THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT STUDENTS’ PROCRASTINATION AND THEIR ACHIEVEMENT AT UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH YOGYAKARTA
The Relationship between English Education Department Students’
Procrastination and Their Achievement at Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta
A Skripsi
Submitted to the Faculty of Language Education
In a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the degree
Sarjana Pendidikan
Hafidz Wahyu Nur Cholis
20120540110
English Education Department
Faculty of Language Education
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
2016
1
Chapter One
Introduction
This chapter provides introduction of this research. It serves background of
this research, identification of the problem, and limitation of the problem. In addition,
this chapter also presents formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, and
significance of the research. Last but not least, this chapter offers outline of the
research.
Research Background
At least once in life, people postpone some, or even most of tasks. The tasks
are compulsory to be done in a certain timeframe. Some people just dallied with
laziness and some others ended it as their way of life (Steel, 2007). Research found
that 80 to 95% of college students confessed that they were occupied by
procrastination (Knaus, 1973; Thakkar, 2009). This phenomenon becomes extreme
prevalence, since not only students who engaged in procrastination but adult also
might be involved in procrastination. It was reflected in some researches that 15 to
20% of adults suffered from chronic procrastination (Harriott & Ferrari, 1996;
Thakkar, 2009). Hence, the idea of procrastination is thought-provoking to be
discovered by the researcher in the current site since the community that is observed
is adults and college students.
The history of procrastination started at very long time ago. Therefore, the
arousal of procrastination among adult is not a new phenomenon that appears
recently. Thakkar (2009) affirmed that the trend of procrastination does not only
emerge presently. This notion had been concerned from around 800 BC when
2
Hedroid, Greek poet, marked procrastination as something that always sticks on ruin.
Hamlet, the famous poet from Italy, often delayed action for most of his self-title play
and ever started with his soliloquy that “to be or not to be, that is the question”.
Moreover, the famous artist from Italia, Leonardo da Vinci grieved over his life that
many of his drawing could not be finished. Indeed, after the Industrial Revolution, the
perception of procrastination became as an evil phenomenon that made the tight
schedule in order to decrease delayed industrial production, (Ferrari, Johnson, &
McCown, 1995; Thakkar, 2009). Thus, procrastination becomes perpetual
phenomenon in every epoch and even becomes worse time by time than before.
The awareness of the researcher towards procrastination epidemic triggers
him to explore more about it especially in his surroundings. It is started from the
researcher himself that he sometimes procrastinates some of tasks. Although the task
could be done, the researcher is not really sure with the quality. In addition, based on
the researcher’s observation, numerous students in English Education Department at
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (EED UMY) are found to be a
procrastinator. Some of those students got the low score for the assignment that they
postpone it. This might be related to the prior research that procrastination might
impact to students’ achievement such as obtaining low score in examination, or even
facing failure in examination which result in depression and anxiety. The further
impact the students face is losing their motivation and learning and finally they stop
their study (Hussain & Sultan, 2010). Thus, raising the issue of students’
procrastination in relation to their achievement is essential because some of English
3
Education Department students at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta can be
procrastinators.
Problem Identification
The researcher exposed some problems related with either procrastination or
students’ achievement. Based on depth informal interview with some colleagues, the
researcher found that many students put off the duty until close to the deadline. In the
daily lives, they are always late to the place they supposed to be punctual like train
station. Moreover, there are students who often pay the rent house payment out of the
deadline. Those are because they delay the obligation they have which is supposed to
be accomplished on time. This kind of procrastination is included in general
procrastination.
There are particular students who delay the task from the lecturer when they
feel unsure to be able to accomplish it. The reason is because of the quantity of the
task and/or the difficulty of the task. In addition, some students postpone reading
assignment and read it the night before class, or even couple minutes before class.
Another reason is that students are lack of motivation to finish the assignment on
time. This type of procrastination is commonly known as academic procrastination.
In students’ academic life, both general and academic procrastination may affect their
academic performance including learning achievement. This issue needs detail study.
Problem Limitation
The incapability of the researcher to investigate those problems due to limited
time drives the researcher to limit into one type of procrastination. The researcher
4
only focuses on students’ procrastination that takes place at EED UMY in relations to
their achievement. The researcher also tries to find out whether or not procrastination
intertwines to students’ academic performance.
Research Questions
Based on the theoretical background and issues above, the researcher
formulates three research questions below:
1. What is English Education Department Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta students’ procrastination like?
2. What is English Education Department Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta students’ achievement like?
3. What is the correlation between English Education Department Universitas
Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta students’ procrastination and their achievement
like?
Research Objectives
The aims of this study are in line with the research question formulated by the
researcher above:
1. To investigate EED UMY students’ procrastination.
2. To find out EED UMY students’ achievement.
3. To examine the correlation between EED UMY student’s procrastination and
their achievement.
5
Research Significance
For teachers and lecturers. The result that is attained from this research
helps teacher and lecturer to be aware that procrastination is danger. Teacher and
lecturer also can help their students to encounter this problem and encourage them to
finish their task on time.
For students. The outcome of this research makes the students aware about
the hazard of procrastination and then whittles away their bad habit that is putting off
their work. In addition, they are more motivated in their study after knowing the bad
effect of procrastination and good impact of avoiding procrastination than before
knowing it.
For the next researchers. This research enriches the next researchers’
knowledge in order to develop another case or phenomenon related with
procrastination and students’ achievement. It also gives them insight regarding to the
recent situation that is happened around them.
Research Outline
This research comprises five chapters and the first chapter presents the
introduction. It consists of background, formulation of the problem, and limitation of
the problem. Then, it serves research question and purpose of the study as well as
significance of study.
The second chapter discusses about the literature review. It reviews the
definition of procrastination, causes, and effects of procrastination. The types of
procrastination also are explained subsequently. Definition of student’s achievement
6
is described along with level of Cumulated Grade Point Average (CGPA). Review of
related study and conceptual framework which includes hypothesis are following.
The third chapter portrays research methodology. It defines type of the
research design and population and sample. Data collection method and data analysis
are explicated afterwards.
The fourth chapter talks about finding and discussion. The result from the data
analysis is showed in order to answer the research question. The discussion follows to
relate the result with the theories provided before it. In the end, the fifth chapter is
about conclusion and suggestion for several parties.
7
Chapter Two
Literature Review
This chapter provides experts’ opinions that support the research. The relevant
ideas from experts are elaborated into two parts, procrastination and students’
achievement. The first part consists of elaboration on the definition of procrastination,
causes of procrastination, effects of procrastination, and types of procrastination.
Meanwhile, the second part comprises of amplification on the definition of students’
achievement and level of students’ achievement.
Procrastination
Definition of procrastination. Many researchers attempted to define what
procrastination is. These attempts produce various different types of definition. The
difference might be caused by the root and origin the researchers used as the basis to
define the procrastination. Neville (2007) stated that the word of procrastination
derived from its origins in Latin: pro- (forward) and crastinus (of tomorrow). It
means that procrastination is putting something forward tomorrow. Besides,
according to Klingsieck (2013) and Rozental and Carlbring (2014), the definition of
procrastination is willingly delaying a planned task which is intended to be done
without concerning bad consequences coming from that delay. In addition,
Klingsieck (2013) and Rozental and Carlbring (2014) stated that the definition may
be differentiated into three different manners, distress, postponement, and
irrationality. Distress refers to the procrastination in the form of delay that is in
conjunction with subjective discomfort (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Rozental &
Carlbring, 2014). Postponement constitutes a type of procrastination when people
8
postpone to start or to complete an intended course of action (Beswick & Mann,
1994; Rozental & Carlbring, 2014). Irrationality represents a kind of procrastination
to delay activities irrationally as behavior of the doers (Sabini & Silver, 1982;
Rozental & Carlbring, 2014).
From various definitions of procrastination, some experts asserted that theirs
is the most proper definition. Eerde (2003) and Thakkar (2009) claimed that the best
definition for procrastination is the postponing of a duty that was initially planned in
spite of expecting to be poorer for the delay. Collaterally, according to Steel (2007),
Rozental and Carlbring (2014), and Steel (2010), procrastination is “to voluntarily
delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay.” In
line with Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2005), procrastinate is “to delay
doing something that you should do, usually because you do not want to do it”. In
education field, academic procrastination term refers to the delay in academic
activities intentionally, incidentally, and/or habitually but has significant effect
toward students’ learning and achievement (Hussain & Sultan, 2010).
To sum up, procrastination is the tendency to delay and postpone task or duty.
Commonly, people do procrastination on tasks impulsively, intentionally, and
voluntarily. Moreover, people who procrastinate do not consider the bad impact from
the action.
Types of procrastination. Procrastination is divided into types. The variance
of procrastination types existed because the experts see it based on many different
perspectives like character and trait. Babadogan (2010) pointed out that there are two
classifications of procrastination. The first is procrastination as personal trait which is
9
mostly based on putting off in decision-making and daily life routine and the second
is conditional procrastination which is included also academic procrastination. In line
with that, Solomon and Rothblum (1984), Milgram, Mey-Tal, and Levinson (1998),
Lay (1988), Ferrari and Dovidio (2000), Ferrari (1991), and Babadogan, (2010)
distinguished procrastination as life routine procrastination, compulsive
procrastination, decisional procrastination, and academic procrastination. Life routine
procrastination manifests as difficulty in arranging daily routine tasks and in getting
these done in time. Then, compulsive procrastination emerges as a deferring both the
tasks to be accomplished and likewise the decision to be occupied. Subsequently,
decisional procrastination arises as “procrastination in decision-making in case of
conflict situations and various options.” Last but not least, academic procrastination
is addressed as like leaving academic tasks until last minute such as preparation for
examinations and doing assignment.
Instantly, those categories are generalized into two extractors which are based
on reason and area that people procrastinate. The types of procrastination may be
different and it depends on the characteristic which is used as a separator. Moreover,
the experts provided two different groupings of procrastination types. They are two
types and four types and those categorizations are based on the reason and the area
that people procrastinate.
However, the researcher tends to choose the first type of procrastination which
divides procrastination into two: personal trait and conditional. The reason is because
Babadogan provided two different discrimination of procrastination; they are two
types and four types. On the other hands, he explicated that compulsive
10
procrastination and academic procrastination are included in conditional
procrastination, meanwhile decisional procrastination and life routine procrastination
are part of personal traits. Thus, the researcher prefers to two types of procrastination.
Causes of procrastination. There are many factors that cause procrastination.
Thakkar (2009) analyzed that there are two main reasons of procrastination especially
in America. They are modern technology and procrastination’s evolution to become
postmodern values. However, the other experts discovered various reasons that cause
people to procrastinate as elaborated in the following paragraph.
Firstly, technology becomes one of the causes of procrastination. Along with
the development of technology, people are fascinated with the features offered by
technology especially gadget. For example, a smart phone contains many social
media like Facebook, Twitter, Path, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Blackberry
Messenger. People are happier keeping in touch with their affiliations and relations
through virtual world than direct interaction. They are distracted by checking e-mail,
texting with friends instantly, browsing the news, listening to music, streaming videos
on YouTube, and playing games. Those all can unnecessarily postpone the work at
hand. Unintentionally, people become stupid just because giving priority to their
virtual world rather than their reality world where they live. This disorder makes
exaggerated quote, “We live in the era of smart phones and stupid people”. Sadly, a
smart phone is not the only distraction, but computer, television, video games, and a
whole host of progressively sophisticated modern invention might also cause acute
procrastination.
11
Secondly, procrastination that has already improved as postmodern values has
permeated most of Western society in the last thirty years. According to Dr. Ronald
Ingleheart (as cited in Thakkar, 2009), a protuberant political science at the
University of Michigan and director of the World Values Survey, Western societies
are underway to cultivate postmodern values such as tolerance, gratitude of social
contacts, and self-actualization. These values coexist with modern values such as hard
work, security, and wealth. When used to academic, modern values point to a
preference for school, future aims, and hard work whereas postmodern values refer to
a preference for social deeds and pleasure at the moment. In many occasions, there is
restricted time to pursue distinct academic and leisure activities, resulting in
motivational conflict between the two events. Determining by their value
construction, daily activities that students have will be different coherently (Dietz,
Hofer, & Fries, 2007; Thakkar, 2009). Students with modern values need to plan for
their future and will organize their daily routines to meet their objectives. Meanwhile,
students with postmodern values prefer to choose spontaneously the activities during
the day they want to engage, resulting in the greater chance of putting of academic
tasks with slight instant pleasure. Those three persons are all professors of
Psychology at the University of Manheim in Germany and conducted an empirical
study on 700 German students that verified Inglehart’s theory by revealing,
“Postmodern value orientation was positively linked to academic procrastination”.
Interestingly, when the students are failed in academic, it may raise the
possibility of having academic procrastination. Kandemir (2014) found that academic
success predicts academic procrastination. It is worsened by the existence of internet
12
which attracts students from their study and distracts their focus. While internet is
part of technology, it means that Kandemir’s research is coherent with Thakkar’s
research before which proposes the idea of excessiveness usage of modern
technology.
On the other hand, some experts stated that internal factor has significant
correlation with procrastination. Yazici and Bulut (2015) explained that perfectionist
personality traits have significant relationship with academic procrastination of the
prospective teacher. It is supported by Kagan, Çakir, Ilhan, and Kandemir (2010) who
discovered that perfectionism, obsessive-compulsive, and personality traits are the
variables that elucidate academic procrastination. Steel (2007) and Steel (2010) tried
to generalize that the strongest factor is impulsive. When people have intended to
finish their task but put it off even the moment comes, it seems that their preferences
impulsively change to take pleasure in more readily temptation. This may support the
premise about impulsive as the core reason in procrastination.
Generally, there are two big factors that make people postpone their duty.
They are internal factors which are like impulsive, modern, and postmodern values,
and external factors which include internet and modern technology. As a result, it can
be concluded that internet – supported technology and impulsive are the strongest
factor which drives people to procrastinate.
Effects of procrastination. Since procrastination is obscured dangerous
epidemic, the effects that are caused by procrastination are so many. Many people get
the troubles because of procrastination. Critchfield and Kollins (2001), Ainslie
(2005), and Steel (2010) unveiled that procrastination nowadays becomes epicenter of
13
numerous public problematic. In line with it, Schouwenburg, Lay, Pychyl, and Ferrari
(2004) and Ozer and Sackes (2011) highlighted that, predominantly, students of
university regularly search for help from guidance counselor to complain about
procrastination that makes them feel so hard and might bring their life satisfactory to
the lowest level. Appositely, Clayton (2000), Tice and Baumeister (1997), and Ozer
and Sackes (2011) discovered that procrastination seems to reduce the stress by
giving pleasure in the beginning, but the pleasure will be paid with long term stress,
disorganization, and even failure. In addition, procrastination in academic setting
often brings many negative outcomes (Semb, Glick, & Spencer, 1979; Ozer &
Sackes, 2011). This might be relevant with what Sirois (2007), Stead, Shanahan, and
Neufeld (2010), Muraven, Tice and Baumeister (1997), O’Donoghue and Rabin
(1999), and Rozental and Carlbring (2014) discovered that procrastination might
affect to decrease well-being, unhealthy mentally, a reduced amount of performance,
and economic difficulties.
In summary, procrastination effects are always bad. The effects could be in
psychological forms such as demotivation, stress, and mental disorder. Besides, they
might also be in material types like financial loss and failure. Nothing is good at all.
Student’s Achievement
Definition of student’s achievement. Based on literal meaning, students’
achievement is what students achieve during certain period. Arikunto (2010) and
Awaliyah (2015) stated that academic achievement is a result of learning during
learning processes. Correspondingly, regarding to Syah (2008) and Awaliyah (2015),
achievement is students’ accomplishment in learning any subjects and it is measured
14
by scores. Regardless its poorness, Grade Point Average (GPA) is a measure of
academic integration (Tinto, 1975; Pietras, 2010) that can be assumed GPA is student
achievement itself. Similarly, despite the flaw in measuring student achievement
(Milton, 1988; Elliott & Strenta 1988; Chance 1988; Ramist, Lewis, & McCamley,
1990; Young 1990; Larkey & Caulkins, 1992; Caulkins, Larkey, & Wei, 1996), GPA
is still the foremost measure of student quality in educational system (Caulkin et al.
1996). At the end, student’s achievement can be described as GPA because it is still
the primary measurement in educational field regardless its imperfection.
Factors affecting academic achievement. Two big parts of factors that affect
academic achievement are internal factors and external factors. Internal factors come
from inside of every person including psychological, emotional, and motivation
whilst external factors derive from outside of the person like environment, family,
and society (Hakim, 2005). It needs integration among environment, family, and
society. Here, the role of parents, brothers, sisters, teachers, friends and even
neighbors is important in determining students’ academic achievement. Then, the rest
depends on students’ mood and emotional like motivation, anger, sadness, hatred, etc.
In addition, emotional variable factor has a strong influence toward students’
achievement and can predict academic success (Heyningen, 1997 as cited in Pritchard
& Wilson, 2003). Moreover, Hasheminasab, Zarandi, Azizi, and Zadeh (2014) stated
that there are some important factors that affect student’s achievement such as
gender, self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and academic procrastination. In this
respect, procrastination is highlighted in this research as a basis that affects students’
achievement.
15
Level of GPA. As the media to measure GPA, it needs level to distinguish
and separate the classifications. Every level of classification describes different
description. Various classifications exist because every institution can have its own
arrangement. Academic Guideline Book of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
determines the level of Cumulative GPA (CGPA) with its character. The arrangement
is based on “Keputusan Mendiknas Nomor 232/U/2000. The order is as seen below:
1. 2.00 – 2.75
: Satisfactory
2. 2.76 – 3.50
: Good
3. 3.51 – 4.00
: Very Good/ Cumlaude.
Related Study Review
The correlation between procrastination and students’ achievement.
Several experts had done the researches about correlation between procrastination
and students’ achievement. The study of relationship between procrastination and
academic performance among a group of undergraduate dental students in India was
conducted (Nagesh Lakshminarayan, Shrudha Potdar, & Siddana Goud Reddy,
2013). In addition, correlations of academic procrastination and mathematics
achievement of university undergraduate students were investigated in Nigeria
(Akinsola, Tella, & Tella, 2007). Those researches founded significant correlation
between procrastination and students’ achievement. Additionally, students with low
level of procrastination are good in their academic achievement as well as students
with high level of procrastination are bad in academic performance.
The relationships among procrastination, flow, and academic achievement
were also examined in Korea with different result. In contrary with previous findings,
16
the result of this study indicated that there was no relationship between
procrastination and students’ achievement (Eun, 2011). This proved that the
likelihood of the same result of the similar researches does not necessarily occur.
Thus, the difference of result depends on the site where the research is conducted and
becomes the motive of the researcher to conduct this research at EED UMY.
Conceptual Framework
Based on the literatures above, the researcher conceptualizes the theory in
order to support this research. According to Arikunto (2010), learning outcome is
student achievement. Meanwhile, Caulkin et al. (1996) claimed that GPA is still the
primary technique to measure students’ achievement. Moreover, there are two big
parts of factors that affect academic achievement; they are internal factors like
psychological and external factors like environment (Hakim, 2005). While
Babadogan (2010) stated that procrastination is a kind of behavior and psychological,
Heyningen argued that students’ achievement can be predicted from emotional
factors because they relate strongly one to another (as cited in Pritchard & Wilson,
2003). Thus, the theories above lead to the idea of the connection between
procrastination and students’ achievement which is depicted as below:
Table 1. The Research Correlational Table
GPA
Correlated
Procrastination
Research hypothesis. Grounded by the prior research, the researcher made
two hypotheses. The first is the alternative hypothesis (Ha) which there is correlation
17
between procrastination and students’ achievement. The second is the null hypothesis
(H0) which is no correlation between procrastination and students’ achievement.
18
Chapter Three
Methodology
This section conveys the methodology of research that is employed by the
researcher. It consists of four parts: research design, population and sample, data
collection method, and the data analysis method. In the research design, the
researcher explains the design and the reason of deciding the design. Next, in the
population and sample, the researcher elaborates the populations and the number of
the sample and the sampling techniques utilized in this study. In the data collection
method, the researcher explores the way the data is collected. In the end, in the data
analysis, the researcher amplifies the procedures in investigating the data.
Research Design
The nature of this research is quantitative approach. The quantitative approach
for a research is commonly depicted by the foremost uses of numerical data than
words or pictures data instead (Creswell, 2003, p. 19) which mandated the researcher
to “identify a research problem based on trends in the field or on the need to explain
why something occurs” (Creswell, 2012, p. 13). Furthermore, this research took
correlational design. It demanded the researcher to “measure the degree of association
(or relation) between two or more variables using the statistical procedure of
correlational analysis” (Creswell, 2012, p. 21). Explicitly, referring to Creswell
(2012), this research applied a prediction research design which it is “to identify
variables that will predict an outcome or criterion.” The researcher identified one or
more predictor (or outcome forecast) variable and a criterion (or outcome) variable.
(p. 341). Thus, this research attempted to discover the relationship between students’
19
procrastination and their achievement in which one variable can correlate to another
variable. In spite of the existing similar researches that had been conducted before,
this research was distinct since such a study had never been administered in the
period and site where this study took place.
Research Population and Sampling
In order to collect the data, the researcher needed to decide the population that
is being observed and the sampling technique that is used to select the respondent.
Referring to Creswell (2012), “population is group of individuals who have the same
characteristic” (p. 142). The population in this research was students of English
Education Department Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta at year 2015/2016
with the total number 531 students (batch 2015 is excluded). The researcher tended to
use convenience sampling. It is when the researcher chooses participants because
they are ready and accessible to be studied (Creswell, 2012). Convenience sampling
is included in non-probability sampling which the participants are selected because
they are available, convenient, and represent some characteristic that the researcher
wants to study (Creswell, 2012). For that reason, the researcher opted to only batch
2012, 2013, and 2014 because they fulfilled all the characteristics that were needed
by the researcher. Those characteristics were having Cumulated Grade Point Average
(CGPA), engaged in university environment more than one year, and accessible to
gain the data. Batch 2015 was not suitable because the students had no CGPA which
its role was important here as the dependent variable. Also, they were lack of
experience to live in university environment which might affect the characteristics
20
that the researcher looked for, that was university students. In addition, students of
2011 and 2010 were hard to access because most of them had graduated.
Data Collection Method
The data collection methods in this research used questionnaire and
Cumulated Grade Point Average (CGPA) as the instrument. The questionnaire was
employed to gather the data of procrastination whereas CGPA was utilized to obtain
the data of students’ achievement. The researcher distributed the questionnaire to
EED UMY students batch 2012, 2013, and 2014 who were available, accessible and
willing to be taken their data. The questionnaire distribution was held at the
classroom after permission from the lecturer who taught was given. Before the
respondents started to answer the questionnaire, the researcher asked permission from
them by giving inform consent that they had to put their sign on it. The inform
consent consisted student’s approval for giving their data including their CGPA to be
submitted and then analyzed by the researcher for research purpose. In addition, the
researcher also asked permission from Dean of Language Education Faculty and
Head of English Education Department regarding to obtain institution’s archive that
is students’ CGPA.
Research Setting. The place where this research was conducted was in
English Education Department at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta. The first
reason why the researcher opted to that place is because the students who studied
there were prospective teachers and lecturers who should, later, concern about their
students’ achievement. Meanwhile, some of them were suspected to be
21
procrastinators. The second reason is because the researcher studied there too. It
made the researcher feasible to conduct research there because the researcher knew
the condition of the site where the research would be conducted.
Besides, the data collection was conducted between March – April 2016. It
took around 6 weeks for the researcher to attain the data entirely. The researcher
distributed questionnaire to the 336 students of EED batch 2012, 2013, and 2014. The
distribution of questionnaire was 82 for batch 2012, 122 for batch 2013, and 131 for
batch 2014. That was based on the students who were available, willing, and
accessible. The researcher claimed that the proportion for each batch was exact and
feasible to be collected and might represent the total population.
Research Instrument. The questionnaire as the instrument of this research
was adopted from Tuckman Procrastination Scale (TPS) (Tuckman, 1990) and
Procrastination Assessment Scale for Students (PASS) (Solomon & Rothblum, 1994).
TPS was used for measuring daily life routine procrastination and PASS was used to
measure academic procrastination. In order to make the questionnaire more
contextualized within the current research site and condition, the researcher adjusted
some items. The adjustments were only on the terms like “meeting with professor”
became “meeting with lecturer” and “registering classes” became “key – in.”
Consequently, the researcher chose PASS items only on the prevalence of academic
procrastination in six academic areas and did not include the reason for academic
procrastination items and the interest in changing procrastination. The questionnaire
was made in both Indonesian and English to facilitate the respondents to understand
the questionnaire since English was the original language of the questionnaire and
22
Indonesia was the first language of the respondents. The other reason of preparing the
questionnaire in Indonesian was because there were some difficult statements to
understand. That was a way to avoid misunderstood and misinterpret which led to
invalid or bias data and result. The researcher used contextual translation technique in
translating the items on the questionnaire. Afterwards, the researcher handed in the
questionnaire to two lecturers who were experts in this matter for checking the
suitability and correspondence each translated item with the original one. The
questionnaire consists of 8 items of TPS and 7 items of PASS. The researcher
decided to use 5 points of Likert scale for each item. Every item possessed some
options: N (Never), AN (Almost Never), S (Sometimes), NA (Nearly Always), A
(Always). The score criteria of questionnaire items are as follow:
Table 2. Favorable Items Scoring
Options
Value
Never (N)
1
Almost Never (AN)
2
Sometimes (S)
3
Nearly Always (NA)
4
Always (A)
5
So as to obtain the students’ achievement data, the researcher used CGPA document
that was taken from academic information system in EED office with the permission
from Dean of Faculty and Head of Department and the students that was attached in
23
the informed consent in the questionnaire. For the need of data analysis, the
researcher categorizes the students’ CGPA into three levels to distinguish the
category of achievement. Then, both questionnaire and CGPA were being analyzed.
Instrument Validity. In order to avoid bias and/or wrong data, the instrument
that was used to measure should be valid. Creswell defined that, “validity is the
degree to which all of the evidence points to the intended interpretation of test scores
for the proposed purpose” (p. 159). Therefore, the instrument should be able to
measure what the researcher intended to measure in order to meet the validity. In this
research, the instrument was demanded to be able to measure procrastination. The
validity of the item was good concurrent validity, because it had already been used by
Tuckman, Solomon and Rothblum which was definitely checked by them using
several tests. Tuckman (1990) explained that TPS passed two times of test. The first
test from 72 items yielded two factors from 35 items. Then, a subsequent test resulted
to only a single-factor structure and a condensed scale of 16 items. Meanwhile,
Solomon and Rothblum (1994) claimed that PASS had very good concurrent validity.
It was proven by significant correlation with the Beck Depression Inventory, Ellis
Scale of Irrational Cognitions, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Delay
Avoidance Scale. Moreover, the construct validity of the questionnaire was checked
by expert judgment from two lecturers who mastered this substance. The items,
which were taken from both TPS and PASS, were modified in order to make it
applicable in the current site.
However, after being tested in the current site, it showed that KMO score was
0.750 indicating that the data can be analyzed using factor analysis to identify
24
whether the items measured the factors that were supposed to be measured. Table 3
depicts the results of the analyses.
Table 3. The Validity of The Questionnaire Using KMO and
Bartlett's Testa
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
.750
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of
Approx. Chi-Square
1814.496
Sphericity
Df
105
Sig.
.000
a. Based on correlations
After having factor analysis, the researcher eliminated the invalid items. It turned out
that from 28 items, 15 items were valid and 13 were not.
Instrument Reliability. The instrument that was used in this research should
be reliable and trusted in every site and condition where the research was conducted.
Creswell (2012) stated that, “reliability means that scores from an instrument are
stable and consistent” (p. 159). Sekaran (2000) specified reliability indicator into
three levels:
1. 0.8 - 1.0
= Good
2. 0.6 - 0.799
= Moderate
3. < 0.6
= Not Good
Tuckman (2010) emphasized that the computed reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for his
16-item scale was 0.86, whereas Solomon and Rothblum (1994) revealed that PASS
25
reliability was 0.74. The instrument’s reliability in this research was good and
appraised as reliable and trusted worthy instrument.
However, the modified instrument had slight different reliability value. The
researcher applied Cronbach’s alpha in SPSS to measure the reliability of the
instrument. The result confirmed that the reliability value of the instrument was 0.843
based on standardized items. It means that the instrument had good reliability to
measure. The table of Cronbach’s alpha is illustrated below.
Table 4. Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's
Standardized
N of
Alpha
Items
Items
.842
.843
15
Data Analysis Method
This research utilized descriptive statistics and inferential statistics as the
method to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics displayed the score of
procrastination and GPA whilst inferential statistics portrayed the relation between
procrastination as the independent variable and GPA as the dependent variable. The
researcher operated Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 22 for
Windows and Microsoft Excel in order to ease analyzing the data.
26
To measure procrastination, the researcher developed questionnaire which
was adopted from Tuckman (1990) and Solomon and Rothblum (1994). The
researcher adjusted some items in order to make it relevant with the current research
period and site. In addition, there are three level of procrastination (Akinsola, Tella,
& Tella, 2007; Lakshminarayan, Potdar, & Reddy, 2013) and the table is exposed
below:
Table 5. Procrastination Level
Value
Level
1.00 – 2.33
Low
2.33 – 2.80
Moderate
2.80 – 5.00
High
The values were obtained by dividing the average score of procrastination into three.
The scores were based on 5 Likert scales that were used by the researcher. Each scale
had different score and it can be seen in Table 2.
Besides, this research activated Pearson Product Moment correlation via SPSS
version 22 to correlate between two variables which were procrastination as the
independent variable and student’s achievement as the dependent variable. This
research applied Pearson Product Moment because the data was normal based on
normality test in SPSS. There is standard guideline to measure the strength of
association between two variables as showed below (Cohen & Manion, 1994;
Creswell, 2012).
27
Table 6. Correlational Score Table
Value
Description
< – 0.20
Very Low
0.21 – 0.35
Low
0.36 – 0.65
Moderate
0.66 – 0.85
Strong
0.86 – >
Very Strong
28
Chapter Four
Finding and Discussion
This chapter provides findings of the data analysis and discussion about it.
The findings in this chapter are the result from the data collected by the researcher
and analyzed using SPSS. Moreover, the findings that relate to the research questions
are discussed afterwards. Thus, it reveals whether the findings correspond or not with
the hypothesis.
Finding
Entire questionnaire items descriptive statistic. After inputting the raw data
into SPSS program version 22, the data computation and analysis to discover the
descriptive statistic of the questionnaire items were done. Principally, the
questionnaire items were encoded as follows:
Item
Number
Coding
1
A1
Statement
I needlessly delay finishing jobs, even when they are
important (Saya menunda untuk menyelesaikan pekerjaan
meskipun itu penting).
2
A2
I postpone starting in on things I do not like to do (Saya
menunda untuk memulai suatu hal yang tidak saya sukai).
3
A3
I delay main tough decision (Saya menunda untuk
memutuskan sesuatu meskipun itu penting).
4
A4
I keep putting off improving my work habits (Saya terus
29
menunda untuk meningkatkan kinerja saya dalam bekerja).
6
A6
I manage to find an excuse for not doing something (Saya
berusaha mencari alasan untuk tidak melakukan sesuatu).
9
A9
I am and incurable time waster (Saya selalu menyianyiakan waktu).
10
A10
I am a time waster now, but I cannot seem to do anything
about it (Saya selalu menyia-nyiakan waktu dan saya tidak
bisa mengendalikannya).
15
A15
I still get stuck in neutral, even though I know how
important it is to get started (Saya tidak segera memulai
pekerjaan meskipun pekerjaan tersebut penting).
20
B4
To what degree is procrastination on studying for exam a
problem for you? (Seberapa sering menunda belajar untuk
persiapan ujian menjadi masalah untuk anda?)
23
B7
To what degree do you procrastinate on registering for
classes? (Seberapa sering anda menunda-nunda “key-in”?)
24
B8
To what degree is procrastination on registering for classes
a problem for you? (Seberapa sering menunda “key-in”
menjadi masalah untuk anda?)
25
B9
To what degree do you procrastinate on meeting with your
lecturer? (Seberapa sering anda menunda-nunda untuk
menemui dosen anda?)
30
26
B10
To what degree is procrastination on meeting with your
lecturer a problem for you? (Seberapa sering menunda
untuk menemui dosen menjadi masalah untuk anda?)
27
B11
To what degree do you procrastinate on campus activity in
general? (Seberapa sering anda menunda-nunda kegiatan
kampus secara umum?)
28
B12
To what degree is procrastination on campus activity a
problem for you? (Seberapa sering menunda kegiatan
kampus secara umum menjadi masalah untuk anda?)
Here, the descriptive statistic from the data after being analyzed by the
researcher using SPSS is depicted. The table below is the result of questionnaire
items that was spread to EED UMY students. The result was gained from 336
students from batch 2012, 2013, and 2014 on the academic year 2015/2016.
Table 7. The Descriptive Statistics of Questionnaire Items
Std.
N
Sum
Mean
Deviation
Skewness
Std.
Statistic Statistic Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Error
A1
336
899
2.68
.817
-.429
.133
A2
336
1110
3.30
.838
-.069
.133
31
A3
336
775
2.31
.856
.285
.133
A4
336
772
2.30
.901
.189
.133
A6
336
854
2.54
.893
-.252
.133
A9
336
844
2.51
.937
-.090
.133
A10
336
820
2.44
.944
.066
.133
A15
336
880
2.62
.866
-.122
.133
B4
336
944
2.81
.989
.018
.133
B7
336
717
2.13
1.129
.786
.133
B8
336
724
2.15
1.084
.607
.133
B9
336
820
2.44
.957
.109
.133
B10
336
851
2.53
1.022
.156
.133
B11
336
879
2.62
.926
-.071
.133
B12
336
866
2.58
.911
-.303
.133
Valid N
336
(listwise)
The table above indicates that all questionnaire items are valid based on the
skewness. The normality of items can be seen from the skewness value which the
range is in between – 1 and + 1. It is proven that there is no skewness value which is
less than – 1 and more than + 1.
Questionnaire items frequency analysis. The next following paragraph
describes the frequency table of entire questionnaire items in sequence. Explicit
32
explanations follow each table. Thus, 15 valid items is portrayed in tables and
numbers.
Table 8 shows the frequency of questionnaire item number 1: I needlessly
delay finishing jobs, even when they are important (Saya menunda untuk
menyelesaikan pekerjaan meskipun itu penting).
Table 8. Item A1
A1
Valid Never
Frequency Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
37
11.0
11.0
11.0
69
20.5
20.5
31.5
200
59.5
59.5
91.1
26
7.7
7.7
98.8
4
1.2
1.2
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above depicts that there are 200 respondents (59.5%) from the total 336
respondents who procrastinate important task occasionally. Besides, 69 respondents
(20.5%) are seldom to procrastinate on important task. In addition, 37 respondents
(11%) never procrastinate on important task. Moreover, 26 respondents (7.7%) are
33
often to procrastinate on important task and 4 respondents (1.2%) always
procrastinate on important task.
Table 9 illustrates the result of frequency of the questionnaire item number 2:
I postpone starting in on things I do not like to do (Saya menunda untuk memulai
suatu hal yang tidak saya sukai).
Table 9. Item A2
A2
Valid Never
Frequency Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
8
2.4
2.4
2.4
32
9.5
9.5
11.9
172
51.2
51.2
63.1
98
29.2
29.2
92.3
26
7.7
7.7
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above shows that 8 out of 336 (2.4%) respondents never postpone starting
unlovable task. Then, 9.5% of respondents are seldom to postpone starting unlovable
task. Besides, 51.2% of respondents sometimes postpone starting unlovable task.
Moreover, 29.2% and 7.7% of respondents consecutively often and always
procrastinate to start unlovable task.
34
Table 10 demonstrates the result of frequency of the questionnaire item
number 3: I delay main tough decision (Saya menunda untuk memutuskan sesuatu
meskipun itu penting).
Table 10. Item A3
A3
Valid Never
Frequency Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
58
17.3
17.3
17.3
143
42.6
42.6
59.8
112
33.3
33.3
93.2
20
6.0
6.0
99.1
3
.9
.9
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above depicts that 17.3% of respondents never delay to decide important
thing and 42% of respondents are seldom to delay deciding important thing.
Meanwhile, 33.3% of respondents sometimes delay to decide important thing.
Moreover, 6% and 0.9% of respondents sequentially often and always delay to decide
important thing.
35
Table 11 portrays the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 4: I
keep putting off improving my work habits (Saya terus menunda untuk meningkatkan
kinerja saya dalam bekerja).
Table 11. Item A4
Frequency Percent
Valid Never
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
69
20.5
20.5
20.5
129
38.4
38.4
58.9
108
32.1
32.1
91.1
29
8.6
8.6
99.7
1
.3
.3
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above indicates that 20.5% of respondents never postpone improving work
performance. Besides, 38.4% of respondents are seldom to postpone improving work
performance. Moreover, 32.1% of respondents sometimes postpone improving work
performance. While 8.6% of respondents often postpone improving work
performance, 0.3% of respondents always postpone improving work performance.
36
Table 12 depicts the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 6: I
manage to find an excuse for not doing something (Saya berusaha mencari alasan
untuk tidak melakukan sesuatu).
Table 12. Item A6
Frequency Percent
Valid Never
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
53
15.8
15.8
15.8
85
25.3
25.3
41.1
163
48.5
48.5
89.6
33
9.8
9.8
99.4
2
.6
.6
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above points out that 15.8% of respondents never find an excuse to left the
task whereas 25.3% of respondents seldom find an excuse to left the task.
Furthermore, 48.5% of respondents often find an excuse to left the task. As well,
9.8% and 0.6% of respondents, in order, often and always find an excuse to left the
task.
Table 13 shows the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 9: I am
an incurable time waster (Saya selalu menyia-nyiakan waktu).
37
Table 13. Item A9
Frequency Percent
Valid Never
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
58
17.3
17.3
17.3
92
27.4
27.4
44.6
145
43.2
43.2
87.8
38
11.3
11.3
99.1
3
.9
.9
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above portrays that 17.3% of respondents never waste time. Then, 27.4% of
respondents seldom waste time. Besides, 43.2% of respondents sometimes waste
time. Meanwhile, 11.3% of respondents often waste time and 0.9% of respondents
always waste time.
Table 14 displays the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 10: I
am a time waster now, but I cannot seem to do anything about it (Saya selalu menyianyiakan waktu dan saya tidak bisa mengendalikannya).
38
Table 14. Item A10
Frequency Percent
Valid Never
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
63
18.8
18.8
18.8
103
30.7
30.7
49.4
133
39.6
39.6
89.0
33
9.8
9.8
98.8
4
1.2
1.2
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above indicates that 18.8% of respondents are never able to control time
wasting habit and 30.7% of respondents seldom are able to control time wasting
habit. Then, 39.6% of respondents sometimes are able to control time wasting habit.
As well, 9.8% of respondents are often able to control time wasting habit and 1.2% of
respondents always are able to control time wasting habit.
Table 15 shows the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 15: I
still get stuck in neutral
Procrastination and Their Achievement at Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta
A Skripsi
Submitted to the Faculty of Language Education
In a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the degree
Sarjana Pendidikan
Hafidz Wahyu Nur Cholis
20120540110
English Education Department
Faculty of Language Education
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
2016
1
Chapter One
Introduction
This chapter provides introduction of this research. It serves background of
this research, identification of the problem, and limitation of the problem. In addition,
this chapter also presents formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, and
significance of the research. Last but not least, this chapter offers outline of the
research.
Research Background
At least once in life, people postpone some, or even most of tasks. The tasks
are compulsory to be done in a certain timeframe. Some people just dallied with
laziness and some others ended it as their way of life (Steel, 2007). Research found
that 80 to 95% of college students confessed that they were occupied by
procrastination (Knaus, 1973; Thakkar, 2009). This phenomenon becomes extreme
prevalence, since not only students who engaged in procrastination but adult also
might be involved in procrastination. It was reflected in some researches that 15 to
20% of adults suffered from chronic procrastination (Harriott & Ferrari, 1996;
Thakkar, 2009). Hence, the idea of procrastination is thought-provoking to be
discovered by the researcher in the current site since the community that is observed
is adults and college students.
The history of procrastination started at very long time ago. Therefore, the
arousal of procrastination among adult is not a new phenomenon that appears
recently. Thakkar (2009) affirmed that the trend of procrastination does not only
emerge presently. This notion had been concerned from around 800 BC when
2
Hedroid, Greek poet, marked procrastination as something that always sticks on ruin.
Hamlet, the famous poet from Italy, often delayed action for most of his self-title play
and ever started with his soliloquy that “to be or not to be, that is the question”.
Moreover, the famous artist from Italia, Leonardo da Vinci grieved over his life that
many of his drawing could not be finished. Indeed, after the Industrial Revolution, the
perception of procrastination became as an evil phenomenon that made the tight
schedule in order to decrease delayed industrial production, (Ferrari, Johnson, &
McCown, 1995; Thakkar, 2009). Thus, procrastination becomes perpetual
phenomenon in every epoch and even becomes worse time by time than before.
The awareness of the researcher towards procrastination epidemic triggers
him to explore more about it especially in his surroundings. It is started from the
researcher himself that he sometimes procrastinates some of tasks. Although the task
could be done, the researcher is not really sure with the quality. In addition, based on
the researcher’s observation, numerous students in English Education Department at
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (EED UMY) are found to be a
procrastinator. Some of those students got the low score for the assignment that they
postpone it. This might be related to the prior research that procrastination might
impact to students’ achievement such as obtaining low score in examination, or even
facing failure in examination which result in depression and anxiety. The further
impact the students face is losing their motivation and learning and finally they stop
their study (Hussain & Sultan, 2010). Thus, raising the issue of students’
procrastination in relation to their achievement is essential because some of English
3
Education Department students at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta can be
procrastinators.
Problem Identification
The researcher exposed some problems related with either procrastination or
students’ achievement. Based on depth informal interview with some colleagues, the
researcher found that many students put off the duty until close to the deadline. In the
daily lives, they are always late to the place they supposed to be punctual like train
station. Moreover, there are students who often pay the rent house payment out of the
deadline. Those are because they delay the obligation they have which is supposed to
be accomplished on time. This kind of procrastination is included in general
procrastination.
There are particular students who delay the task from the lecturer when they
feel unsure to be able to accomplish it. The reason is because of the quantity of the
task and/or the difficulty of the task. In addition, some students postpone reading
assignment and read it the night before class, or even couple minutes before class.
Another reason is that students are lack of motivation to finish the assignment on
time. This type of procrastination is commonly known as academic procrastination.
In students’ academic life, both general and academic procrastination may affect their
academic performance including learning achievement. This issue needs detail study.
Problem Limitation
The incapability of the researcher to investigate those problems due to limited
time drives the researcher to limit into one type of procrastination. The researcher
4
only focuses on students’ procrastination that takes place at EED UMY in relations to
their achievement. The researcher also tries to find out whether or not procrastination
intertwines to students’ academic performance.
Research Questions
Based on the theoretical background and issues above, the researcher
formulates three research questions below:
1. What is English Education Department Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta students’ procrastination like?
2. What is English Education Department Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yogyakarta students’ achievement like?
3. What is the correlation between English Education Department Universitas
Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta students’ procrastination and their achievement
like?
Research Objectives
The aims of this study are in line with the research question formulated by the
researcher above:
1. To investigate EED UMY students’ procrastination.
2. To find out EED UMY students’ achievement.
3. To examine the correlation between EED UMY student’s procrastination and
their achievement.
5
Research Significance
For teachers and lecturers. The result that is attained from this research
helps teacher and lecturer to be aware that procrastination is danger. Teacher and
lecturer also can help their students to encounter this problem and encourage them to
finish their task on time.
For students. The outcome of this research makes the students aware about
the hazard of procrastination and then whittles away their bad habit that is putting off
their work. In addition, they are more motivated in their study after knowing the bad
effect of procrastination and good impact of avoiding procrastination than before
knowing it.
For the next researchers. This research enriches the next researchers’
knowledge in order to develop another case or phenomenon related with
procrastination and students’ achievement. It also gives them insight regarding to the
recent situation that is happened around them.
Research Outline
This research comprises five chapters and the first chapter presents the
introduction. It consists of background, formulation of the problem, and limitation of
the problem. Then, it serves research question and purpose of the study as well as
significance of study.
The second chapter discusses about the literature review. It reviews the
definition of procrastination, causes, and effects of procrastination. The types of
procrastination also are explained subsequently. Definition of student’s achievement
6
is described along with level of Cumulated Grade Point Average (CGPA). Review of
related study and conceptual framework which includes hypothesis are following.
The third chapter portrays research methodology. It defines type of the
research design and population and sample. Data collection method and data analysis
are explicated afterwards.
The fourth chapter talks about finding and discussion. The result from the data
analysis is showed in order to answer the research question. The discussion follows to
relate the result with the theories provided before it. In the end, the fifth chapter is
about conclusion and suggestion for several parties.
7
Chapter Two
Literature Review
This chapter provides experts’ opinions that support the research. The relevant
ideas from experts are elaborated into two parts, procrastination and students’
achievement. The first part consists of elaboration on the definition of procrastination,
causes of procrastination, effects of procrastination, and types of procrastination.
Meanwhile, the second part comprises of amplification on the definition of students’
achievement and level of students’ achievement.
Procrastination
Definition of procrastination. Many researchers attempted to define what
procrastination is. These attempts produce various different types of definition. The
difference might be caused by the root and origin the researchers used as the basis to
define the procrastination. Neville (2007) stated that the word of procrastination
derived from its origins in Latin: pro- (forward) and crastinus (of tomorrow). It
means that procrastination is putting something forward tomorrow. Besides,
according to Klingsieck (2013) and Rozental and Carlbring (2014), the definition of
procrastination is willingly delaying a planned task which is intended to be done
without concerning bad consequences coming from that delay. In addition,
Klingsieck (2013) and Rozental and Carlbring (2014) stated that the definition may
be differentiated into three different manners, distress, postponement, and
irrationality. Distress refers to the procrastination in the form of delay that is in
conjunction with subjective discomfort (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Rozental &
Carlbring, 2014). Postponement constitutes a type of procrastination when people
8
postpone to start or to complete an intended course of action (Beswick & Mann,
1994; Rozental & Carlbring, 2014). Irrationality represents a kind of procrastination
to delay activities irrationally as behavior of the doers (Sabini & Silver, 1982;
Rozental & Carlbring, 2014).
From various definitions of procrastination, some experts asserted that theirs
is the most proper definition. Eerde (2003) and Thakkar (2009) claimed that the best
definition for procrastination is the postponing of a duty that was initially planned in
spite of expecting to be poorer for the delay. Collaterally, according to Steel (2007),
Rozental and Carlbring (2014), and Steel (2010), procrastination is “to voluntarily
delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay.” In
line with Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2005), procrastinate is “to delay
doing something that you should do, usually because you do not want to do it”. In
education field, academic procrastination term refers to the delay in academic
activities intentionally, incidentally, and/or habitually but has significant effect
toward students’ learning and achievement (Hussain & Sultan, 2010).
To sum up, procrastination is the tendency to delay and postpone task or duty.
Commonly, people do procrastination on tasks impulsively, intentionally, and
voluntarily. Moreover, people who procrastinate do not consider the bad impact from
the action.
Types of procrastination. Procrastination is divided into types. The variance
of procrastination types existed because the experts see it based on many different
perspectives like character and trait. Babadogan (2010) pointed out that there are two
classifications of procrastination. The first is procrastination as personal trait which is
9
mostly based on putting off in decision-making and daily life routine and the second
is conditional procrastination which is included also academic procrastination. In line
with that, Solomon and Rothblum (1984), Milgram, Mey-Tal, and Levinson (1998),
Lay (1988), Ferrari and Dovidio (2000), Ferrari (1991), and Babadogan, (2010)
distinguished procrastination as life routine procrastination, compulsive
procrastination, decisional procrastination, and academic procrastination. Life routine
procrastination manifests as difficulty in arranging daily routine tasks and in getting
these done in time. Then, compulsive procrastination emerges as a deferring both the
tasks to be accomplished and likewise the decision to be occupied. Subsequently,
decisional procrastination arises as “procrastination in decision-making in case of
conflict situations and various options.” Last but not least, academic procrastination
is addressed as like leaving academic tasks until last minute such as preparation for
examinations and doing assignment.
Instantly, those categories are generalized into two extractors which are based
on reason and area that people procrastinate. The types of procrastination may be
different and it depends on the characteristic which is used as a separator. Moreover,
the experts provided two different groupings of procrastination types. They are two
types and four types and those categorizations are based on the reason and the area
that people procrastinate.
However, the researcher tends to choose the first type of procrastination which
divides procrastination into two: personal trait and conditional. The reason is because
Babadogan provided two different discrimination of procrastination; they are two
types and four types. On the other hands, he explicated that compulsive
10
procrastination and academic procrastination are included in conditional
procrastination, meanwhile decisional procrastination and life routine procrastination
are part of personal traits. Thus, the researcher prefers to two types of procrastination.
Causes of procrastination. There are many factors that cause procrastination.
Thakkar (2009) analyzed that there are two main reasons of procrastination especially
in America. They are modern technology and procrastination’s evolution to become
postmodern values. However, the other experts discovered various reasons that cause
people to procrastinate as elaborated in the following paragraph.
Firstly, technology becomes one of the causes of procrastination. Along with
the development of technology, people are fascinated with the features offered by
technology especially gadget. For example, a smart phone contains many social
media like Facebook, Twitter, Path, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Blackberry
Messenger. People are happier keeping in touch with their affiliations and relations
through virtual world than direct interaction. They are distracted by checking e-mail,
texting with friends instantly, browsing the news, listening to music, streaming videos
on YouTube, and playing games. Those all can unnecessarily postpone the work at
hand. Unintentionally, people become stupid just because giving priority to their
virtual world rather than their reality world where they live. This disorder makes
exaggerated quote, “We live in the era of smart phones and stupid people”. Sadly, a
smart phone is not the only distraction, but computer, television, video games, and a
whole host of progressively sophisticated modern invention might also cause acute
procrastination.
11
Secondly, procrastination that has already improved as postmodern values has
permeated most of Western society in the last thirty years. According to Dr. Ronald
Ingleheart (as cited in Thakkar, 2009), a protuberant political science at the
University of Michigan and director of the World Values Survey, Western societies
are underway to cultivate postmodern values such as tolerance, gratitude of social
contacts, and self-actualization. These values coexist with modern values such as hard
work, security, and wealth. When used to academic, modern values point to a
preference for school, future aims, and hard work whereas postmodern values refer to
a preference for social deeds and pleasure at the moment. In many occasions, there is
restricted time to pursue distinct academic and leisure activities, resulting in
motivational conflict between the two events. Determining by their value
construction, daily activities that students have will be different coherently (Dietz,
Hofer, & Fries, 2007; Thakkar, 2009). Students with modern values need to plan for
their future and will organize their daily routines to meet their objectives. Meanwhile,
students with postmodern values prefer to choose spontaneously the activities during
the day they want to engage, resulting in the greater chance of putting of academic
tasks with slight instant pleasure. Those three persons are all professors of
Psychology at the University of Manheim in Germany and conducted an empirical
study on 700 German students that verified Inglehart’s theory by revealing,
“Postmodern value orientation was positively linked to academic procrastination”.
Interestingly, when the students are failed in academic, it may raise the
possibility of having academic procrastination. Kandemir (2014) found that academic
success predicts academic procrastination. It is worsened by the existence of internet
12
which attracts students from their study and distracts their focus. While internet is
part of technology, it means that Kandemir’s research is coherent with Thakkar’s
research before which proposes the idea of excessiveness usage of modern
technology.
On the other hand, some experts stated that internal factor has significant
correlation with procrastination. Yazici and Bulut (2015) explained that perfectionist
personality traits have significant relationship with academic procrastination of the
prospective teacher. It is supported by Kagan, Çakir, Ilhan, and Kandemir (2010) who
discovered that perfectionism, obsessive-compulsive, and personality traits are the
variables that elucidate academic procrastination. Steel (2007) and Steel (2010) tried
to generalize that the strongest factor is impulsive. When people have intended to
finish their task but put it off even the moment comes, it seems that their preferences
impulsively change to take pleasure in more readily temptation. This may support the
premise about impulsive as the core reason in procrastination.
Generally, there are two big factors that make people postpone their duty.
They are internal factors which are like impulsive, modern, and postmodern values,
and external factors which include internet and modern technology. As a result, it can
be concluded that internet – supported technology and impulsive are the strongest
factor which drives people to procrastinate.
Effects of procrastination. Since procrastination is obscured dangerous
epidemic, the effects that are caused by procrastination are so many. Many people get
the troubles because of procrastination. Critchfield and Kollins (2001), Ainslie
(2005), and Steel (2010) unveiled that procrastination nowadays becomes epicenter of
13
numerous public problematic. In line with it, Schouwenburg, Lay, Pychyl, and Ferrari
(2004) and Ozer and Sackes (2011) highlighted that, predominantly, students of
university regularly search for help from guidance counselor to complain about
procrastination that makes them feel so hard and might bring their life satisfactory to
the lowest level. Appositely, Clayton (2000), Tice and Baumeister (1997), and Ozer
and Sackes (2011) discovered that procrastination seems to reduce the stress by
giving pleasure in the beginning, but the pleasure will be paid with long term stress,
disorganization, and even failure. In addition, procrastination in academic setting
often brings many negative outcomes (Semb, Glick, & Spencer, 1979; Ozer &
Sackes, 2011). This might be relevant with what Sirois (2007), Stead, Shanahan, and
Neufeld (2010), Muraven, Tice and Baumeister (1997), O’Donoghue and Rabin
(1999), and Rozental and Carlbring (2014) discovered that procrastination might
affect to decrease well-being, unhealthy mentally, a reduced amount of performance,
and economic difficulties.
In summary, procrastination effects are always bad. The effects could be in
psychological forms such as demotivation, stress, and mental disorder. Besides, they
might also be in material types like financial loss and failure. Nothing is good at all.
Student’s Achievement
Definition of student’s achievement. Based on literal meaning, students’
achievement is what students achieve during certain period. Arikunto (2010) and
Awaliyah (2015) stated that academic achievement is a result of learning during
learning processes. Correspondingly, regarding to Syah (2008) and Awaliyah (2015),
achievement is students’ accomplishment in learning any subjects and it is measured
14
by scores. Regardless its poorness, Grade Point Average (GPA) is a measure of
academic integration (Tinto, 1975; Pietras, 2010) that can be assumed GPA is student
achievement itself. Similarly, despite the flaw in measuring student achievement
(Milton, 1988; Elliott & Strenta 1988; Chance 1988; Ramist, Lewis, & McCamley,
1990; Young 1990; Larkey & Caulkins, 1992; Caulkins, Larkey, & Wei, 1996), GPA
is still the foremost measure of student quality in educational system (Caulkin et al.
1996). At the end, student’s achievement can be described as GPA because it is still
the primary measurement in educational field regardless its imperfection.
Factors affecting academic achievement. Two big parts of factors that affect
academic achievement are internal factors and external factors. Internal factors come
from inside of every person including psychological, emotional, and motivation
whilst external factors derive from outside of the person like environment, family,
and society (Hakim, 2005). It needs integration among environment, family, and
society. Here, the role of parents, brothers, sisters, teachers, friends and even
neighbors is important in determining students’ academic achievement. Then, the rest
depends on students’ mood and emotional like motivation, anger, sadness, hatred, etc.
In addition, emotional variable factor has a strong influence toward students’
achievement and can predict academic success (Heyningen, 1997 as cited in Pritchard
& Wilson, 2003). Moreover, Hasheminasab, Zarandi, Azizi, and Zadeh (2014) stated
that there are some important factors that affect student’s achievement such as
gender, self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and academic procrastination. In this
respect, procrastination is highlighted in this research as a basis that affects students’
achievement.
15
Level of GPA. As the media to measure GPA, it needs level to distinguish
and separate the classifications. Every level of classification describes different
description. Various classifications exist because every institution can have its own
arrangement. Academic Guideline Book of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
determines the level of Cumulative GPA (CGPA) with its character. The arrangement
is based on “Keputusan Mendiknas Nomor 232/U/2000. The order is as seen below:
1. 2.00 – 2.75
: Satisfactory
2. 2.76 – 3.50
: Good
3. 3.51 – 4.00
: Very Good/ Cumlaude.
Related Study Review
The correlation between procrastination and students’ achievement.
Several experts had done the researches about correlation between procrastination
and students’ achievement. The study of relationship between procrastination and
academic performance among a group of undergraduate dental students in India was
conducted (Nagesh Lakshminarayan, Shrudha Potdar, & Siddana Goud Reddy,
2013). In addition, correlations of academic procrastination and mathematics
achievement of university undergraduate students were investigated in Nigeria
(Akinsola, Tella, & Tella, 2007). Those researches founded significant correlation
between procrastination and students’ achievement. Additionally, students with low
level of procrastination are good in their academic achievement as well as students
with high level of procrastination are bad in academic performance.
The relationships among procrastination, flow, and academic achievement
were also examined in Korea with different result. In contrary with previous findings,
16
the result of this study indicated that there was no relationship between
procrastination and students’ achievement (Eun, 2011). This proved that the
likelihood of the same result of the similar researches does not necessarily occur.
Thus, the difference of result depends on the site where the research is conducted and
becomes the motive of the researcher to conduct this research at EED UMY.
Conceptual Framework
Based on the literatures above, the researcher conceptualizes the theory in
order to support this research. According to Arikunto (2010), learning outcome is
student achievement. Meanwhile, Caulkin et al. (1996) claimed that GPA is still the
primary technique to measure students’ achievement. Moreover, there are two big
parts of factors that affect academic achievement; they are internal factors like
psychological and external factors like environment (Hakim, 2005). While
Babadogan (2010) stated that procrastination is a kind of behavior and psychological,
Heyningen argued that students’ achievement can be predicted from emotional
factors because they relate strongly one to another (as cited in Pritchard & Wilson,
2003). Thus, the theories above lead to the idea of the connection between
procrastination and students’ achievement which is depicted as below:
Table 1. The Research Correlational Table
GPA
Correlated
Procrastination
Research hypothesis. Grounded by the prior research, the researcher made
two hypotheses. The first is the alternative hypothesis (Ha) which there is correlation
17
between procrastination and students’ achievement. The second is the null hypothesis
(H0) which is no correlation between procrastination and students’ achievement.
18
Chapter Three
Methodology
This section conveys the methodology of research that is employed by the
researcher. It consists of four parts: research design, population and sample, data
collection method, and the data analysis method. In the research design, the
researcher explains the design and the reason of deciding the design. Next, in the
population and sample, the researcher elaborates the populations and the number of
the sample and the sampling techniques utilized in this study. In the data collection
method, the researcher explores the way the data is collected. In the end, in the data
analysis, the researcher amplifies the procedures in investigating the data.
Research Design
The nature of this research is quantitative approach. The quantitative approach
for a research is commonly depicted by the foremost uses of numerical data than
words or pictures data instead (Creswell, 2003, p. 19) which mandated the researcher
to “identify a research problem based on trends in the field or on the need to explain
why something occurs” (Creswell, 2012, p. 13). Furthermore, this research took
correlational design. It demanded the researcher to “measure the degree of association
(or relation) between two or more variables using the statistical procedure of
correlational analysis” (Creswell, 2012, p. 21). Explicitly, referring to Creswell
(2012), this research applied a prediction research design which it is “to identify
variables that will predict an outcome or criterion.” The researcher identified one or
more predictor (or outcome forecast) variable and a criterion (or outcome) variable.
(p. 341). Thus, this research attempted to discover the relationship between students’
19
procrastination and their achievement in which one variable can correlate to another
variable. In spite of the existing similar researches that had been conducted before,
this research was distinct since such a study had never been administered in the
period and site where this study took place.
Research Population and Sampling
In order to collect the data, the researcher needed to decide the population that
is being observed and the sampling technique that is used to select the respondent.
Referring to Creswell (2012), “population is group of individuals who have the same
characteristic” (p. 142). The population in this research was students of English
Education Department Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta at year 2015/2016
with the total number 531 students (batch 2015 is excluded). The researcher tended to
use convenience sampling. It is when the researcher chooses participants because
they are ready and accessible to be studied (Creswell, 2012). Convenience sampling
is included in non-probability sampling which the participants are selected because
they are available, convenient, and represent some characteristic that the researcher
wants to study (Creswell, 2012). For that reason, the researcher opted to only batch
2012, 2013, and 2014 because they fulfilled all the characteristics that were needed
by the researcher. Those characteristics were having Cumulated Grade Point Average
(CGPA), engaged in university environment more than one year, and accessible to
gain the data. Batch 2015 was not suitable because the students had no CGPA which
its role was important here as the dependent variable. Also, they were lack of
experience to live in university environment which might affect the characteristics
20
that the researcher looked for, that was university students. In addition, students of
2011 and 2010 were hard to access because most of them had graduated.
Data Collection Method
The data collection methods in this research used questionnaire and
Cumulated Grade Point Average (CGPA) as the instrument. The questionnaire was
employed to gather the data of procrastination whereas CGPA was utilized to obtain
the data of students’ achievement. The researcher distributed the questionnaire to
EED UMY students batch 2012, 2013, and 2014 who were available, accessible and
willing to be taken their data. The questionnaire distribution was held at the
classroom after permission from the lecturer who taught was given. Before the
respondents started to answer the questionnaire, the researcher asked permission from
them by giving inform consent that they had to put their sign on it. The inform
consent consisted student’s approval for giving their data including their CGPA to be
submitted and then analyzed by the researcher for research purpose. In addition, the
researcher also asked permission from Dean of Language Education Faculty and
Head of English Education Department regarding to obtain institution’s archive that
is students’ CGPA.
Research Setting. The place where this research was conducted was in
English Education Department at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta. The first
reason why the researcher opted to that place is because the students who studied
there were prospective teachers and lecturers who should, later, concern about their
students’ achievement. Meanwhile, some of them were suspected to be
21
procrastinators. The second reason is because the researcher studied there too. It
made the researcher feasible to conduct research there because the researcher knew
the condition of the site where the research would be conducted.
Besides, the data collection was conducted between March – April 2016. It
took around 6 weeks for the researcher to attain the data entirely. The researcher
distributed questionnaire to the 336 students of EED batch 2012, 2013, and 2014. The
distribution of questionnaire was 82 for batch 2012, 122 for batch 2013, and 131 for
batch 2014. That was based on the students who were available, willing, and
accessible. The researcher claimed that the proportion for each batch was exact and
feasible to be collected and might represent the total population.
Research Instrument. The questionnaire as the instrument of this research
was adopted from Tuckman Procrastination Scale (TPS) (Tuckman, 1990) and
Procrastination Assessment Scale for Students (PASS) (Solomon & Rothblum, 1994).
TPS was used for measuring daily life routine procrastination and PASS was used to
measure academic procrastination. In order to make the questionnaire more
contextualized within the current research site and condition, the researcher adjusted
some items. The adjustments were only on the terms like “meeting with professor”
became “meeting with lecturer” and “registering classes” became “key – in.”
Consequently, the researcher chose PASS items only on the prevalence of academic
procrastination in six academic areas and did not include the reason for academic
procrastination items and the interest in changing procrastination. The questionnaire
was made in both Indonesian and English to facilitate the respondents to understand
the questionnaire since English was the original language of the questionnaire and
22
Indonesia was the first language of the respondents. The other reason of preparing the
questionnaire in Indonesian was because there were some difficult statements to
understand. That was a way to avoid misunderstood and misinterpret which led to
invalid or bias data and result. The researcher used contextual translation technique in
translating the items on the questionnaire. Afterwards, the researcher handed in the
questionnaire to two lecturers who were experts in this matter for checking the
suitability and correspondence each translated item with the original one. The
questionnaire consists of 8 items of TPS and 7 items of PASS. The researcher
decided to use 5 points of Likert scale for each item. Every item possessed some
options: N (Never), AN (Almost Never), S (Sometimes), NA (Nearly Always), A
(Always). The score criteria of questionnaire items are as follow:
Table 2. Favorable Items Scoring
Options
Value
Never (N)
1
Almost Never (AN)
2
Sometimes (S)
3
Nearly Always (NA)
4
Always (A)
5
So as to obtain the students’ achievement data, the researcher used CGPA document
that was taken from academic information system in EED office with the permission
from Dean of Faculty and Head of Department and the students that was attached in
23
the informed consent in the questionnaire. For the need of data analysis, the
researcher categorizes the students’ CGPA into three levels to distinguish the
category of achievement. Then, both questionnaire and CGPA were being analyzed.
Instrument Validity. In order to avoid bias and/or wrong data, the instrument
that was used to measure should be valid. Creswell defined that, “validity is the
degree to which all of the evidence points to the intended interpretation of test scores
for the proposed purpose” (p. 159). Therefore, the instrument should be able to
measure what the researcher intended to measure in order to meet the validity. In this
research, the instrument was demanded to be able to measure procrastination. The
validity of the item was good concurrent validity, because it had already been used by
Tuckman, Solomon and Rothblum which was definitely checked by them using
several tests. Tuckman (1990) explained that TPS passed two times of test. The first
test from 72 items yielded two factors from 35 items. Then, a subsequent test resulted
to only a single-factor structure and a condensed scale of 16 items. Meanwhile,
Solomon and Rothblum (1994) claimed that PASS had very good concurrent validity.
It was proven by significant correlation with the Beck Depression Inventory, Ellis
Scale of Irrational Cognitions, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Delay
Avoidance Scale. Moreover, the construct validity of the questionnaire was checked
by expert judgment from two lecturers who mastered this substance. The items,
which were taken from both TPS and PASS, were modified in order to make it
applicable in the current site.
However, after being tested in the current site, it showed that KMO score was
0.750 indicating that the data can be analyzed using factor analysis to identify
24
whether the items measured the factors that were supposed to be measured. Table 3
depicts the results of the analyses.
Table 3. The Validity of The Questionnaire Using KMO and
Bartlett's Testa
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
.750
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of
Approx. Chi-Square
1814.496
Sphericity
Df
105
Sig.
.000
a. Based on correlations
After having factor analysis, the researcher eliminated the invalid items. It turned out
that from 28 items, 15 items were valid and 13 were not.
Instrument Reliability. The instrument that was used in this research should
be reliable and trusted in every site and condition where the research was conducted.
Creswell (2012) stated that, “reliability means that scores from an instrument are
stable and consistent” (p. 159). Sekaran (2000) specified reliability indicator into
three levels:
1. 0.8 - 1.0
= Good
2. 0.6 - 0.799
= Moderate
3. < 0.6
= Not Good
Tuckman (2010) emphasized that the computed reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for his
16-item scale was 0.86, whereas Solomon and Rothblum (1994) revealed that PASS
25
reliability was 0.74. The instrument’s reliability in this research was good and
appraised as reliable and trusted worthy instrument.
However, the modified instrument had slight different reliability value. The
researcher applied Cronbach’s alpha in SPSS to measure the reliability of the
instrument. The result confirmed that the reliability value of the instrument was 0.843
based on standardized items. It means that the instrument had good reliability to
measure. The table of Cronbach’s alpha is illustrated below.
Table 4. Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's
Standardized
N of
Alpha
Items
Items
.842
.843
15
Data Analysis Method
This research utilized descriptive statistics and inferential statistics as the
method to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics displayed the score of
procrastination and GPA whilst inferential statistics portrayed the relation between
procrastination as the independent variable and GPA as the dependent variable. The
researcher operated Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 22 for
Windows and Microsoft Excel in order to ease analyzing the data.
26
To measure procrastination, the researcher developed questionnaire which
was adopted from Tuckman (1990) and Solomon and Rothblum (1994). The
researcher adjusted some items in order to make it relevant with the current research
period and site. In addition, there are three level of procrastination (Akinsola, Tella,
& Tella, 2007; Lakshminarayan, Potdar, & Reddy, 2013) and the table is exposed
below:
Table 5. Procrastination Level
Value
Level
1.00 – 2.33
Low
2.33 – 2.80
Moderate
2.80 – 5.00
High
The values were obtained by dividing the average score of procrastination into three.
The scores were based on 5 Likert scales that were used by the researcher. Each scale
had different score and it can be seen in Table 2.
Besides, this research activated Pearson Product Moment correlation via SPSS
version 22 to correlate between two variables which were procrastination as the
independent variable and student’s achievement as the dependent variable. This
research applied Pearson Product Moment because the data was normal based on
normality test in SPSS. There is standard guideline to measure the strength of
association between two variables as showed below (Cohen & Manion, 1994;
Creswell, 2012).
27
Table 6. Correlational Score Table
Value
Description
< – 0.20
Very Low
0.21 – 0.35
Low
0.36 – 0.65
Moderate
0.66 – 0.85
Strong
0.86 – >
Very Strong
28
Chapter Four
Finding and Discussion
This chapter provides findings of the data analysis and discussion about it.
The findings in this chapter are the result from the data collected by the researcher
and analyzed using SPSS. Moreover, the findings that relate to the research questions
are discussed afterwards. Thus, it reveals whether the findings correspond or not with
the hypothesis.
Finding
Entire questionnaire items descriptive statistic. After inputting the raw data
into SPSS program version 22, the data computation and analysis to discover the
descriptive statistic of the questionnaire items were done. Principally, the
questionnaire items were encoded as follows:
Item
Number
Coding
1
A1
Statement
I needlessly delay finishing jobs, even when they are
important (Saya menunda untuk menyelesaikan pekerjaan
meskipun itu penting).
2
A2
I postpone starting in on things I do not like to do (Saya
menunda untuk memulai suatu hal yang tidak saya sukai).
3
A3
I delay main tough decision (Saya menunda untuk
memutuskan sesuatu meskipun itu penting).
4
A4
I keep putting off improving my work habits (Saya terus
29
menunda untuk meningkatkan kinerja saya dalam bekerja).
6
A6
I manage to find an excuse for not doing something (Saya
berusaha mencari alasan untuk tidak melakukan sesuatu).
9
A9
I am and incurable time waster (Saya selalu menyianyiakan waktu).
10
A10
I am a time waster now, but I cannot seem to do anything
about it (Saya selalu menyia-nyiakan waktu dan saya tidak
bisa mengendalikannya).
15
A15
I still get stuck in neutral, even though I know how
important it is to get started (Saya tidak segera memulai
pekerjaan meskipun pekerjaan tersebut penting).
20
B4
To what degree is procrastination on studying for exam a
problem for you? (Seberapa sering menunda belajar untuk
persiapan ujian menjadi masalah untuk anda?)
23
B7
To what degree do you procrastinate on registering for
classes? (Seberapa sering anda menunda-nunda “key-in”?)
24
B8
To what degree is procrastination on registering for classes
a problem for you? (Seberapa sering menunda “key-in”
menjadi masalah untuk anda?)
25
B9
To what degree do you procrastinate on meeting with your
lecturer? (Seberapa sering anda menunda-nunda untuk
menemui dosen anda?)
30
26
B10
To what degree is procrastination on meeting with your
lecturer a problem for you? (Seberapa sering menunda
untuk menemui dosen menjadi masalah untuk anda?)
27
B11
To what degree do you procrastinate on campus activity in
general? (Seberapa sering anda menunda-nunda kegiatan
kampus secara umum?)
28
B12
To what degree is procrastination on campus activity a
problem for you? (Seberapa sering menunda kegiatan
kampus secara umum menjadi masalah untuk anda?)
Here, the descriptive statistic from the data after being analyzed by the
researcher using SPSS is depicted. The table below is the result of questionnaire
items that was spread to EED UMY students. The result was gained from 336
students from batch 2012, 2013, and 2014 on the academic year 2015/2016.
Table 7. The Descriptive Statistics of Questionnaire Items
Std.
N
Sum
Mean
Deviation
Skewness
Std.
Statistic Statistic Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Error
A1
336
899
2.68
.817
-.429
.133
A2
336
1110
3.30
.838
-.069
.133
31
A3
336
775
2.31
.856
.285
.133
A4
336
772
2.30
.901
.189
.133
A6
336
854
2.54
.893
-.252
.133
A9
336
844
2.51
.937
-.090
.133
A10
336
820
2.44
.944
.066
.133
A15
336
880
2.62
.866
-.122
.133
B4
336
944
2.81
.989
.018
.133
B7
336
717
2.13
1.129
.786
.133
B8
336
724
2.15
1.084
.607
.133
B9
336
820
2.44
.957
.109
.133
B10
336
851
2.53
1.022
.156
.133
B11
336
879
2.62
.926
-.071
.133
B12
336
866
2.58
.911
-.303
.133
Valid N
336
(listwise)
The table above indicates that all questionnaire items are valid based on the
skewness. The normality of items can be seen from the skewness value which the
range is in between – 1 and + 1. It is proven that there is no skewness value which is
less than – 1 and more than + 1.
Questionnaire items frequency analysis. The next following paragraph
describes the frequency table of entire questionnaire items in sequence. Explicit
32
explanations follow each table. Thus, 15 valid items is portrayed in tables and
numbers.
Table 8 shows the frequency of questionnaire item number 1: I needlessly
delay finishing jobs, even when they are important (Saya menunda untuk
menyelesaikan pekerjaan meskipun itu penting).
Table 8. Item A1
A1
Valid Never
Frequency Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
37
11.0
11.0
11.0
69
20.5
20.5
31.5
200
59.5
59.5
91.1
26
7.7
7.7
98.8
4
1.2
1.2
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above depicts that there are 200 respondents (59.5%) from the total 336
respondents who procrastinate important task occasionally. Besides, 69 respondents
(20.5%) are seldom to procrastinate on important task. In addition, 37 respondents
(11%) never procrastinate on important task. Moreover, 26 respondents (7.7%) are
33
often to procrastinate on important task and 4 respondents (1.2%) always
procrastinate on important task.
Table 9 illustrates the result of frequency of the questionnaire item number 2:
I postpone starting in on things I do not like to do (Saya menunda untuk memulai
suatu hal yang tidak saya sukai).
Table 9. Item A2
A2
Valid Never
Frequency Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
8
2.4
2.4
2.4
32
9.5
9.5
11.9
172
51.2
51.2
63.1
98
29.2
29.2
92.3
26
7.7
7.7
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above shows that 8 out of 336 (2.4%) respondents never postpone starting
unlovable task. Then, 9.5% of respondents are seldom to postpone starting unlovable
task. Besides, 51.2% of respondents sometimes postpone starting unlovable task.
Moreover, 29.2% and 7.7% of respondents consecutively often and always
procrastinate to start unlovable task.
34
Table 10 demonstrates the result of frequency of the questionnaire item
number 3: I delay main tough decision (Saya menunda untuk memutuskan sesuatu
meskipun itu penting).
Table 10. Item A3
A3
Valid Never
Frequency Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
58
17.3
17.3
17.3
143
42.6
42.6
59.8
112
33.3
33.3
93.2
20
6.0
6.0
99.1
3
.9
.9
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above depicts that 17.3% of respondents never delay to decide important
thing and 42% of respondents are seldom to delay deciding important thing.
Meanwhile, 33.3% of respondents sometimes delay to decide important thing.
Moreover, 6% and 0.9% of respondents sequentially often and always delay to decide
important thing.
35
Table 11 portrays the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 4: I
keep putting off improving my work habits (Saya terus menunda untuk meningkatkan
kinerja saya dalam bekerja).
Table 11. Item A4
Frequency Percent
Valid Never
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
69
20.5
20.5
20.5
129
38.4
38.4
58.9
108
32.1
32.1
91.1
29
8.6
8.6
99.7
1
.3
.3
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above indicates that 20.5% of respondents never postpone improving work
performance. Besides, 38.4% of respondents are seldom to postpone improving work
performance. Moreover, 32.1% of respondents sometimes postpone improving work
performance. While 8.6% of respondents often postpone improving work
performance, 0.3% of respondents always postpone improving work performance.
36
Table 12 depicts the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 6: I
manage to find an excuse for not doing something (Saya berusaha mencari alasan
untuk tidak melakukan sesuatu).
Table 12. Item A6
Frequency Percent
Valid Never
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
53
15.8
15.8
15.8
85
25.3
25.3
41.1
163
48.5
48.5
89.6
33
9.8
9.8
99.4
2
.6
.6
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above points out that 15.8% of respondents never find an excuse to left the
task whereas 25.3% of respondents seldom find an excuse to left the task.
Furthermore, 48.5% of respondents often find an excuse to left the task. As well,
9.8% and 0.6% of respondents, in order, often and always find an excuse to left the
task.
Table 13 shows the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 9: I am
an incurable time waster (Saya selalu menyia-nyiakan waktu).
37
Table 13. Item A9
Frequency Percent
Valid Never
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
58
17.3
17.3
17.3
92
27.4
27.4
44.6
145
43.2
43.2
87.8
38
11.3
11.3
99.1
3
.9
.9
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above portrays that 17.3% of respondents never waste time. Then, 27.4% of
respondents seldom waste time. Besides, 43.2% of respondents sometimes waste
time. Meanwhile, 11.3% of respondents often waste time and 0.9% of respondents
always waste time.
Table 14 displays the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 10: I
am a time waster now, but I cannot seem to do anything about it (Saya selalu menyianyiakan waktu dan saya tidak bisa mengendalikannya).
38
Table 14. Item A10
Frequency Percent
Valid Never
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
63
18.8
18.8
18.8
103
30.7
30.7
49.4
133
39.6
39.6
89.0
33
9.8
9.8
98.8
4
1.2
1.2
100.0
336
100.0
100.0
Almost
Never
Sometimes
Nearly
Always
Always
Total
The table above indicates that 18.8% of respondents are never able to control time
wasting habit and 30.7% of respondents seldom are able to control time wasting
habit. Then, 39.6% of respondents sometimes are able to control time wasting habit.
As well, 9.8% of respondents are often able to control time wasting habit and 1.2% of
respondents always are able to control time wasting habit.
Table 15 shows the result of frequency of questionnaire item number 15: I
still get stuck in neutral