TIME MANAGEMENT

Throughout the history, there has been great emphasis on the effective and efficient
management of time, which has also been considered the key to success (Pugh &
Nathwani, 2017; Nasrullah & Khan, 2015). Frederick Winslow Taylor gave the concept
to use time management for analyzing time and motion studies of employees with aim
to decrease time wasting and unproductive work (Savino, 2016). In this competitive
era, for high performance, the organizations and directors emphasize on searching time
management tools (Kumar & Aithal, 2019). It has also been advised to start practicing
time management from the early student life (Valle et al., 2016). Time management
has also been defined as a form of self-management with a clear emphasis on time in
understanding what activities to do; how to do them more efficiently; in what time it
should be done and when is the correct time to the particular activity (Savino, 2016). It
has also been association with low anxiety and greater academic achievement in
students (Jenaabadi, Nastiezaie, & Jalalzaei, 2016).

There have been many studies that found association between greater academic
achievement and effective time management as students acquire strategies that helps
them in meeting competing demands (Kharadze, Gulua, & Davit, 2017).

The curriculums in higher education institutes are designed in a way that gets to peak
and troughs in the workload of student requiring them to manage between their work-
life balance, often without the support of institution. The non-cognitive personal
behavior i.e., perspective of students regarding time management is also an effective
predictor of educational achievement as with poor time management skills it gets
difficult for students to plan their studies and which causes them anxiety and agitation
at the assessment time which usually takes place at the end of the course (Scherer,
Talley, & Fife, 2017). Students have previously linked negative educational results with
poor time management which could be partially self-serving bias, however, there have
been ample studies that establish this association ( Kharadze, Gulua, & Davit, 2017).
There have been studies conducted on time management and educational achievement
in business students (Sayari, Jalagat, & Dalluay, 2017), nursing students (Nayak,
2019), management students (Gupta & Chitkara, 2018), and engineering
students (Adams & Blair, 2019).

Time management is an immense distinction between web-based and formal education

administratively and academically. There was the type of learning opportunities in
formal education that integrates a clarification of everything (Nieuwoudt & Brickhill,
2017). Teachers, in this system, are in front of students and they can ask anything
regardless of any hesitation or delay. However, distance learning students have no such
type of academic environment as compared to formal learners. The presence of physical
distance is evidently reported between teacher and student in online learning (Ahmad &
Ch, 2017). Thereby, it is more complex for managing time and gaining high scores in
distance education. Web-based students explore and learn online that just integrates
incomplete data and the rest is their business for thinking about and examine further. It
is an art for managing time and every learner must command and familiar on this skill
for the sake of betterment (Broadbent, 2017). They experience in domestic as well as
academic world because of this incompetence. In this regard, majority of learner’s
experience issues such as errand vulnerability and repugnance, so they commence for
stalling their time administrative skills.

There are various studies that link time management to students’ academic performance. For
instance, proper time management positively correlates to better academic performance (Sevari and
Kandy, 2011; Adebayo, 2015; Kearns and Gardiner; 2007; Kaushar, 2013). There are several factors
that can be considered to demonstrate time management. The study of Nashrullah and and Khan
(2015) identified time management variables to include planning (Short-range and long-range), time
attitude as independent variables linking to the students’ academic performance. Findings showed that
time management variables such as short-range, long-range and time attitude are significantly
correlated to students’ academic achievement. Another study also posits the time management
variables to include independent variables such as prioritization, procrastination, socialization and
students’ academic performance (Adebayo, 2015). Specifically, his study claimed that there is positive
relationship between time management factors such as prioritization, procrastination, socialization and
the students academic performance. Further implications of the results suggest that students should
prioritize their tasks, less procrastination in responding to deadlines and in taking examinations and
moderate socialization activities. Karim, et. al, (2015) also links time management factors to include
students attitudes and behavior on time and management. Their findings suggest that, both student
attitudes and behavior impacts students’ academic performance. 

Kpolovie et.al (2014) defines academic achievement as an outcome of education. Academic

achievement is measured through examinations, such as knowledge which students have learnt in any
formal institute. In this study academic achievement refer to the (CGPA) grades of the students.

Khanam et al. (2017) analyzed the effect of students‟ time management on their academic
achievement. They focus on students short run and long run planning. The study concluded that
students with effective time management achieve high grades and those who do not manage their time
effectively achieve low grades. Only one third of the students set their plans and works according to
their priorities while majority of the students do not plan and always spend their time without planning.
Nasrullah and Khan (2015) analyze how effectively students allocate their time for successfully achieving
academic standards.

Rai (2016) found that the ratio of students who finishes their task on time is very low and these students
perform very well than those who do not manage their work. Similar findings are reported by Oyuga
(2016) orphaned students of secondary schools in Kenya.
Khanam, N., Sahu, T., Rao, E., Kar, S., & Quazi, S. Z. (2017). A study on university student‟s time
management and academic achievement. International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public
Health, 4(12), 4761-4765.

Kpolovie, P. J., Joe, A. I., & Okoto, T. (2014). Academic achievement prediction: Role of interest in
learning and attitude towards school. International Journal of Humanities Lakein, A. (1973). How to get
control of your time and your life. New York: New American Library.

Rai, A. (2016). A study of impact of Time Management on Academic Performance of Students Studying
in School. Indian Journal of Research

Nasrullah, S., & Khan, M. S. (2015). The Impact of Time Management on the Students‟ Academic
Achievements. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguitsics.

Oyuga, P. A., Raburu, P., & Aloka, P. J. (2016). Relationship between Time Management and Academic
Performance among Orphaned Secondary School Students of Kenya. International Journal of Applied
Psychology, 6(6), 171-178.

Karim, S., & Kandy, M. (2011). Time management skills impact on self-efficacy and academic
performance. Journal of American Science, 7(12), 720-726.
Managing work stress

The effect of work-related stress is influenced by the negative perceptions of the nature of stressors
(Tuckey et al., 2015). Due to greater demands in today’s competitive workforce, workrelated stressors
are unique to numerous occupations. Working in different environments can cause similar occupations
to be affected by various work-related stressors such as heavy workload, conflicts with other colleagues,
lack of job control, job insecurity, lack of reward, poor working environment and management support
(Kamarulzaman et al., 2017; Yim et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2017; Park & Kim, 2013; Ren et al., 2018). Thus,
neglecting these work-related stress issues can result in low job satisfaction, psychological stress, poor
mental and physical well-being, high absenteeism, rates of change and intentions to quit, accidents and
errors, and burnout.
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

The foundation of collaborative learning is the idea that learning with others is
better than learning alone (Nokes-Malach et al., 2015). 
Falcione et al. (2019) add to this definition by explaining that collaborative
learning is a way for students to intertwine their independent work in order to
achieve a shared goal. The results of these efforts are a “product or a learning
experience that is more than the summation of individual contributions”
(Falcione et al., 2019, p. 1).
Online learning naturally lends itself to student-centered instructional
strategies and assessments, and collaborative learning most certainly fits this
category (Muller et al., 2019). Given the physical distance that separates
online students, collaborative learning efforts may also help students connect
in an effort to dissolve any feelings of isolation they may be experiencing
(Writers, 2018).

Online collaborative learning theory provides a model of learning

in which students are encouraged and supported to work together
to create knowledge: to invent, to explore ways to innovate, and,
by so doing, to seek the conceptual knowledge needed to solve
problems rather than recite what they think is the right
answer (Harasim, 2012 as cited by Bates, 2015, para 1)
Collaborative learning is sometimes used interchangeably with the term
“cooperative learning” (Writers, 2018). 
While the two concepts share many of the same characteristics, Falcione et
al. (2019), argues that cooperative learning is, in fact, different from
collaborative learning. The primary factor that differentiates collaborative
learning from cooperative learning is the independent work that group
members do in order to contribute to the task at hand. This work is done at
different times and is often developed alone. However, the individual’s work is
later combined with the work of other group members in order to synthesize
ideas.
In the traditional classroom setting, collaborative learning can take on many
forms. Problem-based learning, jigsaw activities, think-pair-share, and peer
review are just a few common examples (Nokes-Malach et al., 2015). 
Scager et al. (2016) note that there are decades of literature that demonstrate
the positive effects of collaborative learning on academic success. 
Falcione et al. (2019) add that collaborative learning leads to a mastery of
course content and the cultivation of interpersonal skills that benefit the
student outside of the classroom environment.

In collaborative learning, the metacognitive ability of participants

is improved due to the absence of a professor’s help throughout
the process; learners must turn to each other, or outside sources,
to overcome barriers, encouraging recognition of their own
misunderstandings. (Davidson & Major, 2014 as cited by Falcione
et al, 2019).
Tarun (2019) notes that research on educational technology tools most often
includes tests of quality, to include “functionality and usability”, but fail to
evaluate the effects of integration into the online classroom. In future
research, it will be important to consider if and how the technology tools used
for collaboration are actually accomplishing what educators believe they are
accomplishing.

Bates, A. W. (Tony). (2015). 4.4 Online collaborative learning. In Teaching in

a Digital Age. Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/6-5-online-collaborative-
learning/
Boundless (2015, July 21). Advantages of using technology in the
classroom. Boundless Education. Retrieved from http://oer2go.org/mods/en-
boundless/www.boundless.com/education/textbooks/boundless-education-
textbook/technology-in-the-classroom-6/edtech-25/advantages-of-using-
technology-in-the-classroom-77- 13007/index.html
Chang, Eunice & Hannafin, M. J. (2015). The uses (and misuses) of
collaborative distance education technologies: Implications for the debate on
transience in technology. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(2), 77–
92.
Falcione, S., Campbell, E., McCollum, B., Chamberlain, J., Macias, M.,
Morsch, L., & Pinder, C. (2019). Emergence of different perspectives of
success in collaborative learning. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 10(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1227390
Scager, K., Boonstra, J., Peeters, T., Vulperhorst, J., & Wiegant, F. (2016).
Collaborative learning in higher education: Evoking positive
interdependence. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4).
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0219
Tarun, I. M. (2019). The Effectiveness of a Customized Online Collaboration
Tool for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, 18, 275–292.
STRESS MANAGEMENT
Reddy et al. (2018) in their study concludes that stream wise difference in stress does exist in students.
It is important to deal with stress at personal, social and institutional level. Remedies such as feedback,
yoga, life skills training, mindfulness, meditation and psychotherapy have been found useful to deal with
stress. To identify the main reason of stress is the key to deal with it. Professionals can develop tailor
made strategies to deal with stress. The integrated well being of the students is important not only for
the individual but for the institute as well.

Dimitrov (2017) in his study claimed that stress can be addressed by ensuring that the students give
utmost importance to their welfare. Food, exercise, work, recreation are some of the areas to focus on.
He also concluded that the education system is more to do with the academic qualifications and does
not contribute enough to the holistic development of students.

(Hemamalini, 2018) Stress is defined as a person’s psychological and physiological response to the
perception of a demand or challenge. Students are most frequently affected by stress due to their
academic and personal life. Students face various challenges, difficulties and a whole lot of pressure in
today’s competitive world. Students get to be trained in handling stress and should get out from it.
Stress is the process by which an individual or a person reacts when opened to external or internal
problems and challenges. "the organism processes numerous systems to coordinate such adaptive
responses both at systematic and cellular levels "by this, stress has direct effect on the brain and the
whole anatomy of the body as such failure to adapt to a stressful condition can result in brain
malfunction, physiological problem and also many areas of psychological challenge's in the form of
depression, anxiety, pain and burnout.

(Hemamalini, R., Ashok, V., & Sasikala, V. (2018). A Study on Stress Management and its Impact among
Students. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 7(3),
101–110.)
ACTIVE LEARNING

Prior reviews have established the effectiveness of active learning in

undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses
(e.g., Freeman et al., 2014; Lund & Stains, 2015; Theobald et al., 2020). In this
review, we define active learning as classroom-based activities designed to
engage students in their learning through answering questions, solving
problems, discussing content, or teaching others, individually or in groups
(Prince & Felder, 2007; Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005), and
this definition is inclusive of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS,
e.g., Dancy, Henderson, & Turpen, 2016) and evidence-based instructional
practices (EBIPs, e.g., Stains & Vickrey, 2017).
Among these concerns, student resistance to active learning is a potential
explanation for the low rates of instructor persistence with active learning, and
this negative response to active learning has gained increased attention from
the academic community (e.g., Owens et al., 2020). Of course, students can
exhibit both positive and negative responses to active learning (Carlson &
Winquist, 2011; Henderson, Khan, & Dancy, 2018; Oakley, Hanna, Kuzmyn, &
Felder, 2007), but due to the barrier student resistance can present to
instructors, we focus here on negative student responses. Student resistance to
active learning may manifest, for example, as lack of student participation and
engagement with in-class activities, declining attendance, or poor course
evaluations and enrollments (Tolman, Kremling, & Tagg, 2016; Winkler &
Rybnikova, 2019).
We define student resistance to active learning (SRAL) as a negative affective
or behavioral student response to active learning (DeMonbrun et al., 2017;
Weimer, 2002; Winkler & Rybnikova, 2019). The affective domain, as it
relates to active learning, encompasses not only student satisfaction and
perceptions of learning but also motivation-related constructs such as value,
self-efficacy, and belonging. The behavioral domain relates to participation,
putting forth a good effort, and attending class. The affective and behavioral
domains differ from much of the prior research on active learning that centers
measuring cognitive gains in student learning, and systematic reviews are
readily available on this topic (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014; Theobald et
al., 2020). Schmidt, Rosenberg, and Beymer (2018) explain the relationship
between affective, cognitive, and behavioral domains, asserting all three types
of engagement are necessary for science learning, and conclude that “students
are unlikely to exert a high degree of behavioral engagement during science
learning tasks if they do not also engage deeply with the content affectively
and cognitively” (p. 35). Thus, SRAL and negative affective and behavioral
student response is a critical but underexplored component of STEM learning.
Recent research on student affective and behavioral responses to active
learning has uncovered mechanisms of student resistance. Deslauriers,
McCarty, Miller, Callaghan, and Kestin’s (2019) interviews of physics students
revealed that the additional effort required by the novel format of an
interactive lecture was the primary source of student resistance. Owens et al.
(2020) identified a similar source of student resistance, which was to their
carefully designed biology active learning intervention. Students were
concerned about the additional effort required and the unfamiliar student-
centered format. 
Similarly, Shekhar et al.’s (2020) review framed negative student responses to
active learning in terms of expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000);
students reacted negatively when they did not find active learning useful or
worth the time and effort, or when they did not feel competent enough to
complete the activities. Shekhar et al. (2020) also applied expectancy violation
theory from physics education research (Gaffney, Gaffney, & Beichner, 2010)
to explain how students’ initial expectations of a traditional course produced
discomfort during active learning activities. To address both theories of
student resistance, Shekhar et al. (2020) suggested that instructors provide
scaffolding 
in contrast, students’ behavioral responses to active learning consist of their
actions and practices during active learning. This includes
students’ attendance in the class, their participation, engagement, and effort
with the activity, and students’ distraction or off-task behavior (e.g., checking
their phones, leaving to use the restroom) during the activity (DeMonbrun et
al., 2017; Finelli et al., 2018; Winkler & Rybnikova, 2019).

REFERENCE
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt,
H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance
in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–
8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Henderson, C., Khan, R., & Dancy, M. (2018). Will my student evaluations
decrease if I adopt an active learning instructional strategy? American
Journal of Physics, 86(12), 934–942. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5065907.
Lenz, L. (2015). Active learning in a math for liberal arts
classroom. PRIMUS, 25(3), 279–
296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2014.971474.

Metzger, K. J. (2015). Collaborative teaching practices in undergraduate active

learning classrooms: A report of faculty team teaching models and student
reflections from two biology courses. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology
Teaching, 41(1), 3–
9 http://www.acube.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2015_1.pdf.
INTERACTIVE LECTURES
Enhancing involvement, participation, and maximum interactivity from both the students’ and the
faculty is an area of potential improvement in medical education [11]. There is an increasing trend
toward shifting from traditional teaching to student-centred teaching that actively engages students
Improving the educational activities setting from the traditional - almost one-sided (speaker) activity - to
both sides (speaker and learners) participating in an interactive, enter-taining, and higher learning
outcome activity can enhance the educa-tional activity for better outcomes.There are potentially
multiple difficulties in fostering interactive learning during lectures. Educators and educational
institutions have been facing growing challenges to accommodate a large number of students in the
lectures and maintain a high level of interactions and student satisfaction [14]. Achieving interaction in
lectures with a large number of students is difficult [15]. The need for a practical and efficient way to
achieve interaction is of high importance. Enhancing engage-ment and interaction during lectures is one
of the fields of work to transform learning through lectures. Teachers have practiced the use of
questions as a tool to enhance interactivity to facilitate the learning process (Tuma, 2020)

The 2017 Horizon Report suggests that pedagogical approaches to creating richer, hands-on and authentic learning
experiences are warranted because students “learn by experiences, doing, and creating, demonstrating newly
acquired skills in more concrete and creative ways” (Adams Becker, Cummins, Davis, Freeman, Hall Giesinger, &
Ananthanarayanan, 2017, p. 6). The Adams et al., report asserts students are now active contributors to their
learning and as such, educators facilitate this new way of learning by creating interactive lectures via a variety of
methods. This is a clear shift from previous generations of students, who were required to sit passively in lectures to
learn, as well as structuring their learning in other, more passive ways. With access to new and emerging
technologies and wireless networks, it is now possible to create interactive lectures that all students are able to
confidently participate in with the mobile devices they carry with them.

Mizokami (2015) explained, “Active learning includes all kinds of learning beyond the mere one-way
transmission of knowledge in lecture-style classes (= passive learning). It requires engagement in
activities (writing, discussion, and presentation) and externalizing cognitive processes in the activities”
(p. 79). A comprehensive meta-analysis of 225 studies comparing AL and the traditional lecture style in
STEM undergraduate courses found that failure rates amongst students increased by 55% when courses
were delivered in the lecture medium, but courses delivered through AL or using teaching methods that
are more interactive than traditional lectures led to better grades and a 36% decrease in student failure
rates.

Within higher education, there was an abrupt shift from face-to-face to online
lecturing with the introduction of social distancing measures in light of a global
pandemic. Some instructors have addressed this challenge by primarily
focusing on the continued dissemination of information through prerecorded
lectures, while others have shifted to synchronous video conferencing for
continued support through interaction with many solutions falling in between.
For large lectures, this shift to online instruction may lead to a loss of
classroom awareness and social presence from both the instructor and
student perspectives, leading to lower learning outcomes (Nortvig et al.,
2018; Stott, 2016). 
In online settings, there is often a reduction in the interaction with the faculty
(Paulsen and McCormick, 2020). With smaller class sizes, instructors can
engage students in synchronous video conferencing to support student
interactions (Lee et al., 2017). But, as with face-to-face classes, as the class
size grows, individual interactions between the instructor and students are not
as feasible, and other forms of engagement are needed. 

Mizokami, S. (2015). Deep active learning from a perspective of active learning theory. In K. Matsushita
(Ed.), Deep active learning: Deepening higher learning (pp. 31-51). Tokyo: Keiso-Shobo.

Nortvig, A.M., Petersen, A.K. and Balle, S.H. (2018), “A literature review of

the factors influencing E-Learning and blended learning in relation to learning
outcome, student satisfaction and engagement”, Electronic Journal of E-
Learning, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 46-55.
Paulsen, J. and McCormick, A.C. (2020), “Reassessing disparities in online
learner student engagement in higher education”, Educational Researcher,
Vol. 49 No. 1, p. 0013189X19898690.
Lee, D.H., You, Y.W. and Kim, Y. (2017), “An analysis of online learning tools
based on participatory interaction: focused on an analysis of the Minerva
school case”, Advances in Computer Science and Ubiquitous
Computing, Springer, pp. 1199-1206.