ACADEMIC PROCRASTINATION AMONG INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE STUDENTS: THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY TRAITS, THE BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAIT TAXONOMY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Procrastination is a serious problem in both business and academia, and is also one of the most widespread problems in the general population. Although, it might be considered as normal or positive behavior(Chun, Chu & Choi 2005), most studies refer to academic procrastination as a harmful phenomenon which adversely affects individual performance (Rothblum & Mann, 1988; Steel, 2007; Klassen et al., 2010; Brownlow, 2000) in addition to its negative impact on individual mental health (Stober, & Joormann, 2001; Tamiru, 2008). Academic procrastination and the permanent postponing of tasks without logical justification is a universal problem among university students. Steel (2007) reports that almost 50% of college students procrastinate consistently and problematically. Ozer, Demir and Ferrari (2009) have reported that academic procrastination is considered to be one of the most problematic issues among English speaking university students.The seriousness of this problem is enhanced by the fact that it is not limited to a particular age, gender or culture, but is common in males and females, young and old, employed and unemployed, educated and uneducated. Several researchers have shown the relationship between academic procrastination and personality traits (McCown & Johnson, 1991; Di Fabio, 2006). Klassen et al. (2008) indicate that there are a few studies which have investigated procrastination from a cross-culture standpoint, indicating the importance of using participants from outside Western countries. Then this study aimed to investigate The role of personality traits in academic procrastination among international graduate students.Results from several studies have shown a significant correlation between academic procrastination and several personality characteristics. Klassen, Krawchuk and Rajani (2008) conducted research to examine the relationship among academic procrastination, self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-regulation, and self-efficacy for self-regulation, reporting that although the result showed a significant positive relationship among academic procrastination and these four variables, the results indicate that self-efficacy for self-regulation was most predictive of procrastination tendency. In order to determine the relationship between procrastination and personality traits, as well as to organize attributes into groups of similar characteristics, the researcher sought to combine those characteristics under the factor name. To achieve that goal, previous researchers have benefited from the Big Five theory (Steel, 2007).Based on the theory of the Big Five factors taxonomy and what has been referred to before, each of these factors consists of a set of traits which constitute the overall structure of each factor: Conscientiousness reflects self-regulation, organisation, and achievement motivation, Neuroticism includes irrational beliefs, anxiety, and depression, Extraversion reflects positive characteristics such as being energetic and seeking sensation, Agreeableness reflects trust and altruism (warmth), and Openness includes curiosity and imagination. Consequently, and based on previous research findings, procrastination could relate significantly to some factor's components but not relate to others.Relationships between the Big Five factors and academic procrastination have been investigated by several researchers (Schouwenburg & Lay, 1995; Lay, Kovacs & Danto, 1998; Poropat, 2009). . Watson (2001) found that total procrastination was related to both the low conscientiousness facets (competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, deliberation) and the neuroticism facets (anxiety, depression, selfconsciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability). The findings of many previous studies showed a large variation in the results that have been found by the researchers. Although the result of many previous researches showed an agreeableness among them regarding the relation between academic procrastination and the Big Five factor labelled conscientiousness (Lay, 1997; Ross, Canada & Rausch, 2002; Lee, Kelly, & Edwards, 2006), there were several differences regarding the other four factors (McCown, Petzel & Rupert, 1987; Johnson & Bloom, 1995; Watson, 2001). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".