consisted of 46 students from the first year psychology seminar class. (30 Females and 16 Males)

Method - Participants

Stanford Time Perspective Inventory-short form (STPI)

Big Five Mini-Markers Scale The Aitken Procrastination Inventory Metacognitive Awareness Inventory A brief demographic survey

Method - Materials

Aitken Procrastination Inventory Example: “I often wait until the last minute to get things done.” Rated on a 1-5 Likert Scale

STPI Example “It upsets me when people are late for appointments.” Rated on a 1-5 Likert Scale

Metacognitive Awareness Inventory Example: “I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my goals.” Answered either true of false

Method – Materials Examples

The participants completed a survey in class consisting of the measures for both the pre and posttests after giving informed consent.

It was used to assess whether the students turned assignments in faster after the intervention.

Method - Procedure

Created the syllabus along with Dr. Blasko ◦ Utilized methods of preventing procrastination

(e.g. chunking, time management skills)

Taught a lesson to the class utilizing pretest results to show how they ranked.◦ Offered areas of improvement.

Intervention

Pretest/Posttest Procrastination Results

t(36) = 3.5, p = .001

Time Perspective/Procrastination Correlation Results

N=46 Past Negativ

e

Past Positiv

e

Present

Fatalism

Present Hedonis

m

Future

Procrastination -.057 .180 .350* .412* -.722**

Time Perspective Correlations

Note. **Indicates that correlation is significant at the 0.01 level * Indicates significant at the .05 level

N=46 Essay Turn in Time

High School GPA

Predicted GPA

Procrastination

-.438* -.180 -.097

School Factors/Procrastination Correlation Results

Note. **Indicates that correlation is significant at the 0.01 level * Indicates significant at the .05 level

School Factors Correlations

Past

Neg

ative

Past

Pos

itive

Futu

re

Pres

ent H

edon

istic

Pres

ent F

atal

istic

0

1

2

3

4

PretestPosttest

Mean

Score

Time Perspective Pretest/Posttest Results

Future: t(36) = 3.13, p = .003Present Fatalistic: t(36) = -4.01, p = .000

1. Will an intervention reduce the amount of procrastination displayed by college students? Yes

2. Will students with different time perspectives react differently to the intervention? Yes

3. How do personality factors influence procrastination? No Supporting Data

Discussion

Can GPA be a predictor of procrastination? No Supporting Data

Will the students turn essays in faster after the intervention than they did before it? Yes

Will students become more aware of their cognitive processes? Yes (M= 35.38) to (M= 38.97).

Discussion Cont.

We did not have a comparison group.

Factors could influence procrastination that were not measured.

The study is being conducted on a very select group of students.

Limitations

Possible new tools and methods for reducing procrastination in an academic setting.

Can help to reduce student anxiety and also has the potential to help the students achieve higher grades and learn more.

Implications

Beswick, G., Rothblum, E. D. and Mann, L. (1988), Psychological antecedentsof student procrastination. Australian Psychologist, 23, 207–217.

Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and taskavoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Plenum Press.

Rothblum, E., D.; Solomon, L., J.; Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive,and behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(4), 387-394.

Schouwenberg, H.C., & Lay, C. L. (1995). Trait procrastination and the bigfive factors of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 481-490.

Watson, D.C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A facet levelanalysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 149-158.

Zimbardo, P. G. & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid,Reliable Individual-Differences Metric. Journal of Personality & SocialPsychology, 77(6), 1271-1288.

References

The authors would like to thank Dr. Dawn Blasko, our faculty advisor, for her guidance and support throughout the research process, along with Dr. Robert W. Light, Senior Associate Dean, for his financial support through the grant program at Penn State Behrend.

Acknowledgements