Validity and reliability studies on the scale of the reasons for academic procrastination.
Within the complexity of the modern life, the effective use of time becomes an important issue. Regardless of variables such as gender, educational background, age and occupation, this issue can be observed at every point of the society (Balduf, 2009; Ferrari and Scher, 2000; Klassen, Krawchuk, Lynch and Rajani, 2008; Pychyl,, Morin and Salmon, 2000). One of the important indicators of failure in time management is delaying the tasks that are suppose to be performed (Klassen et.al., 2008; Klassen and Kuzucu, 2009). Procrastination is defined as delaying the intention of performing an activity consciously in an unreasonable manner (Johnson, Green and Kluever, 2000; Klassen and Kuzucu, 2009). According to Tuckman and Sexton (1989), procrastination is the lack or deficiency of self-regulation skill (cited Lee, 2005).
The procrastination behavior had been subject to a lot of studies (Balduf, 2009; Nonis ve Hudson, 2010; Zarick ve Stonebraker, 2009). An important part of these studies is about the academic procrastination behavior of students (Elvers, Polzella ve Graetz, 2003; Ferrari ve Scher, 2000; Kagan, 2009; Lee, 2005; Nelson, 2009). And among these academic tasks, we can mainly talk about doing homework and preparing projects and working for exams or lectures (Ferrari and Scher, 2000; Pychyl, Morin and Salmon, 2000; Zarick and Stonebraker, 2009).
The reason behind this large number of studies about this subject can be explained with the prevalence of this behavior among students and its significant impact on the academic achievement. As a matter of fact, academic procrastination is a universal behavior pattern according to Klassen and Kuzucu (2009). Even though, many studies had been conducted about this subject sin 1990s, the psychological base of academic procrastination behavior is not yet been fully revealed. However it is accepted that such procrastination behaviors have impact on academic achievement (Balduf, 2009; Lee, 2005; Nonnis and Hudson, 2010).
Scher and Osterman (2002) define procrastination "as an important obstacle for academic achievement". The studies indicate that students face the problems of repeating the same grade, poor academic performance and impairment of health because of such academic procrastination behaviors. And it was shown with different studies that there are relationships between the procrastination behaviors and negative outcomes such as long education period, failure in tests, dropping out of training programs because of failure (Ferrari and Scher, 2000; Johnson, Green and Kluever, 2000). Moreover it was also determined that besides the loss of time, various psychological and mental disorders are revealed along with procrastination. Weakening of self-sufficiency and self-respect, anxiety, stress, depression can be counted among these disorders (Klassen et al., 2008; Pychyl, Morin and Salmon, 2000).
The studies conducted on the academic procrastination behaviors can be divided into two main groups. First one of these groups is composed of studies that tried to determine the relationships between some properties of the students and procrastination behaviors (Balduf, 2009; Balkis, 2006; Deniz, Tiras and Aydogan, 2009; Elvers, Polzella and Graetz, 2003; Ferrari and Scher, 2000; Klassen and Kuzucu, 2009; Lee, 2005; Nonis and Hudson, 2010). In these studies, it was observed that most significant variables that have a relationship with the behavior of delaying academic tasks are self-regulation, self-sufficiency, self-respect, and internal motivation and targets-values.
Also, in the second group of the conducted studies, the researched worked on developing measurement tools for determining the procrastination behaviors of the students. Among these, "Academic Procrastination Tendency Scale" was developed by Aitken (1982) in order to measure students' tendency to delay academic tasks. The scale was a 5-point Likert type scale composed of a total of 19 items in a single dimension. It was asked for the individuals to value themselves with scores between 1 and 5 for each item (Balkis, 2006). And "General Procrastination Scale" was developed by Lay (1986) to determine the procrastination tendencies of the students in general subjects in cases of success. The scale is an one-dimensional 5-point Likert type scale composed of a total of 20 questions defining general daily tasks. Besides these Musyzynski and Akamatsu (1991) studied procrastination issue on clinical psychology PhD. students, and developed a scale called "Procrastination Inventory" in order to determine the frequency and period of procrastination behavior in students (Johnson, Green and Kluever, 2000). Johnson, Green and Kluever (2003) worked on reorganizing the scale named "Procrastination Inventory" for high school and university students.
In these studies, it attracts attention that the focus was on the variables concerning the general and academic procrastination behaviors of students, the tasks that students most frequently procrastinate, and the impacts of such procrastination behaviors on academic achievement and performance level. And in the studies of developing scale or inventor discussed as the second type, it was seen that there was an effort to develop measurement tools for measuring the behaviors that students who display procrastination behaviors regarding their tasks. The content of the scale items was composed of procrastination behaviors of the individuals.
On the other hand, it can be said that there is no direct study for developing a measurement tool in order to determine how much students are affected from what reasons while displaying academic procrastination behaviors. Whereas, the first thing that needs to be done to overcome this academic procrastination issue that students experience widely is to determine the reasons that drive students to such behaviors. Thus Reis and McCoach (2000) emphasized the need of creating suitable environments throughout the process in order to diagnose and overcome the reasons of underachiever students' learning insufficiencies (Balduf, 2009).
It can be said that this study differentiates from the rest since it focuses on developing a scale for determining the reasons of exhibiting procrastination behaviors toward academic tasks. On the other hand, it is thought that this study is important since it aims to develop a measurement tool that will provide valid and reliable information to the related teachers and administrators about how to fight with academic procrastination behaviors that negatively affect the academic achievements of students.
Material and Methods
The study group of this study was composed of a total of 447 students studying in the different departments of Ali Evran University, Faculty of Education. The distribution of the students in the study group based on their departments and genders can be summarized as follows:
Department Male Female Total Psychological Counseling and Guidance 35 50 85 Classroom Teacher Education 44 53 97 Turkish Language Teacher Education 33 43 76 Social Sciences Teacher Education 52 36 88 Science Teacher Education 40 61 101 Total 204 243 447
Development of "The Scale of The Reasons for Academic Procrastination"
In the preparation of scale items, mainly two resources were used. These resources can be grouped as the information in the literature and student opinions.
During the development process, first the literature (Balduf, 2009; Balkis, 2006; Deniz, Tiras and Aydogan, 2009; Elvers, Polzella and Graetz, 2003; Ferrari and Scher, 2000; Johnson, Green and Kluever, 2000; Kagan, 2009; Klassen and Kuzucu, 2009; Lee, 2005; Nelson, 2009; Nonis and Hudson, 2010; Pychyl, Morin and Salmon, 2000; Zarick and Stonebraker, 2009) was reviewed. Within this framework, the lists of situations that may cause students to procrastinate their academic tasks such as doing homework, preparing projects or studying for tests were listed. And second, an open ended and written question was directed to hundred students randomly selected from the different departments of the faculty of education about the reasons for academic procrastination such as studying for tests, doing home works and preparing projects, and their answers were analyzed.
By combining the information gathered from both of these sources, a pool of 86 items was formed. And five-point options were placed for each item in order to determine the levels that the students are affected from the reasons expressed within items. These options were organized and scored as "(0) no effect", "(1) low effect" "(2) moderate effect", "(3) high effect", "(4) very high effect".
The items prepared as drafts were examined to two linguistic experts, one training programs and education expert, one psychological counseling and guidance specialist, and to 20 students in terms of scope, expression, narration, spelling and punctuation. As a result of the feedbacks received, the required corrections were made and 11 questions were removed from the item pool. In removing these items, the notes of reviewers as "I couldn't understand this" or question marks placed on the items, and criticisms such as "similar meaning with item ..." were determinant.
And as a result of removing such items, the draft scale was transformed into a scale of 75 items. And then instructions were added to this prepared scale draft and the physical appearance was edited, and thus the scale was prepared to be applied to the study group. And the scale was named as "Scale on the Reasons for Academic Procrastination (SRAP)" since it includes the reasons why students delay their academic tasks.
The collected data were uploaded to SPSS 15.00 program to conduct the validity and reliability analyses of the scale using statistical methods.
Within the framework of statistical analyses, it was determined whether factor analysis will be made or not by first conducting KMO and Bartless test analyses on the data collected with the scale in order to determine the structural validity of the scale. Based on the values obtained, factor analysis was conducted on the obtained data. The factorization of the scale was defined with principle component analysis. In order to distribute the items in the scale into independent factors and clarify these factors, the factor loads were examined by using Varimax vertical rotation technique (Kline, 1994; Buyukozturk, 2002). The analyses were repeated by eliminating the items with factor loads lower than 0.30 and that have similar effects in different factors. Item-total correlations of the 43 items remaining after removing these eliminated items were examined, and the validity property of the scale was defined. And to determine the reliability of the scale, internal consistency and stability tests were conducted. The scale's skill of reaching stable measurements was calculated by determining the correlation between the results of two applications performed with an interval of five weeks.
The processes followed for validity and reliability analyses of the scale, and the results obtained from these processes were given below.
1. Results regarding the validity of the scale of the reasons for academic procrastination
Within the framework of SRAP's validity analyses, basic structure validity and item-total correlations were calculated. The results are presented below.
In order to test the structural validity of SRAP, Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) and Bartlett Test analyses were conducted, and the KMO value of KMO = 0,849; Bartlett test values of [chi square] = 10814.400; sd = 2775; p = 0.000 were obtained. Based on these values, it was understood that factor analysis can be performed on the scale composed of 75 items.
Factor analysis is used to reveal whether the items in a scale can be divided into fewer number of factors that are uncorrelated or not, and to test whether the scale is one-dimensional or not (Balc1, 2009). Within this framework, first of all principle component analysis was conducted to determine whether SRAP is one-dimensional or not. Principle component analysis is a technique widely used as a factorization technique (Buyukozturk, 2002). And to see whether the scale can be separated into uncorrelated factors or not Varimax vertical technique was applied and factor load were examined. On the other hand, it was stated that the variance explained by the factors shall be at least 40% in behavioral sciences (Kline, 1994; Schrerer, Wiebe, Luther and Adams, 1988). Thus it was observed that the items in the scale are grouped under six factors by examining "Explained Total Variance" table. In line with this, the analyses conducted on the data were repeated in a way that will ensure the scale to be composed of six factors.
In the evaluation of factor analysis results, the main criterion was factor loads that can be comprehended as the correlations between variables and factors. High factor loads are seen as an indicator that the related variable can be listed under the respective factor (Balc1, 2009; Buyukozturk, 2002).
As a result of the Principle Component Analysis used in factor analysis and Varimax Vertical Rotation technique used to clarify the factors that items are collected under, a total of 32 items that have factor loads lower than 0.30 or that don't have a minimum difference of 0.100 from their loads in different factors were taken out of the scale (Buyukozturk, 2002; Eroglu, 2008).
It was seen that the total 43 items that remain in the scale as a result of these steps are collected under six factors. By examining the contents of the items collected under factors, the factors were named. Based on this, the factors were named as Fl: Education Approach and Practices (EAP), F2: Externally-Focused Control (EFC), F3: Internally-Focused Control (IFC), F4: Course Content (CC), F5: Academic Self-Confidence (AS) and F6: Lack of Academic Self-Confidence (LoAS).
It was determined that KMO value of the final version of SRAP composed of 43 items is 0.843, and Bartlett Test values are x2 = 5503.518; sd = 943; p < 0.001. It was seen that the loads of the 43 items still in the scale were between 0.413 and 0.716. On the other hand, the variance explanation rate of the items and factors included to the scale was determined as 46.044%. As you know, it is accepted as enough in terms of behavioral sciences for the factor loads to be higher than 0.30 and explained variance amount to be %40 (Buyukozturk, 2002; Eroglu, 2008).
The findings regarding the item loads of the 43 items remaining in the scale at the end of these processes according to factor loadings, eigenvalues of factors and explaned variance rates were presented in Table 1 to Table 6.
As seen in Table 1, the "Education Approach and Practices (EAP)" factor of the SRAP includes 10 items and their factor loads vary between 0,500 and 0,668. The eigenvalue of these factors is 4,816; and their contribution to the general variance is 11,199%.
As seen in Table 2, the "Externally-Focused Control (EFC)" factor of the SRAP includes 9 items. The factor loads of these items vary between 0,413 and 0,699. The eigenvalue of these factors is 3,682; and their contribution to the general variance is 8,563%.
As seen in Table 3, the "Internally-Focused Control (IFC)" factor of the SRAP includes 8 items. And the factor loads of these items vary between 0,418 and 0,716. The eigenvalue of these factors is 3,279; and their contribution to the general variance is 7,627%.
As seen in Table 4, the "Academic Self-Confidence (AS)" factor of the SRAP includes 6 items. And the factor loads of these items vary between 0,548 and 0,693. The eigenvalue of these factors is 2,970;, and their contribution to the general variance is 6,906%.
As seen in Table 5, the "Lack of Academic Self-Confidence (LoAS)" factor of the SRAP includes 5 items. And the factor loads of these items vary between 0,518 and 0,644. The eigenvalue of these factors is 2,621; and their contribution to the general variance is 6,094%.
As seen in Table 6, the "Lack of Academic Self-Confidence (LoAS)" factor of the SRAP includes 5 items. And the factor loads of these items vary between 0,502 and 0,684. The eigenvalue of these factors is 2,432; and their contribution to the general variance is 5,655%.
When the results presented in Table 1 --Table 6 according to factors were examined, it can be said the SRAP with a total of 6 factors and 43 items have structural validity since the factor loads of the items are higher than 0,30 and the explained total variance is 46,044%.
Item--Total And Factor--Total Correlations
In this section, the level that each item and each factor can serve to the general objective of the scale was tested by calculating the item-total and factor-total correlations.
The item-total correlation values obtained for each item are given in Table 7.
As seen in Table 7, the item-test correlation coefficients vary between 0,296 and 0,553. Each item has a significant and positive relationship with the general scale (p<0,001). Item-total correlation scales indicated the levels that each item in the SRAP serves to the general objectives of the scale (Buyukozturk, 2002; Eroglu, 2008). Based on this, it can be said that each item of the SRAP provide a significant level of service to the general objective of the scale and thus the scale is valid.
Similar Scales Validity
To determine the similar scales validity (existing), the related literature was searched. Even though there are some scales for determining the procrastination behaviors of individuals, there is no scale for determining the reasons behind such behaviors. Thus similar scales validity cannot be determined.
2. Results Regarding The Reliability of the SRAP
To calculate the reliability of the SRAP, internal consistency and stability test analyses were conducted on data. The followed processes and their results are presented below:
Internal Consistency Level
The reliability analyses of SRAP composed of a total of 43 items and 6 sub-factors according to items and total were made using Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient, correlation value between tow equal halves, Spearman-Brown Formula and Guttmann split-halt reliability formula. The values of these reliability analyses regarding each factor and the scale in general are summarized in Table 8.
As seen in Table 8, the two equal halves correlation of the SRAP composed of 6 sub-factors and a total of 43 items is 0,736, Guttmann Split-Half value is 0,734 and Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is 0,900. On the other hand, the equal halves correlations of sub-factors vary between 0,631 and 0,442, Sperman Brown values of sub-factors vary between 0,774 and 0,613, Guttman Split-Half values of subfactors vary between 0,774 and 0,589, and Cronbach alpha values of sub-factors vary between 0,833 and 0,646. Within the framework of these values, it can be said that SRAP can provide reliable measurements both for its sub-factors and in general.
And to determine the internal consistency of the scales, the relationship of factors with each other were also tested as a different approach. The results of this test are summarized in Table 9.
As seen in Table 9, the relationships between the factors of the SRAP vary between 0.282 and 0.488. Each of these relationships is significant and positive. This state can be comprehended as scale having internal consistency in terms of factors.
The stability level of the scale was determined by test-retest method. As known, it is required for a reliable measurement tool to provide stable measurements (Balc1, 2009). Five weeks later, the latest version of the scale composed of 43 items was re-applied to the 105 students that the scale was applied before. The relationship between the scores obtained at the end of both applications was examined both in terms of each item and the scale in general. Thus, both each item's and the scale's skills of reaching stable results were tested. The findings are summarized in Table 10.
In Table 10, it can be seen that the correlation coefficients of items composing the scale obtained with test-retest method vary between 0,444 and 0,770, and each relationship is significant and positive (p<0.001).
And the results showing the test-retest results regarding the SRAP factors are summarized in Table 11.
In Table 11, it can be seen that the correlation coefficients of factors composing the scale obtained with test-retest method vary between 0,468 and 0,825, and each relationship is significant and positive (p<0.001).
These values that are defined as the stability coefficients in terms of each item and each factor can be comprehended as the SRAP having the skill to provide stable measurements.
In this study, a scale was developed in order to determine the reasons why students procrastinate academic tasks and the levels that they are affected from these reasons. The scale is a 5-point Likert type scale, and it is composed of 43 items that can be grouped under 6 factors. The distribution regarding the number of items in each sub-factor of the scale is given in Table 12.
Each of the item under the factors was scaled as having no effect (0), low effect (1), moderate effect (2), high effect (3) and very high effect (4). The points obtained by the answers students provide to the 5-point Likert type scale composed of 43 items were calculated based on the arithmetic mean to simplify the scoring or to prevent the confusion that the different number of items in each sub-dimension can create. Based on this, the following formula was used to calculate the wideness of the arithmetic average interval for each sub-dimension and the scale in general:
Arithmetic mean interval = Nuber of intervals/Number of options = 4/5 = 0,80
And it was determined that each interval must be 0,80. In line with this, it can be recommended to use the values in Table 13 to determine the meanings of the arithmetic mean values according to arithmetic mean intervals for each sub-dimension (factor) and in what level taking precaution is a priority.
The validity of the scale was examined in two different methods. These are testing validity through (1) factor analysis and (2) item-total and factor-total correlations.
Based on factor analysis results, the SRAP is composed of six factors. The factor load intervals of the items in factors, factor's eigenvalue and contribution to general variance indicate that SRAP is a valid scale. In fact, the factor loads of the items in the scale to be higher than 0,30 and at least %40 of the general variance to be explained are accepted as sufficient in terms of behavioral sciences (Kline, 1994; Scherer, Wiebe, Luther and Adams, 1988).
The correlation values between the score obtained in each item of the scale and the score obtained in the scale in general vary between 0,296 and 0,593. Each indicated correlation values shows a positive and significant relationship (p<0,001). So, it can be said that each item of the scale serves to the scale's purpose of measurement at a significant level.
Since there are no similar scales in terms of content and objective, the similar scales validity of SRAP couldn't be calculated.
The values that are calculated individually as internal consistency coefficients using Cronbach Alpha, Sperman-Brown formula and Guttmann split-half reliability formula indicate that SRAP can perform reliable measurement in terms of both its sub-factors and the scale in general. Even though Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficients of "academic self-confidence" and "lack of academic self-confidence" factors of the scale are lower than 0,70 (0,651 and 0,646), the fact that this value is 0,900 in general and the Cronbach alpha values acceptability until 0,50 to be mentioned in the literature (Dogan, 1999), and the concern of harming the scope validity of the scale caused the generation of the idea that this will not be an important problem for the reliability of the scale. Thus, it can be said that SRAP is a reliable scale in terms of internal consistency.
On the other hand, the relationship between items under factors and between factors, and item- total correlation values are in line with the study results where relationships between academic procrastination, and self-regulation, self-sufficiency, self-respect, internal motivation and targets-values (Balkis, 2006; Ferrari and Scher, 2000; Klassen and Kuzucu, 2009; Lee, 2005; Ozsoy, Memis and Temur, 2009). In fact the SRAP factors of "education approach and practices, externally-focused control, internally-focused control, course content, self-confidence, lack of self-confidence" and the items that these factors include are in line with the concepts determined to be related to the procrastination behaviors in different studies. For example in a compiling study of Zarick & Stonebraker (2009), it was stated that the factors causing procrastination behaviors in people can be discussed in four main titles of attractiveness of the task, loving the job, uncertainties in the task, the fear of failure in students.
As a result of the analyses conducted with test-retest method to test the scale's skill of reaching stable measurements, the correlation coefficients of SRAP took values between 0,444 and 0,770, and the correlation coefficients calculated in terms of factors took values between 0,468 and 0,825. All of these relations are positive and significant on the level of p<0,001. For correlation coefficients 0,00 - 0,30 level generally indicates low, 0.30 - 0.70 level indicated medium and 0.70 - 1.00 level indicates high correlation (Buyukozturk, 2002). Thus, 24 of the items in the scale are in medium and 19 are in high correlation level. And from the subfactors 2 are in medium and 4 are in high correlation levels. So each item and each factor in the scale can perform stable measurements that don't change within time. In conclusion, it can be said that the Scale of the Reasons of Academic Procrastination (SRAP) is a valid and reliable scale that can be used to determine the university students' reasons for delaying academic tasks.
Contribution to the Application
Even though the study group was taken as the students of education faculty, it should be mentioned that this valid and reliable scale can also be used in higher education institutions other than faculties of education. On the other hand, it can be recommended for this scale to be used in second degree students of secondary and primary education provided that the validity and reliability studies are repeated.
Based on the effect levels of the reasons determined in SRAP on students, it can be said that this is a scale that can be used by mainly school administrators and teachers but also by students to determine the reasons behind the academic procrastination which is known to negatively impact academic achievement and to define the impact levels of these reasons. Moreover, it can be expected for the scale to provide reliable and valid information to the respective people about the priority levels of these reasons in the fight against procrastination. When the differences in the opportunities and properties of the schools and education levels were considered, it can be said that SRAP can be used in each education level and school, and thus has a wide area of use.
Within this framework, it can be recommended for the SRAP, which is thought to have the ability to provide the data that can be used effectively in the fight against academic procrastination behaviors of students, to be used in different studies with study groups composed by the individuals of different education levels and school types that differentiate widely in respect of teacher and student profiles, education approach and practices, physical and social opportunities.
Balci, A. (2009). Sosyal bilimlerde arastirma: Yontem, teknik ve ilkeler. [The Research in Social Sciences: Method, Technique and Principles], Pegem Akademi Publishers, Ankara, Turkey.
Balduf, M. (2009). Underachievement among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(2), 274-294.
Balkis, M. (2006). Ogretmen adaylarinin davranislarindaki erteleme egiliminin, dusunme ve karar venne tarzlan ile iliskisi. [The relationships between student teachers' procrastination behaviors and thinking styles and decision making styles], Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Izmir, Turkey.
Buyukozturk, S. (2002). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analizi el kitabi. [Data Analysis Hand Book For Social Sciences], Pegem Akademi Publishers, Ankara, Turkey.
Deniz, M.E., Tras, Z. and Aydogan, D. (2009). An investigation of academic procrastination, locus of control, and emotional intelligence, Educational Sciences: Theory ve Practice, 9 (2), 623-632
Dogan, M. (1999). Changes in attitude to mathematics of primary trainee teachers, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, The University of Leeds School of Education, England.
Elvers, G.C., Polzella, D.J. and Graetz, K. (2003). Procrastination in online courses: Performance and attitudinal differences. Teaching of Psychology, 30(2), 159-162.
Eroglu, A. (2008). Faktor analizi. In: Kalayci, S. (ed), SPSS Uygulamah Cok Degiskenli Istatistik Teknikleri [Statistics Techniques with Multi Variable in SPSS Applications], Asil Publishers, Ankara/Turkey, (s. 321-331).
Ferrari, J.R. and Scher, S.J. (2000). Toward an understanding of academis and nonacademic tasks procrastinated by students: The use of daily logs. Psychology in the Schools, 37(4), 359-366.
Johnson, E.M., Gren, K.E. and Kluever, R.C. (2000). Psychometric characteristics of the revised procrastination inventory. Researh in Higher Education, 41 (2), 269-279.
Kagan, M. (2009). Universite Ogrencilerinde Akademik Erteleme Davranisini Aciklayan Degiskenlerin Belirlenmesi, [Determining the Variables Which Explain the Behavior of Academic Procrastination in University Students], AU Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi, [Ankara University, Journal of Educational Faculty], 42(2), 113-128.
Klassen, R.M. and Kuzucu, E. (2009). Academic procrastination and motivation of adolescents in Turkey, Educational Psychology. 29(1), 69-81
Klassen, R.M., Krawchuk, L.L., Lynch, S. and Rajani, S. (2008). Procrastination and motivation of undergraduates with learning disabilities: A mixed-methods inquiry, Learning Disabilities Research ve Practice, 23(3), 137-147
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge, New York, USA.
Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in university students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1), 5-14
Nelson, J.K. (2009). Impact of parent education on student success. Utah Valley University, 800 W. University Parkway, MS 126, Orem, UT 84058. (Avaliable: http://www.evsd.org/documents/parent_educa tion.pdf, 20.11.2010).
Nonis, S.A. and Hudson, G.I. (2010). Performance of college students: Impact of study time and study habits. Journal of Education For Business, 85(4), 229-238.
Ozsoy, G., Memis, A. and Temur, T. (2009). Metacognition, study habits and attitudes. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 154-166
Pychyl, T.A., Morin, R.W. and Salmon, B.R. (2000). Procrastination and the Planning Fallacy: An Examination of the Study Habits of University Students. In: Ferrari, J.R., Pychyl, T.A. (Eds.). Procrastination: Current Issues and New Directions. [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15 (5), 135-150.
Scher, S.J. and Osterman, N.M. (2002). Procrastination, conscientiousness, anxiety, and goals: exploring the measurement and correlates of procrastination among school-aged children. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4), 385-398.
Scherer, R. F., Wiebe F. A., Luther, D. C. and Adams J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763-770. PubMed PMID: 3406294.
Zarick, L.M. and Stonebraker, R. (2009). I'll do it tomorrow the logic of procrastination. College Teaching. 57(4), 211-215.
Department of Educational Science
Faculty of Education
University of Ahi Evran at Kursehir/Turkey
Table 1. Factor Analysis Results of the Items in the SRAP's Factor of 'Education Approach and Practices' Items Factor Eigenvalues Explained Loadings Variance 1. The teacher to lack 0,668 comprehensive knowledge about his/her field and to adopt a textbook-dependent teaching approach 2. The teacher to abstain from 0,658 teaching methods based on listening 3. The teacher to behave students not as individuals who want to 0,648 learn but as individuals who want to get good grades 4. The teacher to be unsuccessful in making the students feel the 0,635 importance of the subject with his/her attitudes and behaviors 5. The teacher to evaluate the 0,631 4,816 %11,199 students just based on their exam papers 6. The content of the lectures to 0,607 be theoretical, not including any practical section 7. Research and application homework to be underestimated, 0,550 considered as unimportant 8. Passing the course to be accepted as the primary goal, not 0,520 having high expectation regarding future 9. Course content to be based on 0,510 rote-learning not understanding 10. Lacking the research-review 0,500 materials required for the course Table 2. Factor Analysis Results of the Items in the SRAP's Factor of 'Externally-Focused Control' Items Factor Eigenvalues Explained Loadings Variance 1. Lacking people (parents etc.) 0,699 that may encourage studying regularly 2. Lacking teachers that may 0,601 encourage studying regularly 3. Not having any assigned research projects or home works 0,600 that will require working throughout the term 4. Teacher to not encourage 0,578 attendance and participation to the class 5. Having no economical or social 0,556 3,682 %8,563 necessity to work in this profession 6. Lacking a good role model in 0,542 my family for studying 7. The obligation to live with 0,515 friends who don't like to study 8. Not being able to attend all 0,445 lectures, having high absence rate 9. Having limited opportunities 0,413 to benefit from information resources such as internet outside the school Table 3. Factor Analysis Results of the Items in the SRAP's Factor of 'Internally-Focused Control' Items Factor Eigenvalues Explained Loadings Variance 1. Lacking the habit of studying 0,716 regularly 2. My habit to delay studying by 0,703 convincing myself that there is a lot of time to the exam 3. Remembering the necessity to 0,622 study when the exam date is close 4. Lacking the skill of planning 0,598 3,279 %7,627 and managing time 5. Not adapting the habit of 0,596 studying for long hours 6. Making myself convinced that 0,502 university is a place to relax 7. Extracurricular activities 0,461 (sports, music, entertainment etc.) to seem more attractive than studying 8. Courses to be not subjects of 0,418 conversation in a circle of friends Table 4. Factor Analysis Results of the Items in the SRAP's Factor of 'Academic Self-Confidence' Items Factor Eigenvalues Explained Loadings Variance 1. Disbelief in the importance of 0,693 skills and information taught 2. Course contents to not attract 0,682 my attention 3. The course content to lack a 0,638 direct relation with my profession 4. The course content to not have 0,557 2,970 %6,906 any relationship with the daily life 5. Course content to be outside 0,553 of my field of skill (social sciences student in math class) 6. Not liking the courses given 0,548 in the program or my department Table 5. Factor Analysis Results of the Items in the SRAP's Factor of 'Lack of Academic Self-Confidence' Items Factor Eigenvalues Explained Loadings Variance 1. Having a lot of trust in 0,644 myself regarding achievement 2. Having a good memorization 0,620 skills and being able memorize in a short period of time 3. Getting good grades from 0,578 2,621 %6,094 courses that I study only at the last week 4. The students studying on exam 0,550 time to get higher grades 5. Course content to be so simple 0,518 that it won't require long term studying Table 6. Factor Analysis Results of the Items in the SRAP's Factor of 'Lack of Academic Self-Confidence' Items Factor Eigenvalues Explained Loadings Variance 1. Not getting the result I want 0,684 when I study throughout the term 2. Not believing that I can be 0,585 successful even I study regularly 3. Other students to underline 0,558 the possibility of being 2,432 %5,655 successful just by studying in the last week 4. Students who study regularly 0,550 to be insulted, mocked by other students 5. The fear of forgetting the 0,502 information when I study earlier Table 7. Correlation Analysis of the SRAP's Item-Test Scores Item Number r 1 0,487 * 2 0,392 * 3 0,473 * 4 0,514 * 5 0,426 * 6 0,459 * 7 0,518 * 8 0,431 * 9 0,481 * 10 0.456 * 11 0,449 * 12 0,509 * 13 0,407 * 14 0,511 * 15 0,336 * 16 0,436 * 17 0,396 * 18 0,392 * 19 0,377 * 20 0,325 * 21 0,379 * 22 0,431 * 23 0,296 * 24 0,349 * 25 0,428 * 26 0,441 * 27 0,494 * 28 0,553 * 29 0,522 * 30 0,441 * 31 0,487 * 32 0,477 * 33 0,485 * 34 0,364 * 35 0,359 * 36 0,456 * 37 0,431 * 38 0,434 * 39 0,389 * 40 0,771 * 41 0,542 * 42 0,401 * 43 0,369 * N = 381; * = p<,001 Table 8. Reliability Analyses Results of Each Sub-Factor of the SRAP and the SR-AP in General Item Correlation Sperman Factors Number between forms Brown Education Approach and Practices 10 0,631 0,774 Externally-Focused Control 9 0,582 0,738 Internally-Focused Control 8 0,576 0,731 Course Content 6 0,497 0,664 Academic Self-Confidence 5 0,442 0,613 Lack of Academic Self-Confidence 5 0,461 0,638 SRAP 43 0,583 0,736 Guttman Cronbach Factors Split-Half Alpha Education Approach and Practices 0,774 0,833 Externally-Focused Control 0,733 0,777 Internally-Focused Control 0,731 0,759 Course Content 0,664 0,766 Academic Self-Confidence 0,589 0,651 Lack of Academic Self-Confidence 0,604 0,646 SRAP 0,734 0,900 Table 9. The Relationships between the Factors of SRAP FAKTORLER F1 F2 F3 Education Approach and Practices F1 -- 0,423 * 0,307 * Externally-Focused Control F2 -- 0,317 * Internally-Focused Control F3 -- Course Content F4 Academic Self-Confidence F5 Lack of Academic Self-Confidence F6 FAKTORLER F4 F5 F6 Education Approach and Practices 0,488 * 0,324 * 0,284 * Externally-Focused Control 0,359 * 0,296 * 0,474 * Internally-Focused Control 0,324 * 0,294 * 0,264 * Course Content -- 0,323 * 0,282 * Academic Self-Confidence -- 0,313 * Lack of Academic Self-Confidence -- N: 411-436 * = p<0,001 Table 10. Test-Retest Results of the Items of SRAP Item Number r 1 0,729 * 2 0,676 * 3 0,713 * 4 0,642 * 5 0,643 * 6 0,709 * 7 0,651 * 8 0,690 * 9 0,688 * 10 0.739 * 11 0,599 * 12 0,571 * 13 0,610 * 14 0,457 * 15 0,444 * 16 0,677 * 17 0,639 * 18 0,537 * 19 0,655 * 20 0,680 * 21 0,723 * 22 0,612 * 23 0,749 * 24 0,720 * 25 0,724 * 26 0,691 * 27 0,727 * 28 0,724 * 29 0,714 * 30 0,770 * 31 0,737 * 32 0,706 * 33 0,691 * 34 0,688 * 35 0,701 * 36 0,682 * 37 0,677 * 38 0,717 * 39 0,739 * 40 0,731 * 41 0,671 * 42 0,549 * 43 0,691 * N: 97-101; * = p<.001 Table 11. Test-Retest Results of the Factors of SRAP Second Test First Test F1 F2 F3 Education Approach and Practices F1 0,719 * Externally-Focused Control F2 0,468 * Internally-Focused Control F3 0,751 Course Content F4 Academic Self-Confidence F5 Lack of Academic Self-Confidence F6 Second Test First Test F4 F5 F6 Education Approach and Practices F1 Externally-Focused Control F2 Internally-Focused Control F3 Course Content F4 0,825 * Academic Self-Confidence F5 0,720 * Lack of Academic Self-Confidence F6 0,638 * N: 97-101; *: p<,001 Table 12. Item Distribution of the SRAP based on Factors Faktor Faktor Name Included Number Item Number F1 Education Approach and Practices (EAP) 10 items F2 Externally-Focused Control (EFC) 9 items F3 Internally-Focused Control (IFC) 8 items F4 Course Content (CC) 6 items F5 Academic Self-Confidence (AS) 5 items F6 Lack of Academic Self-Confidence (LoAS) 5 items The Scale of The Reasons for Academic 43 items Procrastination (SRAP) Table 13. Criteria for Interpreting the Arithmetic Mean Values Obtained with SRAP Arithmetic Meaning Priority Level Mean Interval 0,00-0,80 No effect Lowest 0,81-1,60 Low effect Low 1,61-2,40 Moderate effect Moderate 2,41-3,20 High effect High 3,21-4,00 Very high effect Very high
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Date:||Dec 22, 2012|
|Previous Article:||Motivating weak students: a critical discussion and reflection.|
|Next Article:||A study of interrelationships between selected variables in a web-based learning environment.|