Journal of College Reading and Learning

ISSN: 1079-0195 (Print) 2332-7413 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucrl20

Academic Probation, Time Management, and Time

Use in a College Success Course

Lauren C. Hensley, Christopher A. Wolters, Sungjun Won & Anna C. Brady

To cite this article: Lauren C. Hensley, Christopher A. Wolters, Sungjun Won & Anna C. Brady
(2018) Academic Probation, Time Management, and Time Use in a College Success Course,
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 48:2, 105-123, DOI: 10.1080/10790195.2017.1411214

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2017.1411214

Published online: 15 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucrl20
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 48: 105–123, 2018
Copyright © College Reading and Learning Association
ISSN: 1079-0195 print/2332-7413 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2017.1411214

Academic Probation, Time Management, and

Time Use in a College Success Course
LAUREN C. HENSLEY , CHRISTOPHER A. WOLTERS ,
SUNGJUN WON, AND ANNA C. BRADY
The Ohio State University

Effective time management often undergirds students’ success in col-

lege, and many postsecondary learning centers offer services to help
students assess and improve this aspect of their learning skills. In the
context of a college success course, we gathered insights from assign-
ments to consider various facets of students’ time-related behaviors
and attitudes. Specifically, we examined a range of indicators of time
management (i.e., setting goals and priorities, mechanics of time
management, preference for organization, and procrastination) and
use (i.e., total hours tracked in various categories, patterns of time
use during a seven-day period). Implications for practice derive from
the tendencies for the group of enrolled students as a whole as well as
the differences between students who were and were not on academic
probation.

KEYWORDS college students, procrastination, self-regulated learning,

time management

Postsecondary education presents an environment of newly forged independence

and vast choices, particularly for students who enroll in a residential university
directly after high school (Wilson, 2004). College students without robust self-
regulation strategies often struggle in postsecondary environments that demand
self-direction and planning (Hensley, Shaulskiy, Zircher, & Sanders, 2015). Thus,
for many students, difficulties in college academics stem from underdeveloped
self-regulated learning skills (Zusho & Edwards, 2011). Ineffective planning,
frequent procrastination, and off-task time use are reflections of poor self-regula-
tion that may be particularly damaging to students’ academic achievement (Steel,
2007; Wolters, 2003). In the present study, we examine the time management and
use reported by students in a college success course and identify tendencies that

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lauren C. Hensley, The Ohio State University,
Dennis Learning Center, 250 Younkin, 1640 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201. E-mail: hensley.121@osu.edu

105
106 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

are particularly common among students on academic probation. More broadly,

we aim to encourage learning-center personnel’s ongoing efforts to support college
students’ self-regulated learning.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Time Management and Self-Regulated Learning
Self-regulated students plan, monitor, control, and reflect upon their learning
processes and can generally be identified by their proactive, self-directed progress
toward learning goals (Zimmerman, 2008). Time management, which involves the
purposeful and efficient use of time in goal-directed behaviors (Zimmerman,
1998), is a key self-regulatory skill (Pintrich, 2004). Effective time management
can be considered a holistic construct, but it encompasses a range of unique
behaviors and attitudes that reflect strong self-regulatory skills. The components
include planning, setting long- and short-term goals, prioritizing tasks, and over-
coming the temptation to procrastinate (Bembenutty, 2009; Steel, 2007).
Strong time-management skills are a key factor in students’ postsecondary
academic success (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006). Students can improve their learn-
ing outcomes and grades by managing their schedules to allow for high-quality
study time spaced throughout the week (McIntyre & Munson, 2008). Conver-
sely, students who exhibit poor planning and inefficient time use typically
experience lower academic achievement (Steel, 2007). Underprepared college
students—that is, those whose prior academic experience and training did not
fully prepare them for the rigors of postsecondary education—are at an
increased risk for academic struggles when their time-management skills are
weak (Gabriel, 2008).
The cognitive processes associated with comprehension, memory, and effective
communication require frequent, ongoing, and mindful time on task (McIntyre &
Munson, 2008). Even after accounting for measures of prior ability and achievement,
effective academic goal-setting explains differences in college grades (Schlenker,
Schlenker, & Schlenker, 2013). Poor time management thus has academic conse-
quences for nearly all college students, whether from developmental (Cole, Goetz, &
Willson, 2000) or honors backgrounds (Neumeister, 2004). As such, the topic war-
rants ongoing attention from learning support personnel.

Time Use and Self-Regulated Learning

Self-regulated learning reflects students’ choice, effort, and persistence in
academic activities (Klassen, Krawchuk, & Rajani, 2008); however, not all of the
activities students choose to engage in are academic in nature. The specific ways
in which students use their time provide another perspective on the time-related
aspects of self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2004). As a construct, time use refers
to the structure and routine of how students spend their time, including the types
of activities and their durations (Rickert, Meras, & Witkow, 2014).
Certain patterns of time use are associated with academic and overall
well-being for undergraduate students. In college, procrastinators are more
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 107

prone to start on academic tasks in the evening as opposed to in the morning

(Ferrari, Harriott, Evans, Lecik-Michna, & Wenger, 1997). Although suffi-
cient amounts of sleep are important to learning and overall well-being
(Carey, 2014), the pattern of when students get their sleep may also be
impactful. For instance, one study found that students in residence halls
who slept more on the weekend than during the week had lower grade-
point averages (GPAs; Trockel, Barnes, & Egget, 2000). A vignette study
demonstrated that college students who identified as planners would choose
to start a research paper on the weekend rather than hanging out with friends
(Lasane & Jones, 2000). Similarly, studying a little bit every day was
associated with a willingness to pursue longer-term academic goals over
immediate gratification (Bembenutty, 2009). Witkow (2009) examined the
time use of students who kept daily logs of the amount of time spent either
studying or with friends. Over the course of two weeks, adolescents with high
GPAs spent more time studying than those with low GPAs. Together, the
findings suggest the academic relevance of how students use their time. More
nuance in future research is still possible, particularly through studies that
address multiple categories of time use rather than a single feature.

College Success Courses and Academic Probation

In light of the importance of time-related behaviors and attitudes in academic
success, postsecondary support services often target these elements (Truschel &
Reedy, 2009). Learning interventions such as college success courses have the aim
of teaching students how to become more efficient and strategic learners (Hofer &
Yu, 2003; Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011; Weinstein, 2006). Some faculty have
explicitly designed and researched such courses using the framework of self-
regulated learning (Hofer & Yu, 2003; Tuckman & Kennedy, 2011). On a broader
scale, however, out of 160 administrators who responded to a national survey, only
35% reported using a specific theoretical framework to guide their postsecondary
academic support services (Robinson, 2015).
Academic probation, a reflection of a consistent pattern of low grades
and a potential forerunner of academic dismissal, serves as a meaningful
category to university staff as they seek to interpret the prior academic
performance of students. Although college success courses are often designed
to help students in academic difficulty or on academic probation (Nordell,
2009), few researchers have examined the characteristics of students in these
courses who are on academic probation (McGrath, 2012). Although prior
studies have not shown a well-defined link between college students’ overall
academic standing (e.g., academic probation status) and their time-related
behaviors and attitudes, the connection is a likely extension of prior research
that connects low grades with ineffective time management (McCarthy &
Kuh, 2006) and high procrastination (Steel, 2007). To contribute to this field
of research, in the present study we investigated differences in time manage-
ment and use for students in a college success course who were or were not
on academic probation.
108 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

Purpose
The primary goal of the study was to gain a better understanding of students
in a college success course and their time-related behaviors and attitudes. Speci-
fically, we addressed three related research questions with regard to students who
were or were not on academic probation:

(1) Time management: Do students differ in their time management, as

indicated by goal-setting and prioritizing, mechanics, preference for
organization, and procrastination?
(2) Time use by category: Do students differ in how they spend their time?
(3) Time use patterns: How often do patterns of effective or ineffective time
use occur in students’ weekly time logs?

METHOD
During the first two weeks of a college success course, students completed two
self-report surveys measuring four aspects of their time management and recorded
their time use. Our analyses focused on describing overall tendencies of students
in the course and examining differences based on students’ academic standing.

Sample
The study focused on 414 students (97% of 426 course-takers) who sub-
mitted at least one assignment related to time management while enrolled in a
college success course in spring semester 2014. The course took place at a large,
public university in the Midwestern United States. The course was not part of a
developmental education program, and students enrolled voluntarily. Within the
sample of 414 students, 58% were male and 42% were female. The composition of
students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds was 67% White, 16% Black, 6% Asian,
4% Hispanic, and 3% bi- or multiracial. Students were predominantly traditional-
aged college students (M = 20 years, SD = 3.71 years). They represented all fifteen
of the university’s undergraduate schools and colleges, and were 34% first-year,
31% second-year, 19% third-year, and 17% fourth-year students.
Of note, 32% of students reported they were on academic probation. The rate
was lowest for fourth-year students, with 35% of first-year, 34% of second-year,
35% of third-year, and 19% of fourth-year students in the course on academic
probation. Academic probation included students who fell below a particular level
of academic performance, typically equivalent to grades at or below a C average.
The categorization might be applied based on university-level standards or by
more rigorous standards used within a particular major. Students were notified
officially when they acquired academic probation status and informed of the
consequences of not improving their performance. The college success course
was frequently and strongly recommended by advisors to students on academic
probation; however, the course was open to students of all levels of prior academic
performance and regularly included students with good or even high GPAs.
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 109

Course Context
The college success course was a letter-graded, three-credit elective
designed to enhance study strategies and academic performance. It was offered
through the university’s educational psychology program and administered by
the university’s learning center but was not part of a formal developmental
education program. Each section of the course enrolled up to 30 students. The
eight instructors who taught the 16 course sections involved in the study met
regularly and had access to collaboratively designed course materials (e.g.,
syllabus, course calendar, assignments, PowerPoints, and class activity prompts).
Major topics of the course included self-regulated learning, resilience, procras-
tination, time management, self-efficacy, attributions, note taking, reading,
studying, and writing. In addition, self-regulation (Zimmerman & Schunk,
2004) was embedded in the course assignments and instruction, which empha-
sized setting goals and selecting appropriate strategies; monitoring thoughts,
affect, and behaviors; and using outcomes and feedback to inform next steps.
Assignments, including those examined for the present study, provided students
practice in self-assessment and self-monitoring to support the development of
self-regulated learning as a foundation for college success.

Procedures
The materials used for the study originally were generated as part of stu-
dents’ regular completion of graded assignments in the for-credit, semester-long
college success course. The institutional review board at the authors’ university
reviewed and approved the subsequent use of archival data for research purposes
and all related procedures. In the first two weeks of class, students completed
online self-report surveys to encourage self-assessment of several aspects of their
time management. They then engaged in a weeklong self-monitoring assignment
in which they recorded their time use. The early period of self-examination
provided a baseline of students’ behaviors in the initial weeks of the new semester,
reflecting the course’s emphasis on incorporating self-awareness into goal-setting
and strategy selection. The course assignments were in place to inform student and
teacher understanding of individual time-management tendencies and thus were
initially designed for instructional purposes rather than for the intent of conducting
research.

Assignment Completion Rate and Data Access

Of the 414 students who completed the time-management surveys, 345
students (83%) also completed the time-use assignment. This number reflected a
76% (n = 101) completion rate by students on academic probation and an 87%
completion rate (n = 244) by students not on probation. The negative relation
between academic probation and assignment completion was statistically signifi-
cant, χ2(1) = 9.14, p = .003.
As a constraint of basing the study on existing instructional practices, only
the time-use materials uploaded by students to the learning management system
110 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

remained in course records at the time of the study and were available for further
analysis. Specifically, the research team had access to 310 assignments that
included sums of students’ time use by category over a seven-day period (90%
of the time-use assignments; 75% of the sample). In addition, we had access to
241 time logs that contained raw records of the specific days and times of
students’ time use (70% of the time-use assignments; 58% of the sample). The
research team acknowledged the limitation of incomplete data but determined the
existing data represented a large enough proportion of enrolled students to con-
tinue with analyses.

Measures
Student Characteristics
We collected information about students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds, age,
sex, amount of college experience, and college of enrollment from official uni-
versity records. We collected information about students’ academic probation
status and source of referral into the course from an online course intake form.

Time-Management Surveys
We measured four indicators of time-management tendencies through two
self-report surveys completed by students in the course for the purpose of self-
assessment. The first survey measured three aspects reflective of strong time
management: goal-setting and prioritizing, mechanics, and preference for organi-
zation. The second survey measured an indicator of poor time management:
procrastination. Instructions for the self-report surveys emphasized, “the purpose
of this survey is to provide insight into yourself, so please aim to be as honest as
possible. There are no right or wrong answers.” Upon submitting each survey,
each student received a score report with information about what the scales
measured and the mean of his or her responses. We describe the four variables
measured by the surveys in the following sections.
Goal-setting and prioritizing. The 10-item goal-setting and prioritizing scale
(α = .81 for the current sample) assessed the extent to which students used goals
and priorities to guide their choices. The scale was developed by Macan (1994)
and adapted by Wolters, Hussain, and Young (2013) for use in the college context.
A sample item was “I set short-term goals for what studying I want to accomplish
in a few days or weeks.” All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, where
1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.
Mechanics. The 11-item mechanics scale (α = .74 for the current sample)
measured students’ reported use of tactics to schedule or plan their time. A sample
item was “If I know I will have to spend time waiting, I bring along schoolwork to
do.” Developed by Macan (1994) and adapted by Wolters et al. (2013), the scale
was measured on a 7-point Likert scale.
Preference for organization. The 8-item preference for organization scale
(α = .73 for the current sample) reflected the extent to which students viewed
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 111

organization as pathway to greater efficiency. A sample item was, “The time I

spend scheduling and organizing my school day is time wasted” (reverse coded).
As with the other two scales developed by Macan (1994) and adapted by Wolters
et al. (2013), the scale was measured on a 7-point Likert scale.
Procrastination. The 16-item Tuckman Procrastination Scale (α = .90 for the
current sample) measured trait-level avoidance or postponement of tasks (Tuck-
man, 1991). A sample item was “I’m a time waster and I can’t seem to do
anything about it.” Students evaluated each item on a forced-choice scale with
the following answer choices: 1 = that’s not me at all; 2 = that’s not my tendency;
3 = that’s my tendency; or 4 = that’s me for sure.
Time use assignment. Students engaged in self-monitoring by tracking their
time use over a seven-day period using a template that contained seven blank 24-
hour days, broken into 30-minute increments. The assignment was in line with
common practices in many study-skills textbooks and has been advocated by
educational psychologists as useful within college success or learning-to-learn
courses (e.g., Hofer, Yu, & Pintrich, 1998). The assignment aimed to enhance
student self-awareness, and the instructions emphasized that students should
accurately record their actual time use in order to better understand how they
spent their time. From the assignment, we derived two sets of variables to offer
unique perspectives on time use; we describe the two sets of variables in the
following sections.
Time use by category. At the end of the seven-day time-tracking period,
students tallied the total hours spent in a range of categories. The categories were
predetermined in the assignment instructions to provide students with a summation
of their time use in different domains of life. The academic and non-academic
categories consisted of: attending class, studying, sleeping, exercise or sports,
work or internship, family commitments, personal care or grooming, preparing
and eating meals, transportation, leisure time on one’s own, and leisure time with
others.
Time use patterns. Students also submitted the original logs of how they had
spent their time during each of the seven days. See Figure 1 for an example of a
completed time log. To understand students’ use of time beyond purely numerical
indicators, we coded for patterns in the raw information recorded in the time logs.
We incorporated this additional analytical lens to account for trends that cut across
multiple days and took place at different times.
As a team of educational psychology staff, graduate students, and faculty
familiar with the scholarly literature on time management, we met to discuss
patterns that could be indicative of effective or ineffective time use. We then
used deductive content coding to identify, within each time log, the presence or
absence of each of the six patterns (Shannon, 2015). Training to recognize each
pattern consisted of collaboratively developing a written description of the para-
meters for each pattern and meeting as a group of four to reach consensus on the
application of each pattern to a sample of approximately 15% of the time logs. We
describe the parameters and their connection to prior research below. Following
112 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

FIGURE 1. Example of submitted time log.

the deduction and training stage, three of the researchers each independently coded
one-third of the time logs. The first author then reviewed the coding of all time
logs and addressed any areas of discrepancy (approximately 3% of the coded time
logs) with the original coder to reach a final determination of accurate coding in
each instance.
Two patterns were risk factors of ineffective time use. The late-start studying
code applied when a student reported beginning academic work at 9 p.m. or later
on at least one weeknight. Consistent with procrastinators’ general preference for
nighttime productivity (Ferrari et al., 1997), the code was intended to detect
whether students prioritized nonacademic activities. The Sunday cramming code
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 113

applied when a student tracked five or more hours of academic work on a Sunday
late afternoon or evening, reflecting a period of massed studying prior to a new
school week (McIntyre & Munson, 2008).
Four patterns were markers of effective time use. The consistent weekday
studying code applied when a student tracked some academic work on all four
weekdays, Monday through Thursday. The code denoted a productive habit of
distributed studying (McIntyre & Munson, 2008). The Saturday studying code
applied when a student tracked any academic work on a Saturday, placing
emphasis on the day on which students were least likely to prioritize academics
(Witkow, 2009). The consistent bedtime code applied when a student tracked
going to bed at the same time (within two hours) all seven days. Likewise, the
consistent wake time code applied when a student tracked waking up at the same
time (within two hours) all seven days. We focused on sleep habits due to
previously identified connections between college students’ sleep, learning, and
perceived stress (Trockel et al., 2000).

Data Analyses
We began by examining the means and standard deviations of the time-
management measures. We also reviewed correlations between the measures to
determine areas of conceptual overlap and distinction.
To address the first research question, we conducted multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) to examine overall differences in time management (i.e.,
setting goals and priorities, mechanics, preference for organization, and procrasti-
nation) based on student characteristics. For the statistically significant MANOVA
test, we performed a series of univariate analysis of variance tests (ANOVAs) to
identify sources of the differences.
To address the second research question, we examined the number of total
hours to determine overall tendencies and academic probation group differences in
the preassigned categories of weekly time use. Using the nonparametric Mann-
Whitney test, we examined differences in total hours spent in various activities for
students who were, or were not, on academic probation.
To address the third research question, we conducted chi-square tests for
association between academic probation status and the six time-use patterns
present in the time logs. We also examined the prominence of each pattern for
the sample as a whole.

RESULTS
Time Management
We considered four measures of time management: goal-setting and plan-
ning, mechanics, preference for organization, and procrastination. Table 1 presents
the means and standard deviations for the sample as a whole, as well as based on
academic probation status and amount of college experience.
The four dependent variables were moderately correlated (see Table 2). Pro-
crastination had a strong negative correlation with the three measures of effective time
 114 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Time-Management Measures Based on Academic Probation Status and Amount of College Experience

All course-takers On probation Not on probation First-year Second-year Third-year Fourth-year

(N = 414) (n = 133) (n = 281) (n = 139) (n = 127) (n = 78) (n = 70)

Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Setting goals and prioritiesa 4.33 .87 4.17 .94 4.40 .83 4.38 .86 4.39 .87 4.18 .94 4.30 .78
Mechanicsa 4.42 .90 4.29 .94 4.48 .88 4.49 .92 4.43 .86 4.31 .99 4.39 .83
Preference for organizationa 4.97 .95 4.85 .95 5.02 .95 4.92 .92 4.99 .96 4.91 .99 5.10 .94
Procrastinationb 2.61 .50 2.73 .51 2.55 .49 2.59 .51 2.62 .52 2.70 .50 2.50 .42
Notes. aMeasured on a 7-point scale. bMeasured on a 4-point scale.
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 115

TABLE 2. Bivariate Correlations among Time-Management Measures and Follow-Up ANOVAs Based on
Academic Probation Status

Correlations ANOVA

Measure 1 2 3 F p Cohen’s f

1. Setting goals and priorities – 6.08 .014 .12

2. Mechanics .67*** – 4.18 .041 .10
3. Preference for organization .35*** .44*** – 3.06 .081 .08
4. Procrastination −.38*** −.35*** −.35*** 12.21 .001 .17
Notes. N = 414.
***p < .001.

management. The scores for mechanics and setting goals and priorities had an
especially strong positive correlation; however, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
of 1.81 fell below threshold of 5.00, indicating that the degree of shared variance was
not problematic in terms of multicollinearity (Bowman, 2009). Results of the MAN-
OVA indicated that, in comparison with those not on probation, students on academic
probation reported less adaptive time-related behaviors and attitudes. To evaluate
practical significance, we examined partial eta squared, using standard values of
.01 = small effect size, .06 = medium effect size, and .14 = large effect size
(Richardson, 2011). The model revealed statistically significant differences in the
four dependent variables as a whole based on academic probation, with a small to
medium effect size, Wilks’ λ = .967, F(4,409) = 3.45, p = .01, η2 = .03. The differences
in means based on amount of college experience, however, were not statistically
significant, Wilks’ λ = .970, F(4,407) = 1.05, p = .40, η2 = .01.
Given the statistical significance of the overall test for students on aca-
demic probation, we examined univariate main effects for each dependent
variable using a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of p < .025 for four
one-tailed tests. Table 2 provides statistical information for each comparison.
Results of the follow-up ANOVAs indicated that, compared to their more
academically successful peers, students on academic probation reported lower
amounts of setting goals and priorities while reporting higher levels of pro-
crastination. Using standard values of .10 = small effect size, .25 = medium
effect size, and .40 = large effect size, the Cohen’s f statistics reflected small to
medium effect sizes for all four dependent variables. Differences in mechanics
and preference for organization approached but did not reach the threshold for
statistical significance.

Time Use by Category

The total number of hours students reported spending in various activities
during the week were not normally distributed. Based on visual inspection of the
population pyramids for students on and not on academic probation, the distribu-
tions of reported hours had similar shapes. We thus interpreted differences in
medians, conducting nonparametic Mann-Whitney U tests to determine whether
116 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

TABLE 3. Total Hours of Time Use by Category over a 7-Day Period for Students Based on Academic
Probation Status

On Probation Not on Probation Mann-Whitney

(n = 91) (n = 219) U Test

Category Mdn (hr) Mdn (hr) U z p

Sleeping 56.00 57.00 9,435.00 −0.74 .461

Leisure/relaxing (on own) 16.50 14.00 8,405.50 −2.17 .030
Attending classes 14.00 14.00 – – –
Leisure/socializing (with others) 13.00 11.50 9,731.50 −0.33 .746
Studying/schoolwork 10.00 14.00 7,225.00 −3.81 <.001
Preparing/eating meals 8.00 10.40 8,482.50 −2.06 .039
Personal care/grooming 6.00 6.00 – – –
Transportation 5.00 5.00 – – –
Exercise/sports 3.00 4.50 9,058.50 −1.27 .203
Family commitments 1.50 0.00 8,744.50 −1.85 .064
Work/internship 0.00 0.00 – – –
Notes. Mann-Whitney U tests were not conducted when medians were equal for the two groups. Differences
were considered statistically significant at p < .007.

statistically significant differences were present for the median reported time use
of students who were or were not on academic probation. Table 3 presents the
results.
Students in both groups reported spending equal amounts of time in class
during the week. Despite similar course loads, there was a statistically significant
difference in the hours of studying tracked by students on academic probation
(Mdn = 10.00 hours) and not on academic probation (Mdn = 14.00 hours). Hence,
students with a history of academic struggles tended to report spending about 30%
fewer hours during the week studying outside of class compared to their more
successful peers. As recommended by Field (2005), we calculated an r-approx-
imation by dividing the z score by the square root of the sample, then converted
the value to a Cohen’s d (Rosenthal, 1994). The r-approximation of 0.22 (Cohen’s
d = 0.43) reflected a medium effect size for differences in the amount of recorded
study hours. Median differences for time spent relaxing alone or in mealtime
approached significance but were not statistically significant using the Bonfer-
roni-adjusted p-value of <.007. All other categories of reported time use over the
seven-day period were not statistically different based on students’ academic
probation status.

Time Use Patterns

We conducted separate chi-square tests for association between academic
probation status and each of the six time-use patterns: late-start studying, Sunday
cramming, consistent weekday studying, Saturday studying, consistent bedtime, and
consistent wake time. The incidence of the time-use patterns was essentially equiva-
lent between students on academic probation and not on probation, with p values
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 117

ranging from .379 to .887. As none of the associations was statistically significant,
we report overall tendencies for each pattern of time use for students in the college
success course as a whole.
The different patterns ranged in prevalence across the time logs. The patterns
presumed to be risk factors were not very common: 23% of student completed
their first schoolwork of the day at 9 p.m. or later on at least one weekday (late-
start studying) and 6% completed five or more hours of schoolwork on Sunday
afternoon or evening (Sunday cramming). In terms of the patterns thought to
indicate effective time use (Ferrari et al., 1997; McIntyre & Munson, 2008;
Witkow, 2009), 70% of students completed some schoolwork all four weekdays
(consistent weekday studying) and 53% completed some schoolwork on Saturday
(Saturday studying). Students’ sleep patterns were notably erratic: 35% went to
bed within the same two-hour window throughout week (consistent bedtime) and
only 15% awoke within the same two-hour window throughout the week (con-
sistent wake time).

DISCUSSION
The findings provide additional evidence regarding college students’ management
and use of time, including new information about students on academic probation
and how they are both different from and similar to their more academically
successfully peers. Given the context in which it was conducted, the study serves
as a bridge between theoretical and applied research that offers unique insights and
suggests some important directions for future research. Prior studies have identi-
fied the importance of time management, broadly defined, in college students’
academic successes and struggles (McCarthy & Kuh, 2006). The present study
emphasizes the multidimensionality of time management and portrays an array of
indicators that college success instructors and learning-center personnel can help
students assess and monitor.

Time Management
Consistent with prior research (Macan, 1994; Wolters et al., 2013), the three
time-management scales reflected distinct aspects of students’ approaches to their
time. When students had a tendency to procrastinate, they generally reported fewer
productive time-related behaviors and attitudes. The strong positive relation
between mechanics and setting goals and priorities emphasizes that the constructs
measured by the two self-assessments have a high degree of conceptual similarity.
The finding also reinforces the idea that using specific behavioral tactics for
managing one’s time (e.g., using a planner) would be closely connected with the
cognitive activities of creating goals and ranking activities in terms of importance.
The preference for organization scale was primarily attitudinal in nature,
reflecting individual differences in students’ inclinations toward completing aca-
demic activities in a structured manner. The mechanics scale was primarily beha-
vioral in nature, reflecting students’ use of specific tactics to schedule their time.
118 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

With regard to their attitudes about being organized and use of time-management
tactics, students in the course on academic probation thus did not significantly differ
from students in good academic standing.
Pronounced differences between students on or not on academic probation
occurred for the scales most closely aligned with self-regulation. First, students
differed in terms of goal-setting and prioritizing, a metacognitive strategy that
involves high amounts of forethought and planning (Zusho & Edwards, 2011).
Second, students on academic probation had notably higher mean levels of
reported procrastination than students who were not on probation. Procrastination
reflects the avoidance and postponement of activities that could otherwise lead to
completing tasks and attaining goals. The deferment or attenuation of students’
learning processes can justifiably be considered a self-regulatory failure (Steel,
2007). The present study reinforces the connection of two self-regulatory tenden-
cies to students’ academic outcomes. Thus, it may be useful for colleges and
universities to offer programs that include self-regulated learning instruction to
students on academic probation or as a proactive measure to encourage behaviors
that can prevent being placed on academic probation.
Interestingly, differences in time management were present based on aca-
demic probation but not for amount of college experience. The finding suggests
that, without intervention or support, students may not automatically improve their
time management as they progress in school. As such, college success courses
may have relevance for more than just first-year students. Including students with
varying amounts of prior college experience can create a dynamic classroom
experience in which students learn from one another. That a distinctly smaller
proportion of fourth-year students were on academic probation, however, suggests
that soon-to-be college graduates may have unique motivations for enrolling in a
college success course that could impact the classroom experience.

Time Use by Category

Time use, particularly students’ awareness and control of efforts devoted to
academic tasks (Pintrich & Zusho, 2007), is an aspect of self-regulated learning
that merits continued attention. In the present study, students in good academic
standing tracked more hours of academic work in a week than students who were
on academic probation, suggesting that higher amounts of study time matter.
Knowing this information about students’ time use may inform proactive
approaches that allow faculty, advisors, and learning-center personnel to reach
out to students before academic probation turns into dismissal (DeBerard, Spiel-
mans, & Julka, 2004). Of course, study-skills textbooks and college catalogs
commonly offer the guideline that, every week, students should spend two hours
of academic work outside of class for every hour they spend in class in order to
realistically expect a C grade (Van Blerkom, 2012). The 14 and 10 hours of
academic work tallied both fell short of the 28 hours that might be expected
should the recommended 2-to-1 ratio hold true.
Even at less busy parts of the semester, such as the first few weeks of classes,
working ahead is a recommended method for helping students distribute their time
and balance their schedules (Cook & Leckey, 1999). Hence, perhaps most students
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 119

could benefit from guidance about increased study time. The present research
focused on the beginning of a semester due to its connection to assignments
designed to help students set goals based on the current status of their behaviors.
As academic demands and motivation are likely to vary over the course of a
semester, it may be fruitful to examine students’ time use at varying points
throughout the year to determine trends and changes over time.
In general, there were not vast differences in how students on academic
probation or not on probation spent their time. For instance, students in both
groups reported approximately similar amounts of time spent sleeping, exercising,
and socializing. Students on academic probation did not spend an inordinate
amount of time on these aspects in comparison with their more academically
successful classmates. Another explanation for the similarity is that the hours
spent on various activities are only a surface-level indicator of how students are
using their time. Tracking an average of eight hours of sleep per night, for
instance, appears innocuous but masks the underlying feature of inconsistent bed
and wake times throughout the week.

Time Use Patterns

Overall, we found that course-takers with a history of academic struggles
do not differ substantially from their classmates when it comes to when they
study during the week or when they sleep and wake. The fact that few students
crammed on Sundays may reflect that the distribution of courses across a
typical week can be fairly spread out, and thus Sundays may not have the
same pre-Monday pressure in college as they do in high school. The distinction
may be helpful to keep in mind when advising students about scheduling their
time in college. We also noted inconsistent sleep schedules for nearly all
students, in contrast with prevailing recommendations to go to bed and
awake near the same time throughout the week (Trockel et al., 2000). Sleep
is essential to information processing, memory consolidation, and the regula-
tion of hormones that affect mood and energy levels (Carey, 2014). Although
the present analyses did not reveal time-use differences in terms of academic
probation, the inconsistency in students’ sleep patterns is troubling. Given the
importance of both sleep quality and routine, it may be worthwhile for college
success instructors to emphasize the contributions of sleep hygiene to memory
and overall productivity.

Limitations and Directions for Research

A distinct feature of the college success course in the present study was
its status as an elective course open to students on a voluntary basis. Prior
research demonstrates that students who take college success courses attain
higher grades and rates of graduation and retention compared with students of
similar backgrounds who do not (Hoops, Yu, Burridge, & Wolters, 2015). The
instructional design and nature of enrollment in college success courses, how-
ever, are not identical across institutions. Future researchers may wish to
120 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

examine similar questions of time management and time use in different

contexts, such as college success courses designed for students placed into
developmental education or classified as at-risk. It may also be informative to
examine whether students with differing amounts of prior college experience
(i.e., first-year vs. fourth-year students) enroll in college success courses for
different reasons.
College success courses often engage students in self-assessment and
self-monitoring of their learning. A great deal of information on these topics
may already be collected through formats that allow further analysis of course
materials to answer important questions about how students approach their
studying. Assignments may prove to be a rich research context for exploring
the learning-related attitudes and behaviors of college students, particularly
those who have struggled academically. It is also important to consider the
shortcomings of examining assignment-based data. Archived course materials
may be incomplete or difficult to access. Students may not be fully forthright
in the information they provide through self-report means (Bowman & Hill,
2011). Another risk is that students may not put effort into providing accurate
information or critical reflection. As in the present study, one potential way to
encourage transparency is to use the assignments as a means of helping
students attain greater self-awareness and to provide some form of mean-
ingful score report or individualized feedback. Still, instructors may find that
some students do not complete the very assignments designed to engage them
in self-regulated learning processes. Indeed, we found that students who were
on academic probation were less likely to submit the time-use assignment.
The challenge of motivating students who have struggled academically pre-
sents an area for future research into instructional approaches.

Conclusion
Gaining a better understanding of time management is essential to pro-
viding academic support that is relevant to the challenges college students face.
The present study characterized students on academic probation as scoring low
on measures of goal-setting and prioritizing and high on procrastination, which
together reflect a low tendency to engage in self-regulatory behaviors. These
differences suggest that students on academic probation could benefit from
programming or courses that focus on developing self-regulated learning
strategies.
Well-designed college success courses can support the development of self-
regulation by engaging students in planning, monitoring, and evaluating their
approaches to learning (Pintrich & Zusho, 2007). We encourage other instructors
and researchers involved in college success courses to consider additional oppor-
tunities to learn about the study habits of students in this context. Conducting
research in applied settings presents opportunities to explore self-regulated learn-
ing from multiple angles and to produce findings with the type of ecological
validity not easily found in studies conducted apart from authentic classroom
environments.
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 121

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Lauren C. Hensley is Senior Associate Director of The Ohio State University’s Dennis Learning
Center. She oversees college-success courses, supports retention initiatives, and conducts research
related to these activities.

Christopher A. Wolters is a Professor of Educational Psychology and Director of the Dennis

Learning Center at The Ohio State University. His research centers on motivation and self-regulated
learning, especially among college student populations.

Sungjun Won is a doctoral candidate in the Educational Psychology program at The Ohio State
University. His research focuses on college students’ motivation and self-regulated learning.

Anna C. Brady is a doctoral student in the Educational Psychology program at The Ohio State
University. Her primary research interests are students’ motivation and self-regulated learning.

ORCID
Lauren C. Hensley http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9639-7740
Christopher A. Wolters http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8406-038X
Anna C. Brady http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1361-2412

REFERENCES
Bembenutty, H. (2009). Academic delay of gratification, self-efficacy, and time management among
academically unprepared college students. Psychological Reports, 104, 613–623. doi:10.2466/
pr0.104.2.613-623
Bowman, N. A. (2009). Can 1st-year college students accurately report their learning and develop-
ment? American Educational Research Journal, 47, 466–496. doi:10.3102/0002831209353595
Bowman, N. A., & Hill, P. L. (2011). Measuring how college affects students: Social desirability and
other potential biases in college student self-reported gains. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 150, 73–85. doi:10.1002/ir.390
Carey, B. (2014). How we learn. New York, NY: Random House.
Cole, R. P., Goetz, E. T., & Willson, V. (2000). Epistemological beliefs of underprepared college
students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 31(1), 60–72. doi:10.1080/
10790195.2000.10850102
Cook, A., & Leckey, J. (1999). Do expectations meet reality? A survey of changes in first-year
student opinion. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23, 157–171. doi:10.1080/
0309877990230201
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and
retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38(1), 66–80.
Ferrari, J. R., Harriott, J. S., Evans, L., Lecik-Michna, D. M., & Wenger, J. M. (1997). Exploring the
time preferences by procrastinators: Night or day, which is the one? European Journal of
Personality, 11(3), 187–196. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0984
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Gabriel, K. F. (2008). Teaching unprepared students: Strategies for promoting success and retention
in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Hensley, L. C., Shaulskiy, S., Zircher, A., & Sanders, M. (2015). Overcoming barriers to engaging in
college academics. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(2), 176–189.
doi:10.1080/19496591.2015.1020246
122 L. C. HENSLEY ET AL.

Hofer, B. K., & Yu, S. L. (2003). Teaching self-regulated learning through a “learning to learn”
course. Teaching of Psychology, 30(1), 30–33. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3001_05
Hofer, B. K., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Teaching college students to be self-regulated
learners. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to
self-reflective practice (pp. 57–85). New York, NY: Guilford.
Hoops, L. D., Yu, S. L., Burridge, A. B., & Wolters, C. A. (2015). Impact of a student success course
on undergraduate academic outcomes. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 45, 123–146.
doi:10.1080/10790195.2015.1032041
Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of undergraduates:
Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 33, 915–931. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001
Lasane, T. P., & Jones, J. M. (2000). When socially induced temporal myopia interferes with
academic goal-setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(5), 75–86.
Macan, T. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
381–391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.381
McCarthy, M., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Are students ready for college? What student engagement data
say. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 664–669. doi:10.1177/003172170608700909
McGrath, S. M. (2012). A success course for freshmen on academic probation: Persistence and
graduation outcomes, 32 (1),43–52. NACADA Journal, 32(1), 43–52. doi:10.12930/
0271-9517-32.1.43
McIntyre, S. H., & Munson, J. M. (2008). Exploring cramming: Student behaviors, beliefs, and
learning retention in the principles of marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 30,
226–243. doi:10.1177/0273475308321819
Neumeister, K. S. (2004). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism and achievement
motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 219–231. doi:10.1177/
001698620404800306
Nordell, S. E. (2009). Learning how to learn: A model for teaching students learning strategies.
Bioscene, 35(1), 35–42.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning
in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407. doi:10.1007/s10648-004-
0006-x
Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2007). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college
classroom. In R. P. Perry, & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in
higher education: An evidence-based practice (pp. 731–810). New York, NY: Springer.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in
educational research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135–147. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2010.12.001
Rickert, N. P., Meras, I. L., & Witkow, M. R. (2014). Theories of intelligence and students’ daily
self-handicapping behaviors. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2014.08.002
Robinson, C. (2015). Academic success coaching: A description of an emerging field in higher
education (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The
handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York, NY: Sage.
Schlenker, B. R., Schlenker, P. A., & Schlenker, K. A. (2013). Antecedents of academic engagement
and the implications for college grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 75–81.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.014
Shannon, S. E. (2015). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
Research, 15, 1277–1288.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential
self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
 TIME MANAGEMENT AND USE 123

Trockel, M. T., Barnes, M. D., & Egget, D. L. (2000). Health-related variables and academic
performance among first-year college students: Implications for sleep and other behaviors.
Journal of American College Health, 49(3), 125–131. doi:10.1080/07448480009596294
Truschel, J., & Reedy, D. L. (2009). National survey–What is a learning center in the 21st century?
The Learning Assistance Review, 14(1), 9–22.
Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 473–480. doi:10.1177/0013164491512022
Tuckman, B. W., & Kennedy, G. J. (2011). Teaching learning strategies to increase success of first-
term college students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 478–504. doi:10.1080/
00220973.2010.512318
Van Blerkom, D. (2012). College study skills: Becoming a strategic learner (7th ed.). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Weinstein, C. E. (2006). Teaching students to become more strategic and self-regulated learners. In
W. J. Mckeachie, & M. D. Svinicki (Eds.), McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and
theory for college and university teachers (12th ed., pp. 300–317). Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Wilson, M. E. (2004). Teaching, learning, and millennial students. New Directions for Student
Services, 106, 59–71. doi:10.1002/ss.125
Witkow, M. R. (2009). Academic achievement and adolescents’ daily time use in the social and
academic domains. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 151–172. doi:10.1111/jora.2009.19.
issue-1
Wolters, C., Hussain, M., & Young, J. (2013, April). Connecting college students’ self-regulated
learning, time management, and procrastination. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Amer-
ican Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 179–187. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.179
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studing and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2–3), 73–86. doi:10.1080/00461520.1998.9653292
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal,
45(1), 166–183. doi:10.3102/0002831207312909
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: A
social cognitive perspective. In: D. Y. Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and
cognition: Integrative perspecitves on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 323–349).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zusho, A., & Edwards, K. (2011). Self-regulation and achievement goals in the college classroom.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 21–32. doi:10.1002/tl.441