Influence of the Degree of Gadget Dependency on the

Academic Procrastination Levels of Grade 12 STEM Students

DAISY JOY CARAIG

KEZIA CARATOR

MARIA ISABEL T. GARCIA

MA. THERESA OYCO

GIL ADRIENNE TABABA

Student Researchers

PHILLIP RAYMUND DE OCA

Project Adviser

BACOLOD CITY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Bacolod City, Negros Occidental

Region VI, Western Visayas

 Chapter 1

Introduction

Currently, the isolation brought by the proliferation of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease

2019) caused by a novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has posed severe crises, such as multiple

adverse effects on physical and mental wellbeing (Cheval et al., 2020; Dhawan, 2020; Morens et

al., 2020; Siste et al., 2020). During the lockdown period, new behavioral addictions could

emerge, particularly for teenagers, and one of the prevalent behaviors that stemmed from the

limited outdoor movement is gadget dependency rise (Kar et al., 2020; Montag & Elhai, 2020;

Nadeem & Ahmed, 2020; Sun et al., 2020).

As there is no well-established definition for gadget dependency, preceding researches

considered it as compulsive use of devices, even when individuals are aware that it affects them

mentally, socially, emotionally, and physically (Ganganahalli et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2013). A

gadget refers to devices designed with advanced technology that offers more essential functions,

such as laptops, smartphones, tablets, and many more technological gadgets used by the modern

generation (Frahasini et al., 2018; Ganganahalli et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2013; Muduli, 2014).

Prior studies have already presented the negative impacts of smartphone and mobile

phone dependency on excessive phone use, academic achievement, and perceived sociability (Lin

& Chiang, 2017; Rashid et al., 2020). The pattern and intensity of gadget use by teenagers,

labeled hard-to-break escapism habits, shifted and worsened amid the pandemic, which induced

changes in the limits considered standard (Beng et al., 2020; Király et al., 2020). Moreover, the

lack of school structure and transition to online teaching can prompt students to focus on

entertainment rather than taking lessons (Meng et al., 2020). The Department of Education

administered psychosocial support, and the Cordillera region advised parents to set time for using

gadgets and accompany them as a distraction from devices (DepEd, 2020a; DepEd CAR, 2020).
 Investigations show that more than half of the students tend to procrastinate when it

comes to online tests and assignments, which pose more risks of failing, but patterns of this habit

in virtual learning hardly showed in a study during COVID-19 (Agnihotri et al., 2020; Levy &

Ramim, 2012; Memon et al., 2020). Procrastination is an irrational behavior of delaying intended

action (Steel, 2010; Svartdal et al., 2018, 2020). In educational settings, academic procrastination

is a widespread propensity to defer academic activities, with detrimental effects such as academic

disappointment, weaker psychological health, and even impact one's relationship with others

(Balkis & Duru, 2017; McCloskey, 2011; McCloskey & Scielzo, 2015). It has the following

aspects: psychological beliefs about abilities, distractions, social factors, poor time management

skills, lack of personal initiative, and laziness (McCloskey, 2011; McCloskey & Scielzo, 2015).

Hence, a study indicated that students' internet dependency is affected by low academic

self-efficacy and academic procrastination in school works (Gholamali et al., 2013). Furthermore,

there have been comprehensive research studies in the relationship between procrastination and

gadget dependency in line with phone and internet addiction, such as Facebook use (Przepiórka et

al., 2016; Uzun et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2020). Former studies had some limitations with samples

only within the data set where their results were generalized, biased sex ratio, and limited sample

representation (Uzun et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2020).

In this regard, the researchers want to examine the influence of gadget dependency on

academic procrastination of Grade 12 STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics) students of BCNHS (Bacolod City National High School). These students are

under three learning modalities with two sections each, such as Remote Online Classes (ROC) for

Anthracite and Brilliant, Remote Offline Digital Mode (RODM) for Breccia and Gabbro, and

modular (RPM) for Energetic and Heuristics, as the school year for K-12 officially started on

October 5, 2020. (DepEd, 2020b).

 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to determine the influence of gadget dependency on

the academic procrastination levels of grade 12 STEM students.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following objectives:

1. To determine the profile of respondents in terms of the following variables:

a. Sex

b. Learning Modality

c. Time Spent on Gadgets

2. To determine the degree of gadget dependency of grade 12 STEM students.

3. To determine the academic procrastination levels of grade 12 STEM students.

4. To determine if there is a significant difference in the degree of gadget

dependency of grade 12 STEM students when grouped according to the previously

mentioned variables.

5. To determine if there is a significant difference in the academic procrastination

levels of grade 12 STEM students when grouped according to the previously mentioned

variables.

6. To determine if there is a significant relationship between the degree of gadget

dependency and procrastination levels of grade 12 STEM students.

 Hypothesis

From the objective raised, the following hypotheses are the Null hypothesis of the study:

1. There is no significant difference in the degree of gadget dependency of grade 12

STEM students when grouped according to the previously mentioned variables.

2. There is no significant difference in the academic procrastination levels of grade

12 STEM students when grouped according to the previously mentioned variables.

3. There is no significant relationship between the degree of gadget dependency and

procrastination levels of grade 12 STEM students.

Theoretical Framework

Although academic procrastination does not have a specific theory, the following are its

basis: social cognitive theory, wherein through interaction behavior, learning, and motivation of

students occur; attribution theory, wherein reasons for success and failures affect motivation; and

motivation theory, wherein it generally explain procrastination and considers self-efficacy,

motivation, deadline time, and ability to plan (Janssen, 2015).

However, out of the three, social cognitive will be utilized in this study for social

cognition assumes that a person's perception of the social environment is ideal in interpreting

behavior, thoughts, and feelings by analyzing the correlative causation among individuals,

behaviors, and environment, as emphasized by Albert Bandura (Janssen, 2015; Luszczynska &
Schwarzer, 2005; Yakut, 2019). Other theories under it are Piaget's and Vygotsky's, where they

tackle learning development (McLeod, 2018). Yet, Vygotsky stressed the crucial role of social

interaction in the development of cognition (McLeod, 2018).

Hence, Bandura's model believed that students self-regulate while learning, which affects

their self-efficacy as he assesses their beliefs with their capability and achievements (Janssen,

2015). Meanwhile, this study evaluates self-regulation around gadgets if it can affect self-efficacy

in terms of academic procrastination.

Schematic Diagram

Conceptual Framework

In this conceptual framework, two variables are part of the study using a descriptive

correlational research design in collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. The degree of gadget

dependency is the independent variable, whereas the academic procrastination level is the

dependent variable. Hence, this study will assess their relationship if the degree of gadget
dependency correlates with academic procrastination level. Also, it aims to describe the variables

and their differences according to sex. learning modality, and time spent on gadgets. Grade 12

STEM students are the chosen population of this investigation. At the end of the study, the

researchers also expect to determine the variations among the profiling sector.

Scope and Delimitation

This research study primarily focuses on the relationship between the degree of gadget

dependency and the academic procrastination level among grade 12 students under the Science

Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) strand. The researchers aim to describe and

assess the student's degree of gadget dependency and its direct influence on the level of academic

procrastination.

Student respondents will provide data on their level of procrastination only in the context

of their academics. The gadgets indicated in the study must only be within the specifics

particularized by the researchers i.e cell phones, laptops, tablets, etc.. This study is limited to

grade 12 STEM students enrolled in the First Semester of School Year 2020-2021 in Bacolod

City National High School. Participants can only be from Remote Online Class (ROC) and

Remote Offline Digital Mode (RODM) classes, but not those with modular (RPM), for they may

not have access online.

To evaluate the respondent's dependence on gadgets and academic procrastination index,

each will receive standardized questionnaires online via Google Forms. The results of both tests

will be statistically correlated to define the relationship between the two variables. Yet, no causal

relationship is given between variables in this study but focuses on a descriptive correlational

research design.
 Definition of Terms

To further clarify the context to the readers of this study, the following terms are defined

conceptually and operationally.

Academic Procrastination. Conceptually, it takes place when students needlessly defer

finishing academic tasks, associated with increased stress, poor health, and low grades

(McCloskey, 2011; McCloskey & Scielzo, 2015).

Operationally, it refers to intentionally putting off academic workloads, such as projects,

modules, etc., of grade 12 STEM students from Bacolod City National High School using

e-learning.

Gadget. This term refers to devices designed with advanced technology that offers more

essential functions, such as laptops, smartphones, tablets, and many more technological

gadgets used by the modern generation (Frahasini et al., 2018; Muduli, 2014).

Operationally, it is the electronic devices used by grade 12 STEM students from Bacolod

City National High School, such as cellphones, laptops, etc., that are for personal or

educational purposes.

Gadget Dependency. Conceptually, as dependency directs addictive behavior, gadget

dependency is the compulsive use of devices, even when individuals are aware that it

affects them mentally, socially, emotionally, and physically, which also refers to the

technological gadgets' and services' influence on lifestyle (Gupta et al., 2013; Nakel &

Naval, 2015; Revathi et al., 2020).

 It refers to the influence of gadgets on the lifestyle and level of exposure of grade 12

STEM students from Bacolod City National High School, as used in this study.

Influence. It is the generalized term of persuasion, attitude shaping, and sought to trigger

actions, not only experiences (Luhmann, 2017;Parsons, 1963).

It refers to the extent of the effect of gadgets on the behavior of grade 12 STEM students

from Bacolod City National High School.

Learning Modality. It is a method that involves the use of internet access that drives for

a blended approach, a variation of offline and online (Ancheta & Ancheta, 2020).

Operationally, it is the type of learning methods, such as Remote Online Class (ROC) and

Remote Offline Digital Mode (RODM), availed by grade 12 STEM students from

Bacolod City National High School.

Sex. It indicates the biological features that define humans as female or male (The Sex

and Gender Sensitive Research Call to Action Group et al., 2019).

As used in this study, the label, either male or female, is assigned at birth to grade 12

STEM students from Bacolod City National High School.

Students. It refers to someone who studies academic subjects or refers to an individual

who attends a school, college, or university (Coombs, 2017; Simanek, 2017).

It refers to students respondents enrolled as grade 12 STEM students in Bacolod City

National High School S.Y. 2020-2021.

 Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

Stated studies in this section highlight gadget dependency and academic procrastination

while overviewing varied related themes for each. There are in-depth discussions of

investigations that associated both gadget addiction and procrastination. Also, in the latter parts,

further analyses were made for the theoretical frameworks and survey tools. Several findings

already correlated the two concepts, but it is scarce amid the pandemic and in the context of

online learning. The reviewed studies constitute gadget and gadget dependency of students,

notions regarding academic procrastination, those conducted during the pandemic, and those

associating both variables.

Gadget Dependency

As the digital revolution started around the 1980s, when cellular cell phones were

released, a networked society increasingly rose with advancing technology (Gilleard, 2017;

Klemens, 2014). In the 21st century, there is the prevalent use of technology in classroom

instructions. From 2013 to 2016, the latest technologies are more collaborative for educational

purposes, such as lecture capture apps, videoconferencing, and mobile devices (Tomei, 2017).

Hence, gadgets, which are portable electronic devices, make lives much more comfortable and

can help, such as monitoring physical activity and communication (Gupta et al., 2013; Mears,

2010; Swathi & Chanti, 2020; Nakel & Naval, 2015; Vimal, 2020). According to a survey in

America, 85% of adults own a cellphone because it offers various functions and dynamic content,

especially with the internet, like email, games, music, and videos (Gilleard, 2017; Klemens, 2014;
Zickuhr, 2011). Based on one study, 15% of the children of subjects already own an electronic

device before the age of twelve, and the usage continually increases (Fadzil et al., 2016).

There are overwhelming studies regarding the side effects of gadgets, such as affecting

interpersonal communication, lack of emotional management, and addiction (Aldimasi et al.,

2018; Nirwana et al., 2018). Gadgets influence school performance, like low grades and low

attention span, but the lifestyle, mental and emotional health are affected the most (Muduli, 2014;

Othman et al., 2020). It can alter your body clock and deprives you of falling asleep at the right

time your body wants (Wibowo et al., 2020). It can also make someone aggressive, lazy, and

inactive (Ranjan et al., 2016). Also, investigations regarding smartphone dependency and mobile

phone addiction are associated with student academic performance (Lin & Chiang, 2017; Rashid

et al., 2020). Smartphone dependency is more rampant on those using smartphones for videos and

online gaming than other traditional uses of a cell phone (Lin & Chiang, 2017). Students who

have high leisure boredom are prone to be gadget dependent, and those with high mobile phone

addiction are likely to lose focus, which affects their academic performance (Lin & Chiang, 2017;

Rashid et al., 2020).

Gadget addiction is now more prevalent in the present generation, and young people are

getting hooked on these latest gadgets almost everywhere (Kumar & Sherkhane, 2018). As

technology progresses, humans become more dependent on it (Nakel & Naval, 2015; Revathi et

al., 2020). The increase in the degree of dependence on technology is quite alarming as it affects

health and lifestyle (Nakel & Naval, 2015; Revathi et al., 2020). A related study regarding gadget

dependency considers more than 6 hours of gadget usage addictive (Muduli, 2014; Nakel &

Naval, 2015). Dependency directs addictive behavior, so respondents are likely more addicted if

they are more dependent (Muduli, 2014; Nakel & Naval, 2015). Meanwhile, addiction is the level

of likeness or an irresistible urge accompanied by the loss of control toward something (Kumar &

Sherkhane, 2018; Muduli, 2014). The younger generation is becoming more gadget-dependent

because they grow up in a world where they are already comfortable with technology (Chasanah
& Kilis, 2018; Ganganahalli et al., 2014; Nikhita et al., 2015; Revathi et al., 2020; ) (Muduli,

2014). Addiction to gadgets not only affects the youth but of all ages (Bhattacharyya, 2017;

Vimal, 2020). As these devices can also help older people with their illness and incapability, they

manage to master and sometimes tend to be addicted. (Bhattacharyya, 2017; Rogers et al., 2014;

Robinson et al., 2014).

Recently, the school system rapidly switched online in March (Shandler, 2020). Gadgets

are said to be essential tools for learning, especially when face-to-face classes are not allowed due

to health risks brought by the COVID-19 (Moaje, 2020). Mobile phones became the preferred

platform for virtual schooling, varying from 1 to 8 hours a day (Rawal, 2020). Yet, technological

gadgets have proven to cause dissentient effects on behavior and study habits (Rawal, 2020). One

of the knock-on consequences of remaining indoors was the significant rise in the use of gadgets

and screen-times by children, both young and old (Suvarna, 2020). As the pandemic brings stress

and anxiety, people tend to cope with excessive use of gadgets can cause harmful effects such as

gambling, sexual streaming, video games, social media use, and raise the risk of disordered or

addicted use (Király et al., 2020). Thus, as gadgets have shown negative impacts on children,

parents have to be observant of their activities, especially online (Nadeem & Ahmed, 2020).

For the past years, researchers suggest that the maximum use of gadgets should only be

up to 3 to 4 hours a day, for prolonged use may affect academic activities (Beng et al., 2020). In

the US survey by the data intelligence firm Morning Consult, 60% of parents state that their

children spent no more than 3 hours a day before the pandemic as of August 2020 (Molina,

2021). However, due to the online setting during quarantine, students tend to use their gadgets for

4-8 hours, twice the usual standard (Beng et al., 2020; Meng et al., 2020). Problematic phone use

is also associated with COVID-19-related anxieties, and 30% of children and adolescents exhibit

dependence as they increase their screen exposure (Meng et al., 2020). Now parents commonly

seek consultation for gadget addiction as 61% of adolescents experience a kind of disorder or
symptom of smartphone addiction, but, hopefully, dependence on gadgets can reduce if the

pandemic is under control (Suvarna, 2020; Novianti, 2020).

Academic Procrastination

Procrastination and its underlying consequences are universal, thus representing a

seemingly interesting problem in self-regulation (Kandemir, 2014; Klassen et al., 2008; Liu &

Feng, 2019; Zarrin & Garcia, 2020). Previous articles situate procrastination as a form of

emotional regulation that gives rise to a short-term hedonic change (Steel, 2007; Pychyl & Sirois,

2016). One type is academic procrastination, which is the unreasonable delay of accomplishing

school tasks to the point of experiencing subjective discomfort (Balkis, 2013; Balkis & Duru,

2017: Rothblum et al., 1986; Senécal et al., 2003). Moreover, academic procrastination is

reportedly associated with dropping out, dissatisfying academic performance, low self-esteem,

poor health, high stress and anxiety (Kim & Seo, 2015; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; He, 2017).

It correlated with the number of siblings, educational attainment of parents, and socio-economic

status of the family (Rosário et al., 2013). Studies also implicated that procrastination is more

prevalent in men than women (Abbasi & Alghamd, 2015; Steel & Ferrari, 2013).

Numerous studies indicate that some personalities are characteristic of procrastinators:

low conscientiousness, impulsiveness, low self-efficacy, low self-esteem, neuroticism, sensation

seeking, and low agreeableness (Watson, 2001; Schouwenburg, 2004; Steel & Klingsieck, 2016).

Hence, the main predictors for procrastinating behavior are task aversion, task delay, self-

efficacy, and impulsiveness (Balkis, 2013; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Steel, 2007). The latter

supports other researchers in their findings that procrastination involves a complex interaction of

behavioral, affective, and cognitive components, not solely a deficit in time management or poor

study habits (Balkis, 2013; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984; Steel, 2007). The following are the six

dimensions of academic procrastination: psychological beliefs about abilities, students either feel

that they are efficient or inefficient; distractions, easily amused by more engaging activities;
social factors, which promotes task aversiveness; poor time management skills, under the realms

of promptness and appointment keeping; lack of personal initiative, no drive or motivation to

accomplish a task; and laziness, avoiding work yet physically apt (McCloskey, 2011; McCloskey

& Scielzo, 2015). Consequently, they mostly undergo the following: holding on to false values,

lack of focus, becoming easily bored, anticipating failure, making excuses, and so on (Breig et al.,

2020; Webb & Rosenbaum, 2019).

Various criteria can differentiate between the types of procrastinators, such as passive

and active (Abramowski, 2018; Chu & Choi, 2005; Kim et al., 2017). Passive procrastinators

allow the negative, indecisive behavior to paralyze them (Chu & Choi, 2005). Conversely, active

procrastinators consciously decide to accomplish tasks later, enabling them to function in a state

of optimal performance and achieve positive results in their work (Abramowski, 2018; Chu &

Choi, 2005; Kim et al., 2017). Both procrastinate to the same degree, but active ones are more

comparable in the following: purposeful usage of time, time management, self-efficacy of

conviction, coping styles, and results, like academic success (Chu & Choi, 2005). The following

arranges another classification of procrastinators from the most to the least dominant: average,

they face common problems as they display the usual traits of procrastination; mild; severe, most

of them suffer in both chronic procrastination and depression; well-adjusted, are those less

unsettled with difficulties due to their coping strategies; and the primarily depressed, they are

least susceptible to temptation as their procrastination is related only to depressive episodes

(Breig et al., 2020; Webb & Rosenbaum, 2019).

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the education system worldwide and forced

educational institutes to strengthen their technological knowledge infrastructure to grow and opt

for platforms with technologies, even those not commonly used before (Dhawan, 2020; Jena,

2020a, 2020b; Liguori & Winkler, 2020). The transition to learning models can trigger academic

procrastination behavior (Carey, 2020). New learning models provide so much time and

flexibility, but ironically students never find time to do their tasks, and they find it boring and
unengaging (Dhawan, 2020; McBrien et al., 2009; Singh & Thurman, 2019). Students feel that

lack of community, technical problems, and difficulties in understanding instructional goals are

the main barriers to learning models (Irawan et al., 2020; Song et al., 2004). Studies determine

that students have low-level preparedness for several e-learning competencies and academic-type

competencies (Dhawan, 2020; Parkes et al., 2015).

Online self-paced courses address the needs of many students for accessibility and

learning (Lim, 2016). Still, there are concerns about the content and the tendency for students to

procrastinate in self-paced courses (Lim, 2016). Academic procrastination poses a significant

hindrance to the progress of students' schooling. (Hong et al., 2021; Zhao & Elder, 2020). It

increases with the inherent decreasing incentive for learning and commitment control (Dunn &

Rakes, 2010; Sokolowska, 2009). Thus, procrastination often entails problems concerning

performance and subjective well-being (Klingsieck, 2013; Michinov et al., 2011). Hence, it is a

multifaceted phenomenon in the academic context with cognitive, affective, and motivational

dimensions and affects most students (Dunn & Rakes, 2010; Sokolowska, 2009).

Correlation of Gadget Dependency and Procrastination

Internet addiction is a psychological dependence on the internet, regardless of the type of

activity once logged on (Uzun et al., 2014). One study on ICT college students correlates internet

addiction to academic procrastination and general procrastination (Uzun et al., 2014). The scales

used were academic procrastination by Cakici and general procrastination by Lay (Uzun et al.,

2014). Hence, the dysfunctional use of the internet concerns that withdraw students from

focusing on their studies (Uzun et al., 2014). The results showed that internet addiction is both

significantly correlated to both procrastination scales (Uzun et al., 2014). However, only 16% of
ICT college participants had internet problems, which are lower than other research findings

(Uzun et al., 2014).

Trait procrastination is a significant risk factor for mobile phone addiction after

investigating Chinese students (Yang et al., 2020). Also, stress which is more common with

males mediated the relationship between variables (Yang et al., 2020). Another study among

young adult Chinese discovered that internet addiction correlated positively with procrastination

(Geng et al., 2018). Wherein, one of the most common problems with college students is

procrastination (Geng et al., 2018). Internet addiction also has negative relationships with self-

control and self-evaluations, and social adjustment can potentially repress both internet addiction

and procrastination (Geng et al., 2018).

Two studies delve into Facebook use and procrastination, and one of them coined the

term Facebocrastination (Meier et al., 2016; Przepiórka et al., 2016). Findings show that general

and decisional procrastination determine Facebook intrusion and intensity (Przepiórka et al.,

2016). The survey used the following scales: General procrastination scale, Decisional

procrastination scale, Facebook Intrusion questionnaire, and Facebook Intensity scale (Przepiórka

et al., 2016). Conversely, predictors of procrastination were Trait self-control (TSC), FB habits,

and FB enjoyment (Meier et al., 2016). Women and students were more vulnerable, and academic

stress and FB-induced strains increased with Facebocrastination (Meier et al., 2016; Przepiórka et

al., 2016).

Before the pandemic, there were assessments on exams and assignments in the context of

online learning (Agnihotri et al., 2020; Levy & Ramim, 2012). An exam online of students,

assigned with a weeklong timeframe to submit a test they studied the week before, showed more

than half of the students turned in within the last 24 hours remaining (Levy & Ramim, 2012).

Hence, those who submitted on the middle days of the week had the highest score, and grades
decrease as submission goes closer to due time (Levy & Ramim, 2012). Similarly, a

procrastination index was established based on online assignment starting time rather than

finishing time (Agnihotri et al., 2020). Consequently, by the measure of accustomed

procrastination, academic performance is strongly predicted (Agnihotri et al., 2020). It is

encouraged that frequently procrastinating students who are well-performing at the same time can

improve their habits and do better (Agnihotri et al., 2020).

Meanwhile, a study during the pandemic emerged regarding the impacts of virtual

learning environments on student procrastination (Memon et al., 2020). The investigation seeks to

identify the factors that affect student procrastination behaviors (Memon et al., 2020). Then, the

researchers will validate behavioral analysis on students by evaluating various Machine Learning

algorithm implementations (Memon et al., 2020). Annotated data were also presented using

graphs regarding hours spent to accomplish the course module, date of submission, and obtained

scores, but results mostly depict the null hypothesis (Memon et al., 2020). Generally, the study

aims to counter procrastination, and enhance online academic performance, despite the challenges

of COVID-19 (Memon et al., 2020).

Conclusion of Review of Related Literature

The purpose of this review is to view the trends in gadget use and their underlying

consequences. It also covers procrastination behavior within decades of studies. There is an

emphasis on concepts upon the correlation and connectivity of these two variables. However,

information amid the coronavirus pandemic is scarce on gadget dependency and academic

procrastination. Research data with local participants can give another concept, for various

investigations have shown their unique findings.

 Chapter 3

Research Methodology

This section focused on the design and procedures needed to conduct the study based on

the research objectives. Also, it implied the identification, discussion, and justification of each

part that is essential to have an in-depth understanding of how to gather data before conveying the

results and discussion. This chapter comprised the following: research design, respondents of the

study, sampling technique, research instrument, data gathering procedure, data analysis, and

ethical considerations.

Research Design

This study aims to determine the relationship between the degree of gadget dependency

and academic procrastination levels of Grade 12 STEM students of Bacolod City National High

School. The study also aims to describe the variables according to sex, learning modality, and

time spent on gadgets. Hence, the most appropriate design is the descriptive correlational research

design in collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data.

Correlational studies seek to determine whether there are variations in the characteristics

of a population (Lau, 2017). However, it depends if there is an occurrence of interest in a

naturalistic environment (Lau, 2017). This type of research design aims to evaluate the

relationship among variables, and with the obtained knowledge, we can make predictions for

cases in the future (Stangor & Walinga, 2019). Unlike the experimental research design, there is

no manipulation of variables (Stangor & Walinga, 2019). Specifically, descriptive correlational

design assesses the naturally occurring relationship between variables and describes them

simultaneously (Sousa et al., 2007).

The degree of gadget dependency will indicate whether the academic procrastination of

the grade 12 STEM students of Bacolod City National High School will increase as the former

increases throughout the new classroom settings in the school year 2020-2021.

Respondents of the Study

In gathering pertinent data for the study, grade 12 students of Bacolod City National High

School enrolled in S.Y. 2020-2021 were taken as respondents with a total population of 127 of

Remote Online Classes (ROC) and Remote Offline Digital Mode (RODM) students, excluding

the researchers of the current study.

In determining the sample size, the researchers used Yamane's formula, with the help of a

sample size calculator by Raosoft, Inc. (www.raosoft.com), and obtained a value of 96. To

estimate sample sizes, Yamane presented a simplified formula, and it mainly applies to

categorical variables (Assefa & Cheru, 2018; Israel, 2012). Rigidly, it assumes a population

proportion of 0.5 with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5% (Adam, 2020;

Assefa & Cheru, 2018; Israel, 1992). Then, stratified sampling was applied.

Table 1 includes the following: the total population of Remote Online Class (ROC) and

Remote Offline Digital Mode (RODM) grade 12 STEM, the percentage of students in each

learning modality, and the sample size of students in each stratum.

Table 1. Distribution of Grade 12 STEM Respondents from Each Learning Modality in

Bacolod City National High School.

Learning Modality Population Size Percentage Sample Size Per

Subgroups
 ROC 42 39% 32

RODM 84 61% 64

Total 126 100% 96

Sampling Technique

This investigation utilized a stratified random sampling technique after using Slovin's

formula in getting the sample size. The research asked students from grade 12 Science

Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) from 4 sections under different learning

modalities to participate as respondents while identifying each learning modality as a stratum.

Afterward, random selection from these strata used simple random sampling with the help of a

statistical applet (digitalfirst.bfwpub.com) to represent the learning modality to which a student

respondent belongs.

Furthermore, stratified random sampling is a type of probability sampling or random

sampling technique which implies that every member of the target population in the sampling

frame has an equal chance to be part of the sample (Acharya et al., 2013; Taherdoost, 2016).

Specifically, in stratified sampling, a random sample is taken after dividing the population into

subgroups or strata. While aiming to well-represent each stratum, subdivisions usually base on

variables such as occupation, sex, and age (Acharya et al., 2013; Taherdoost, 2016).

The chosen approach is more precise and has lesser sampling errors than simple random

sampling. Stratified sampling also decreases variability, and each stratum can be evaluated and

compared (Acharya et al., 2013). Hence, in this study, with the aid of a stratified sample

technique, the Grade 12 STEM students were stratified according to their learning modality and

obtained a learning modality-wise level of gadget dependency and academic procrastination.

Research Instrument

In data gathering, the researchers need to determine the profile of the respondents. This

section includes sex, learning modality only between ROC and RODM, and time spent on

gadgets with the following choices: less than 2 hours, 2-4 hours, 4-6 hours, and more than 6

hours, which is necessary for the objectives of the study. However, other information was asked,

such as email address, name, address, and the section name. Then, the researchers adopted two

data-gathering instruments. The first instrument is for technological gadget dependency adopted

from the study of Subba Revathi, Sushil Nair, and Anitha Achuthan (2020). The other is the

Academic Procrastination Scale developed by Justin McCloskey and Shannon Scielzo (2015)

(McCloskey, 2011).

The data-gathering tool on the dependency on technological gadgets and services is a

questionnaire composed of 10 items that use a Likert scale, with 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=

Disagree, 3= Can't Say, 4= Agree, and 5= Strongly Agree (Revathi et al., 2020; Muduli, 2014).

Academic Procrastination Scale (APS) is also a questionnaire, and it comprises 25 items

assessing the habits and routines of students (McCloskey, 2011; McCloskey & Scielzo, 2015).

The later research instrument was also structured in the Likert-type scale, on a 5-point scale, with

1= Disagree and 5 = Agree, with numbers 1, 8, 12, 14, 25 reverse-scored (McCloskey, 2011;

McCloskey & Scielzo, 2015). Subjects received instructions to respond to their degree of

agreement with the statements in the instruments.

The two data-gathering research instruments have set valid and reliable constructs at

eliciting relevant information concerning the degree of gadget dependency and academic

procrastination levels, as previous studies have used them, and which researchers had measured

reliability in a local setting. The research instruments used can gather data suitable for and
relevant to the research topic. It was utilized for hypothesis testing and answering the research

aims, objectives, and proposed research questions under investigation.

Validity of the Instrument

Validity is a concept measured accurately in a study (Heale & Twycross, 2015). It is also

concerned about the connection of the instruments with the study's purposes and research

questions (Hancock et al., 2010). This study utilized two research instruments, and the

researchers sought approval for adopting and using research instruments from the authors.

First, for determining the degree of gadget dependency of grade 12 STEM students, the

researchers used the pre-tested and standardized questionnaire modified by Subba Revathi, Sushil

Nair, and Anitha Achuthan (2020) and is in a previous study titled "Addiction to Technological

Gadgets and Its Impact on Health and Lifestyle: A Study on College Students " by Jyoti Ranjan

Mudul (2014). Hence, the use of the research instrument of the said study is scarce (Muduli,

2014; Revathi et al., 2020; K. S. Revathi, personal communication, February 21, 2021).

Second, the researchers employed the Academic Procrastination Scale (APS) developed

and validated by Justin McCloskey and Shannon Scielzo (2015). The APS is in several studies

like "At long last, a Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Explanation of Procrastination" by Bennet

and Bacon (2019), "Grit, Self-Regulation, and Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Academic

Procrastination among Nursing Students" by Attia and Abdelwahid and Armajeet Kaur Sandhu

(2020), and "The Relationship between Academic Procrastination and Academic Performance of

Freshmen Students from a Teacher Education Institution" by John Mark R. Asio (2020).

Reliability of the Instrument

 In answering surveys, a participant should have consistent results, and reliability

measures this property (Heale & Twycross, 2015; Shuttleworth, 2009). Hence, assessment of

reliability can be through the following attributes: equivalence, stability, and homogeneity (Heale

& Twycross, 2015). This study used Cronbach's alpha, which usually measures multiple Likert

scale questionnaires' internal consistency or the degree to which all the scale's components

measure one construct (Heale & Twycross, 2015; Lund Research Ltd, 2018; Shuttleworth, 2009).

Thus, before employing the survey to the target population, the researchers administered

the research instruments to a similar population with at least 30 participants. The researchers

chose 30 respondents from the STEM strand of Grade 12 students from Sum-ag National High

School, wherein their scores were not part of the study. Instead, their data was only for

calculating the reliability of survey tools, and in using Cronbach's alpha with results ranging from

0 to 1, the accepted score was from 0.7 to (Heale & Twycross, 2015; Shuttleworth, 2009).

There are two Likert-type scales in this study from studies using sample populations from

abroad, the dependency on electronic gadgets and services from India and the Academic

Procrastination Scale from America (McCloskey, 2011; Revathi et al., 2020). Using Google

Sheets, both instruments acquired acceptable and highly reliable scores with 0.909 for assessing

gadget dependency and 0.891 for academic procrastination.

Data Gathering Procedure

In this research investigation, the researchers practiced adherence to authorities and

research ethics. Before going through the survey, the researchers underwent the necessary steps

such as testing validity and reliability for research instruments and preparing informed consents

to whom it may concern.

For validity, consent for using standardized survey tools was prepared and sent to the

developers of gadget dependency and academic procrastination scales. For reliability, the
researchers surveyed at least 30 students from the STEM strand of Sum-ag National High School,

and their data was only for measuring the reliability of research instruments. After receiving

approval, the researchers prepared letters of permission for conducting this study and authorities,

such as the Senior High School Principal and Grade 12 STEM advisor. Researchers also asked

for the list of students. Specifications for the sampling frame of the target population and each

stratum helped in determining the sample size.

After obtaining the sample size and random selection in each stratum, the researchers

invited chosen students through their adviser in their group chats through a common online

platform such as Messenger to receive the survey link and partake in the study. After

confirmation from the consent forms, researchers allowed those who do not wish to join and

asked another set of students to fill in their place. Researchers sent survey forms online using

Google Forms with a five-day timeframe in answering. Participants received the link forwarded

in their Messenger group chats, with simplified instructions.

Respondents were given questionnaires with three sections as follows: the demographic

profile, but names are optional; measurement for the degree of gadget dependency; and level of

academic procrastination scales. Responses automatically registered in the Google Classroom,

and immediate encoding of the results in google sheets insured. The answers were categorized

with frequency and percentage and statistically analyzed. Afterwhich, the tabulation of the mean

and standard deviation was derived. The research objectives were the basis of discussion,

summary of findings, and conclusions in the latter part.

Data Analysis

Applying parametric tests is appropriate for analyzing the results. The parametric test

presumes that the evaluated variable or data population is ideally in a normal distribution, that
sample data from separate groups have equal variances (Sedgwick, 2015; Turner et al., 2020). To

appropriately analyze the data to be gathered, the study used the following statistical tools.

For objective 1, which aims to determine the respondent profiles in terms of the

following variables: sex, learning modality, and time spent on gadgets, the study used the

frequency and percentage. The frequency distribution is the first step in evaluating survey data, as

it is fundamental for statistical analytical methods (Lavrakas, 2011). It aids in tabulating,

summarizing, and analyzing survey data obtained from data collection, such as detecting extreme

values or outliers (Lavrakas, 2011). On the other hand, besides being especially useful when

making comparisons, the percentage comes in handy for studying a difference compared with a

benchmark or initial value (Government of Singapore, 2021).

For objective 2, which aims to determine the degree of gadget dependency of grade 12

STEM students, the study used the mean and the standard deviation. The mean is the most

common value in a set of numbers, also referred to as an expected value, and data is usually

collected to make generalizations (Corporate finance institute, n.d.). Heedless of the distribution,

the standard deviation is a reliable indicator of variability. (Altman & Bland, 2005; Choi &

Wong, 2016).

For objective 3, which aims to determine the academic procrastination levels of grade 12

STEM students, the study used the mean and the standard deviation. The mean of the whole

population matters more than the unit used to represent it, but the mean of the sample estimates it

(Altman & Bland, 2005; Corporate finance institute, n.d.; Donner & Zou, 2010). When we

calculate the sample's standard deviation, we use it to estimate the population variability (Altman

& Bland, 2005; Donner & Zou, 2010).

For objective 4, which aims to determine the significant difference in the degree of

gadget dependency of grade 12 STEM students when grouped according to the previously
mentioned variables, the study used the Independent Samples t-Test and the One-way ANOVA

(Analysis of Variance). Under the null hypothesis, the t-test assumes that the two samples arise

from the same normally distributed population with unknown variance (Rochon et al., 2012).

ANOVA is used to examine whether the interest group has the same mean value by comparing

the variation between groups relative to the deviation within groups (Fleming & Zegwaard, 2018;

Pandis, 2015).

For objective 5, which aims to determine the significant difference in the academic

procrastination levels of grade 12 STEM students when grouped according to the previously

mentioned variables, the study used the Independent Samples t-Test and the One-way ANOVA

(Analysis of Variance). The Independent Samples t-Test, in particular, compares the means of

two independent groups to determine whether there is statistical evidence that the associated

population means are significantly different (Kent State University, 2021).

Specifically, one-way ANOVA determines whether a mean difference within the

variance of 3 or more groups exists. Since conclusions derived from ANOVA have limitations, it

recommends a post hoc test (Kim, 2017). When the rejection of the null hypothesis occurs, the

alternative position will only provide a statement that there might be a difference in at least two

paired means of all the given groups. This case entails a complication on the reliability of the

statistical tool, so a post hoc test is needed by making comparisons with different pairings of the

group (Kim, 2017).

For objective 6, which aims to determine the significant relationship between the gadget

dependency and procrastination levels of grade 12 STEM students, the study used Pearson's r. In

statistics, Pearson's r is for measuring the strength of the relationship of two variables. It explains

how close objects link to each other and the course of relationships. Two assumptions in

calculating Pearson's r are the data is in normal distribution and at the minimum interval level
(Magiya, 2019). It measures the linear relation between two continuous random variables with

data following a normal distribution (Rovetta, 2020).

Ethical Considerations

With human participants, humane considerations are fundamental, such as complying

with ethical expectations, informed consent, managing conflict of interests, avoiding the risk of

harm, keeping anonymity and confidentiality (Fleming & Zegwaard, 2018). Hence, the

researchers employed the following core principles in the Belmont Report: respect for persons,

beneficence, and justice (Brothers et al., 2019).

Social value. The present study is of great significance to assess the behavior of students

in the new setting. It is in line with the issue regarding the ongoing predicament of the unstable

educational system brought by the pandemic. The findings of the study will be relevant and

responsive to the problem that students face. Before conducting the survey, researchers prepared

consent forms from school authorities and students from the target population and parent's

permits for minors.

Vulnerability of the Research Participants. Before conducting the survey, researchers

prepared consent forms from school authorities and students from the target population and

parent's permits from minors. Sending the surveys using google forms helped protect the

participants from the coronavirus, and the content of the id survey only asked appropriate

questions for the study that did not bring harm to any student. The subjects were aware of the

survey items, and they were competent or had the capability to give their consent. The

respondents were not under any form of coercion regarding their approval, so they participated

voluntarily.

Privacy and Confidentiality. The information gathered from the participants was kept in

confidentiality and was destroyed after finishing the investigation as adherence to the Data
Privacy Act of 2012. Each profile was kept anonymous as forcing them to provide their private

data is prohibited.

Transparency. All methods in the present study were followed accurately and effectively

by the researchers, including ethical considerations. Concerning the developers of the research

instrument tools essential to this study and to avoid plagiarism, the researchers sought their

approval by sending them a letter to the email address they provided in their papers. The

participants received full disclosure of the details of the present study. The researchers addressed

any relevant questions and issues of the research participants. Lastly, the present study committed

and observed objectiveness and unbiasedness throughout the investigation.

Chapter 4

Mean Interpretation

4.21 to 5.00 Very high degree

3.41 to 4.20 High degree

2.61 to 3.40 Moderate degree

1.81 to 2.60 Low degree

1.00 to 1.80 Very low degree

Mean Interpretation

4.21 to 5.00 Very high level

3.41 to 4.20 High level

2.61 to 3.40 Moderate level

1.81 to 2.60 Low level

1.00 to 1.80 Very low level

 References

Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamd, N. G. (2015, February 15). The Prevalence, Predictors,

Causes, Treatment, and Implications of Procrastination Behaviors in General, Academic,

and Work Setting. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 7(1). CiteSeerX.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v7n1p59

Abramowski, A. (2018). Is procrastination all that “bad”? A qualitative study of

academic procrastination and self-worth in postgraduate university students. Journal of

prevention & intervention in the community, 46(2), 158-170. Taylor Francis Online.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2016.1198168

Acharya, A. S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P., & Nigam, A. (2013, December). Sampling: Why

and how of it. Indian Journal of Medical Specialties, 4(2), 330-333. ResearchGate.

http://dx.doi.org/10.7713/ijms.2013.0032

Adam, A. M. (2020, June 25). Sample size determination in survey research. Journal of

Scientific Research and Reports, 26(5), 90-97. Journal of Scientific Research and

Reports. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2020/v26i530263

Agnihotri, L., Baker, R. S., & Stalzer, S. (2020, June). A Procrastination Index for

Online Learning Based on Assignment Start Time [Conference: The 13th International

Conference on Educational Data Mining]. ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342815309_A_Procrastination_Index_for_Onli

ne_Learning_Based_on_Assignment_Start_Time

Aldimasi, H. H., Miqdady, A. M., Elsori, D., & Nazir, A. (2018). Impact of Gadget on

Children's Development (Vol. 5, Issue 2). IAMR Group. https://bt.iamr.ac.in/wp-

content/uploads/2019/11/Impact-of-Gadgets-on-Childrens-Development.pdf
Altman, D. G., & Bland, M. (2005, October 13). Standard deviations and standard errors.

BMJ, 331(7521), 903. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7521.903

Ancheta, R. F., & Ancheta, H. B. (2020). THE NEW NORMAL IN EDUCATION: A

CHALLENGE TO THE PRIVATE BASIC EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN THE

PHILIPPINES? International Journal of Educational Management and Development

Studies, 1(1). IIARI. https://iiari.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The-New-Normal-in-

Education-1.pdf

Asio, J. M. (2020). The Relationship between Academic Procrastination and Academic

Performance of Freshmen Students from a Teacher Education Institution. Journal of

Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 105-115. Elsevier.

https://doi.org/10.36079/lamintang.jhass-0203.156

Assefa, M., & Cheru, E. (2018). Factors affecting the growth of women entrepreneurs in

micro and small enterprises in Ethiopia. Abyssinia Journal of Business and Social

Sciences, 3(1), 32-38. Abyssinia Journal of Business and Social Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.20372/ajbs.2018.3.1.158

Attia, N. M., & Abdelwahid, A. E.-E. A. (2020, March). Grit, Self-regulation and self-

efficacy as predictors of academic procrastination among nursing students. International

Journal of Nursing Education, 12(1), 130-142. International Journal of Nursing

Education. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-9357.2020.00029.X

Balkis, M. (2013, March). Academic procrastination, academic life satisfaction and

academic achievement: The mediation role of rational beliefs about studying. Journal of

Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 13(1), 57-74. ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Murat-Balkis-2/publication/236173872_Academic_

procrastination_academic_life_satisfaction_and_academic_achievement_The_mediation_

role_of_rational_beliefs_about_studying/links/0c960533a98186b6b9000000/Academic-

procrastina
Balkis, M., & Duru, E. (2017, April). Gender Differences in the Relationship between

Academic Procrastination, Satifaction with Academic Life and Academic Performance.

Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 15(1), 105-125. Redalyc.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.41.16042

Beng, J. T., Tiatri, S., Lusiana, F., & Wangi, V. H. (2020, December 12). Intensity of

Gadgets Usage for Achieving Prime Social and Cognitive Health of Adolescents During

the COVID-19 Pandemic. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities

Research, 478, 735-741. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201209.116

Bennett, C., & Bacon, A. M. (2019). At long last–A reinforcement sensitivity theory

explanation of procrastination. Journal of Individual Differences, 40(4), 234-241.

American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000296

Bhattacharyya, R. (2017, March 15). Addiction to modern gadgets and technologies

across generations. Eastern Journal of Psychiatry, 18(2), 27-37. Eastern Journal of

Psychiatry. http://easternjpsychiatry.org/index.php/about/article/view/42

Breig, Z., Gibson, M., & Shrader, J. G. (2020, August 27). Why do we procrastinate?

present bias and optimism. Present Bias and Optimism. SSRN. Breig, Zachary and

Gibson, Matthew and Shrader, Jeffrey, Why Do We Procrastinate? Present Bias and

Optimism (August 27, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3445511 or

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3445511

Brothers, K. B., Rivera, S. M., Cadigan, R. J., Sharp, R. R., & Goldenberg, A. J. (2019).

A Belmont Reboot: Building a Normative Foundation for Human Research in the 21st

Century. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 47(1), 165-172. SAGE Journals.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519840497 ·

Carey, K. (2020, March 13). Everybody ready for the big migration to online college?

Actually, No. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/upshot/coronavirus-online-college-classes-

unprepared.html

CFI Education Inc. (2015). Mean. Corporate Finance Institute.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/mean/#:~:text=The

%20mean%20is%20the%20average,to%20as%20an%20expected%20value.

Chasanah, A. M., & Kilis, G. (2018, July). Adolescents' gadget addiction and family

functioning. In Universitas Indonesia International Psychology Symposium for

Undergraduate Research (UIPSUR 2017). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/uipsur-

17.2018.52

Cheval, B., Sivaramakrishnan, H., Maltagliati, S., Fessler, L., Forestier,, C., Sarrazin, P.,

Orsholits, D., Chalabaev, A., Sander, D., Ntoumanis, N., & Boisgontier, M. P. (2020,

October 29). Relationships between changes in self-reported physical activity, sedentary

behaviour and health during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in France and

Switzerland. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(6), 1-6. SHAPE America.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1841396

Choi, S., & Wong, G. (2016, June 14). It's just a standard deviation! Anaesthesia, 71(8),

969-971. Online Wiley Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13565

Chu, A. H., & Choi, J. N. (2005, July). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of

“active” procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 145(3), 245-264. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.3.245-

264

Coombs, A. (2017, May). An exploration of personal literacy, imagination and creativity

through traditional and non-traditional Master of Education courses [Major Research

Paper]. TSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/94009

Corporate finance institute. (n.d.). What is Mean? CFI.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/mean/#:~:text=The

%20mean%20is%20the%20average,to%20as%20an%20expected%20value.

DepEd. (2020a, July 24). DepEd provides psychosocial support service for parents,

teachers, and non-teaching personnel. GOVPH.

https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/07/30/deped-provides-psychosocial-support-service-for-

parents-teachers-and-non-teaching-personnel/

DepEd. (2020b, August 14). Official Statement on the Opening of Classes. GOVPH.

https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/08/14/official-statement-on-the-opening-of-classes/

DepEd CAR. (2020). Enclosures. Republic of the Philippines Department of Education-

Cordillera Adiministrative Region.

https://www.depedcar.ph/sites/default/files/regionalMemos/long-memo_1.pdf

Dhawan, S. (2020, June 20). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis.

Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22. SAGE Journals.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018

Donner, A., & Zou, G. Y. (2010, September 8). Closed-form confidence intervals for

functions of the normal mean and standard deviation. Statistical Methods in Medical

Research, 21(4), 345-479. SAGE Journals. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280210383082

Dunn, K., & Rakes, G. C. (2010). The Impact of Online Graduate Students’ Motivation

and Self-Regulation on Academic Procrastination. Journal of Interactive Online

Learning, 9(1), 78-93. CiteSeerX. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.1069.9851&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Fadzil, N. M., Abdullah, M. Y., & Salleh, M. A. M. (2016). The level of tolerance

sanctioning children using gadgets by parents lead to nomophobia: early age gadgets

exposure. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 9(2), 615-622. ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312044965_THE_LEVEL_OF_TOLERANCE
_SANCTIONING_CHILDREN_USING_GADGETS_BY_PARENTS_LEAD_TO_NO

MOPHOBIA_EARLY_AGE_GADGETS_EXPOSURE

Fleming, J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2018). Methodologies, Methods and Ethical

Considerations for Conducting Research in Work-Integrated Learning. International

Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 205-213.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1196755.pdf

Fleming, J., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2018). Methodologies, Methods and Ethical

Considerations for Conducting Research in Work-Integrated Learning. International

Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(3), 205-213. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?

id=EJ1196755

Frahasini, Astuti, T. M. P., & Atmaja, H. T. (2018, December). The Impact of The Use of

Gadgets in School of School Age Towards Children's Social Behavior in Semata Village.

Journal of Educational Social Studies, 7(2), 161-168. UNNES JOURNAL.

https://doi.org/10.15294 /jess.v7i2.26842

Ganganahalli, P., Tondare,, M. B., & Durgawale, P.M. (2014, October). Use of

Electronic Gadgets among Medical Students in Western Maharashtra, India.

International Journal of Health Sciences and Research, 4(9), 27. ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Praveen-Ganganahalli/publication/

308169718_Use_of_Electronic_Gadgets_among_Medical_Students_in_Western_Mahara

shtra_India/links/57dbfa3e08ae72d72ea67ef3/Use-of-Electronic-Gadgets-among-

Medical-Students-in-Western-Mahara

Geng, J., Han, L., Gao, F., Jou, M., & Huang, C. C. (2018, July). Internet addiction and

procrastination among Chinese young adults: A moderated mediation model. Computers

in Human Behavior, 84, 320-333. ScienceDirect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.013
Gholamali, M. L., Azarniad, A., MehmanPazir, P., & Rezaian, H. (2013). The Role of

Academic Self-efficacy and Some Aspects of Academic Procrastination on Prediction of

the Levels of Dependency on Internet. Global Media Journal, 8(2). Global Media

Journal. https://gmj.ut.ac.ir/article_66495.html?lang=en

Gilleard, C. (2017). The place of age in the digital revolution. In Digital Technologies

and Generational Identity: ICT Usage Across the Life Course. Digital Technologies and

Generational Identity. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315398624-2

Government of Singapore. (2021, March 19). Percentages: A Measure Enabling

Comparison. Ministry of Manpower. https://stats.mom.gov.sg/SL/Pages/Percentages-

Concepts-and-Definitions.aspx

Gupta, N., Krishnamurthy, V., Majhi, J., & Gupta, S. (2013, December). Gadget

Dependency among Medical College Students in Delhi. Indian Journal of Community

Health, 25(4), 362-366. CiteSeerX. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.682.6175&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Hancock, G. R., Stapleton, L. M., & Mueller, R. O. (2010). The Reviewer’s Guide to

Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

https://books.google.com.ph/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=8zz3DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=pNeDR31PZE&sig=ayyWoDj

30sFwMW-_sxSI4W8Bcgg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=routlegde&f=false

Harrington, N. (2005, October). It’s too difficult! Frustration intolerance beliefs and

procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(5), 873-883. ScienceDirect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.018

He, S. (2017, October 13). A Multivariate Investigation into Academic Procrastination of

University Students. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5(10). Scientific Research

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.510002
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies.

Evidence-based nursing, 18(3), 66-67. ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280840011_Validity_and_reliability_in_quantit

ative_research

Hong, J.-C., Lee, Y.-F., & Ye, J.-H. (2021, May). Procrastination predicts online self-

regulated learning and online learning ineffectiveness during the coronavirus lockdown.

Personality and Individual Differences, 174. National Center for Biotechnology

Information. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110673

Irawan, A. W., Dwisona, D., & Lestari, M. (2020). Psychological impacts of students on

online learning during the pandemic COVID-19. KONSELI: Jurnal Bimbingan dan

Konseling (E-Journal), 7(1), 53-60. KONSELI: Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling (E-

Journal). https://doi.org/10.24042/kons.v7i1.6389

Israel, G. D. (2012). Determining sample size. Psycholosphere.

https://www.psycholosphere.com/Determining%20sample%20size%20by%20Glen

%20Israel.pdf

Janssen, J. (2015, May 15). Academic procrastination: Prévalence among high school

and undergraduate students and relationship to academic achievement. [Dissertation].

Scholar Works. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1115&context=epse_diss

Jena, P. K. (2020a, May). Online learning during lockdown period for covid-19 in India.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research, 9(5). International

Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/qu38b

Jena, P. K. (2020b, July 14). Impact of pandemic COVID-19 on education in India.

International Journal of Current Research (IJCR), 12(7), 12582-12586. ResearchGate.

https://doi.org/10.24941/ijcr.39209.07.2020
Kandemir, M. (2014, October 7). Reasons of Academic Procrastination: Self-regulation,

Academic Self-efficacy, Life Satisfaction and Demographics Variables. Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 188-193. ScienceDirect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.179

Kar, S. K., Arafat, S.M. Y., Sharma, P., Dixit, A., Marthoenis, M., & Kabirf, R. (2020,

April 10). COVID-19 pandemic and addiction: Current problems and future concerns.

Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51. National Center for Biotechnology Information.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102064

Kent State University. (2021, April 12). SPSS TUTORIALS: INDEPENDENT SAMPLES

T TEST. Kent State University.

https://libguides.library.kent.edu/spss/independentttest#:~:text=The%20Independent

%20Samples%20t%20Test%20compares%20the%20means%20of%20two,Independent

%20t%20Test

Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015, August). The relationship between procrastination and

academic performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 26-

33. ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038

Kim, S., Fernandez, S., & Terrier, L. (2017, April 1). Procrastination, personality traits,

and academic performance: When active and passive procrastination tell a different story.

Personality and Individual differences, 108, 154-157. ReseearchGate.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.021

Kim, T. K. (2017, January 26). Understanding one-way ANOVA using conceptual

figures. Korean journal of anesthesiology, 70(1), 22-26. Korean Journal of

Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2017.70.1.22

Király, O., Marc, P. N., Stein, D. J., King, D. L., Hodgins, D. C., Saunders, ,. J. B.,

Griffiths, M. D., Gjoneska, B., Billieux, J., Brand, M., Abbott, M. W., Chamberlain, S.

R., Corazza, O., Burkauskas, J., Sales, C. M.D., Montag, C., Lochner, C., Grünblatt, E.,
Wegmann, E., … Demetrovics, Z. (2020, July). Preventing problematic internet use

during the COVID-19 pandemic: Consensus guidance. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 100.

ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2020.152180

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008, October). Academic procrastination

of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of

procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 915-931. ScienceDirect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001

Klemens, G. (2014). The cellphone: The history and technology of the gadget that

changed the world. McFarland. https://books.google.com.ph/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=3WNnM7iZF_QC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+cellphone:

+The+history+and+technology+of+the+gadget+that+changed+the+world.&ots=JNF8egn

69N&sig=GZjtPFIBeye06canB_Q2SBCXbrw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The

%20cellphone%3A%20The%20h

Klingsieck, K. B. (2013). When Good Things Don’t Come to Those Who Wait.

European Psychologist, 18(1), 24-34. APA PsycNet.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000138

Kumar, A., & Sherkhane, M. (2018, July). Assessment of gadgets addiction and its

impact on health among undergraduates. International Journal of Community Medicine

And Public Health, 5(8), 3624-3628. ResearchGate. http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2394-

6040.ijcmph20183109.

Lau, F. (2017). Methods for correlational studies. University of Victoria.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481614/

Lavrakas, P. V. (2011). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Paul J. Lavrakas.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947.n195
Levy, Y., & Ramim, M. M. (2012). A Study of Online Exams Procrastination Using

Data Analytics Techniques (Vol. 8, Issue 1). CORE.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51072311.pdf

Liguori, E., & Winkler, C. (2020, October). From offline to online: Challenges and

opportunities for entrepreneurship education following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(4), 346-351. SAGE Journals.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420916738

Lim, J. M. (2016). Predicting successful completion using student delay indicators in

undergraduate self-paced online courses. Distance Education, 37(3), 317-332.

Taylor&Francis Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1233050

Lin, T. T. C., & Chiang, Y.-H. (2017, October 3). Investigating predictors of smartphone

dependency symptoms and effects on academic performance, improper phone use and

perceived sociability. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(6), 655-676.

ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2017.086881

Liu, P., & Feng, T. (2019, June 15). The effect of future time perspective on

procrastination: the role of parahippocampal gyrus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Brain Imaging and Behavior, 13, 615–622. Springer Link.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-018-9874-4

Luhmann, N. (2017). Trust and Power. John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/en-

us/Trust+and+Power-p-9781509519453

Lund Research Ltd. (2018). Cronbach's alpha using SPSS Statistics. Laerd Statistics.

https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/cronbachs-alpha-using-spss-statistics.php

Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. K. (2005). Social Cognitive Theory (M. Conner & P.

Norman, Eds.). In Predicting Health Behavior (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 225-251). Open

University Press.

https://iums.ac.ir/files/hshe-soh/files/predicting_Health_beh_avior(1).pdf
Magiya, J. (2019, May 27). Pearson Coefficient of Correlation Explained. Towards Data

Science. https://towardsdatascience.com/pearson-coefficient-of-correlation-explained-

369991d93404#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20the%20strength,association%20between

%20the%20two%20variables.&text=Usually%2C%20in%20statistics%2C%20we

%20measure,Pearson%20correlation

McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous

online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International review

of research in open and distributed learning, 10(3). International review of research in

open and distributed learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605

McCloskey, J., & Scielzo, S. A. (2015, January). Finally!: The Development and

Validation of the Academic Procrastination Scale [Under Review]. ResearchGate.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23164.64640

McCloskey, J. D. (2011). Finally, my thesis on academic procrastination. UTA

ResearchCommons.

https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-ir/bitstream/handle/10106/9538/McCloskey_uta_2502M_11

260.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y#:~:text=Academic%20procrastination%20occurs

%20when%20students,%2Dbeing%2C%20and%20more%20stress.&text=However%2C

%20the%20Tuckman%20(1991),sca

McLeod, S. (2018, August). Lev Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory. SimplyPsychology.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-vygotsky.pdf

Mears, D. (2010). Technology in Physical Education Article #6 in a 6-Part Series:

Physical Activity Monitoring: Gadgets and Uses. A Journal for Physical and Sports

Educators, 23(3), 28-31. Taylor & Francis Online. 10.1080/08924562.2010.10590874

Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Meltzer, C. E. (2016, November). “Facebocrastination”?

Predictors of using Facebook for procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being.
Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 65-76. ScienceDirect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011

Memon, M. M., Hashmani, M. A., Jameel, S. M., Junejo, S., & Raza, K. (2020). Analysis

of Student Procrastinatory Behavior in Virtual Learning Environments Using Machine

Learning. Journal of Hunan University Natural Sciences, 47(10). Journal of Hunan

University Natural Sciences. http://www.jonuns.com/index.php/journal/article/view/459

Meng, S., Dong, P., Sun, Y., Li, Y., Chang, i., Sun, G., Zheng, X., Sun, Y., Sun, Y.,

Yuan, K., Sun, H., Wang, Y., Zhao, M., Tao, R., Domingo, C., Bao, Y., Kosten, T. R.,

Lu, L., & Shi, J. (2020, November 20). Guidelines for prevention and treatment of

internet addiction in adolescents during home quarantine for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heart and Mind, 4(4). HM. https://www.heartmindjournal.org/article.asp?issn=2468-

6476;year=2020;volume=4;issue=4;spage=95;epage=99;aulast=Meng#ref21

Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011, January).

Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning environments.

Computers & Education, 56(1), 243-252. ScienceDirect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025

Moaje, M. (2020, August 19). Gadgets for distance learning are DepEd property: exec.

Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1112828

Molina, B. (2021, February 8). Kids and screen time: How parents can manage during

prolonged pandemic. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/02/08/kids-

screens-how-parents-can-manage-amid-pandemic/4403089001/

Montag, C., & Elhai, J. D. (2020, November 4). Discussing digital technology overuse in

children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: On the importance

of considering Affective Neuroscience Theory. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 12.

ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2020.100313
Morens, D. M., Daszak, P., Markel, H., & Taubenberger, J. K. (2020). Pandemic

COVID-19 Joins History’s Pandemic Legion. mBio. ASM Journals.

https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00812-20.

Muduli, J. R. (2014). Addiction to technological gadgets and its impact on health and

lifestyle: a study on college students (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Humanities

and Social Sciences National Institute of Technology, Rourkela - 769008 India.

http://ethesis.nitrkl.ac.in/5544/1/e-thesis_19.pdf

Nadeem, K., & Ahmed, N. (2020, July 23). Persistent Use of Gadgets and Internet in

Lockdown Endangers Childhood. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.13066, 2(3). Social

Science Research Network. https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?

ID=49710403102110608808110101612010100400304405703500202810909509909400

112408110210700702402600600702406111411506712101706802002204906109003908

101410412308307511210107100701805411108108509911209909512400009908812300

Nakel, M., & Naval, S. (2017, May). Study of impact and dependency of electronic

gadgets on health & life style of students-A comparative study among youth population

in MGM Campus, Aurangabad. International Journal of Scientific Research, 6(5).

Semantic Scholar. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v6i5/ART20173757.pdf

Nikhita, C. S., Jadhav, P. R., & Ajinkya, S. A. (2015, November). Prevalence of mobile

phone dependence in secondary school adolescents. Journal of clinical and diagnostic

research: JCDR, 9(11). National Center for Biotechnology Information - PMC.

https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/14396.6803

Nirwana, N., Mappapoleonro, A. M., & Chairunnisa, C. (2018, November 23). The

Effect of Gadget Toward Early Childhood Speaking Ability. Indonesian Journal of Early

Childhood Education Studies, 7(2), 85-90. UNNES JOURNAL.

https://doi.org/10.15294/IJECES.V7I2.28548
Novianti, R. (2020, October 25). Discussing the danger of gadget addiction and how to

overcome through lecturer community service. UNAIR News.

http://news.unair.ac.id/en/2020/10/25/discussing-the-danger-of-gadget-addiction-and-

how-to-overcome-through-lecturer-community-service/

Othman, N., Khairuz, M., & Sumaiyah Jamaludin, T. S. (2020, January 14). The Impact

of Electronic Gadget Uses with Academic Performance among Secondary School

Students. Practique Clinique et Investigation, 2(2), 56-60. ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338791252_The_Impact_of_Electronic_Gadget

_Uses_with_Academic_Performance_among_Secondary_School_Students

Pandis, N. (2015, November 1). Analysis of variance. American journal of orthodontics

and dentofacial orthopedics, 148(5), 868-869. American Journal of Orthodontics and

Dentofacial Orthopedics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.08.009

Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student preparedness for university e-

learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 1-10. ResearchGate.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.002

Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of influence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27(2), 37-62.

Oxford Academic Journals. https://doi.org/10.1086/267148

Przepiorka, A., Błachnio, A., & Díaz-Morales, u. F. (2016, December). Problematic

Facebook use and procrastination. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 59-64.

ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.022

Pychyl, T. A., & Sirois, F. M. (2016). Chapter 8 - Procrastination, Emotion Regulation,

and Well-Being. Procrastination, Health, and Well-Being, 163-188. ScienceDirect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802862-9.00008-6

Ranjan, B., Malay, G., Kaustav, C., & Kumar, M. S. (2016, July). Gadget addiction,

Technostress & Internet addiction: Upcoming challenges. Bengal Journal of Private

Psychiatry. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307512740_Gadget_addiction_Technostress_In

ternet_addiction_Upcoming_challenges

Rashid, J. A., Aziz, A. A., Rahman, A. A., Saaid, S. A., & Ahmad, Z. (2020). The

Influence of Mobile Phone Addiction on Academic Performance Among Teenagers.

Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36(3), 420. UKM e-Journal System.

https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2020-3603-25

Rawal, U. D. (2020, June 16). Gadget addiction among children during lockdown a cause

of concern: Study. Hindustan Times.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/gadget-addiction-among-children-during-

lockdown-a-cause-of-concern-study/story-2Y2HmdPNnEVtZC6NBJWdzN.html

Revathi, S., Nair, S., & Achuthan, A. (2020, January 8). Influence of technological

gadgets on health and lifestyle of medico. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and

Pharmacology, 10(3), 201-205. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and

Pharmacology. http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/njppp.2020.10.12377201908012020

Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., & Broadbent, E. (2014). The role of healthcare robots for

older people at home: A review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(4), 575-591.

Springer Link. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0242-2

Rochon, J., Gondan, M., & Keiser, M. (2012, June 19). To test or not to test: Preliminary

assessment of normality when comparing two independent samples. BMC medical

research methodology, 81, 1-11. BMC (Springer Nature). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-

2288-12-81

Rogers, Y., Paay, J., Brereton, M., Vaisutis, K., Marsden, G., & Vetere, F. (2014, April).

Never Too Old: Engaging Retired People Inventing the Future with MaKey MaKey.

ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557184.

Rosário, P., Costa, M., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J., Solano, P., & Valle, A. (2013,

January 10). Academic Procrastination: Associations with Personal, School, and Family
Variables. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 118-127. Cambridge University

Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600001530

Rothblum, E. D., Solomon, L. J., & Murakami, J. (1986). Affective, cognitive, and

behavioral differences between high and low procrastinators. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 33(4), 387–394. APA PsycNet. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.33.4.387

Rovetta, A. (2020, November 30). Raiders of the Lost Correlation: A Guide on Using

Pearson and Spearman Coefficients to Detect Hidden Correlations in Medical Sciences.

Cureus, 12(11). National Center for Biotechnology Information.

https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.11794

Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Procrastination in Academic Settings: General

Introduction. In Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings. American

Psychological Association, -(-), 3-17. American Psychological Association.

https://doi.org/10.1037/10808-001

Sedgwick, P. (2015, April 17). A comparison of parametric and non-parametric

statistical tests. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2053

Senécal, C., Julien, E., & Guay, F. (2003, February). Role conflict and academic

procrastination: A self‐determination perspective. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 33(1), 135-145. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.144

The Sex and Gender Sensitive Research Call to Action Group, Wainer, Z., & Carcel, C.

(2019, November 24). Sex and gender in health research: updating policy to reflect

evidence. The Medical Journal of Australia, 212(2), 57–62. Online Wiley Library.

https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50426

Shandler, R. (2020, July 13). The pandemic shows we depend on the Internet. So is

Internet access a human right? The Washinton Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/pandemic-shows-we-depend-

internet-so-is-internet-access-human-right/
Shuttleworth, M. (2009, April 26). Internal Consistency Reliability. Explorable.

https://explorable.com/internal-consistency-reliability

Simanek, D. E. (2017). On Being a Student. Donald Simanek's Pages.

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/goodstud.htm

Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019, October 1). How many ways can we define online

learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018).

American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289-306. Taylor Francis Online.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082

Siste, K., Hanafi, E., Sen, L. T., Christian, H., Adrian, Siswidiani, L. P., Limawan, A. P.,

Murtani, B. J., & Suwartono, C. (2020, September 3). The Impact of Physical Distancing

and Associated Factors Towards Internet Addiction Among Adults in Indonesia During

COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Web-Based Study. Frontiers in Psychiatry |, 11.

ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.580977

Sokolowska, J. (2009). Behavioral, cognitive, affective, and motivational dimensions of

academic procrastination among community college students: AQ methodology

approach. TD Collection for Fordham University. Fordham University Research

Commons. https://research.library.fordham.edu/dissertations/AAI3361366

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and

cognitive-behavioral correlates. Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-

behavioral correlates., 31(4), 503–509. APA PsycNet. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

0167.31.4.503

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning:

Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher

Education, 7(1), 59-70. The Learning and Technology Library.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
Sousa, V. D., Driessnack, M., & Mendes, I. A. C. (2007, June). An overview of research

designs relevant to nursing: Part 1: quantitative research designs. Rev Lat Am

Enfermagem, 15(3), 502-507. National Center for Biotechnology Information.

https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692007000300022

Stangor, C., & Walinga, J. (2019). Psychologists Use Descriptive, Correlational, and

Experimental Research Designs to Understand Behaviour. In Introduction to Psychology

(1st Canadian Edition ed.).

Steel, P. (2007). The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review

of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. AU

Studypedia. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

Steel, P. (2010, June). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do they exist?

Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8). CiteSeerX.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.025

Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2013). Sex, Education and Procrastination: An Epidemiological

Study of Procrastinators’ Characteristics from A Global Sample. European Journal of

Personality, 27(1). SAGE Journals. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1851

Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2016, January 20). Academic Procrastination:

Psychological Antecedents Revisited. Australian Psychologist, 51(1), 36-46. Online

Wiley Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12173

Sun, Y., Li, Y., Bao, Y., Meng, S., Sun, Y., Schumann, G., Kosten, T., Strang, J., Lu, L.,

& Shi, J. (2020, June 4). Brief Report: Increased Addictive Internet and Substance Use

Behavior During the COVID‐19 Pandemic in China. The American Journal on

Addictions,, 29(4). Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.13066

Suvarna, P. (2020, April 18). Gadget addiction among children during lockdown a cause

of concern. Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/insight/gadget-

addiction-among-children-during-lockdown-a-cause-of-concern-827087.html
Svartdal, F., Granmo, S., & Færevaag, F. S. (2018, May 16). On the Behavioral Side of

Procrastination: Exploring Behavioral Delay in Real-Life Settings. Frontiers in

Psychology. Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00746

Svartdal, F., Klingsieck, K. B., Steel, P., & Gamst-Klaussen, T. (2020, April 1).

Measuring implemental delay in procrastination: Separating onset and sustained goal

striving. Personality and Individual Differences, 156. ScienceDirect.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109762

Swathi, B., & Chanti, Y. (2020, August). REVIEW ON SIMPLIFYING IOT THE

USAGE OF NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATION (NFC) IN DIGITAL GADGET.

Journal of Mechanics of Continua and Mathematical Sciences, 15(8), 464-472.

ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.26782/jmcms.2020.08.00042

Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology; how to choose a

sampling technique for research. How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research.

International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 5(2), 18-27.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035

Tomei, L. A. (2017). The (Revised List of) Top 10 Technologies for 21st Century

Instruction. In Exploring the New Era of Technology-Infused Education (Vol. 9, Issue 3,

pp. 1-19). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1709-2.ch001

Turner, R., Samaranayaka, A., & Cameron, C. (2020, April). Parametric vs

nonparametric statistical methods: which is better, and why? (Issue 30). Scholastica.

https://nzmsj.scholasticahq.com/article/12577-parametric-vs-nonparametric-statistical-

methods-which-is-better-and-why

Uzun, A. M., Unal, E., & Tokel, S. T. (2014, April). Exploring Internet Addiction,

Academic Procrastination and General Procrastination among Pre-Service ICT Teachers.

Mevlana International Journal of Education, 4(1), 189-201. ResearchGate.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13054/mije.14.18.4.1.
Vimal, J. (2020). Relationship with Electronic Gadgets: How much is enough?. Mukt

Shabd Journal, 9(10), 536-540. http://shabdbooks.com/gallery/57-oct2020.pdf

Watson, D. C. (2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A facet level analysis.

Personality and individual differences, 30(1), 149-158. APA PsycNet.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00019-2

Webb, R. E., & Rosenbaum, P. J. (2019). The varieties of procrastination: with different

existential positions different reasons for it. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral

Science, 53(3), 525-540. National Center for Biotechnology Information.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9467-1

Wibowo, D. C., Fitriani, D. W., Kimresti, A. F., Ahkami, A., Nastiti, I. S., Auliani, S. D.,

& Raharjo, P. (2020). DESCRIPTION OF GADGET ADDICTION, SLEEP QUALITY,

AND STUDENTS LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT AT SD NEGERI 1 SIDODADI

LAWANG IN 2019. Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health Research, 1(2),

73-79. e-journal unair - Universitas Airlangga.

http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/jcmphr.v1i2.21698

Yakut, E. (2019, November). A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective on Marketing

Studies A Literature Review. Journal of Yaşar University , Special Issue on Business and

Organization Research, 14, 18-33. ResearchGate. http://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.631019

Yang, X., Wang, P., & Hu, P. (2020, December 1). Trait Procrastination and Mobile

Phone Addiction Among Chinese College Students: A Moderated Mediation Model of

Stress and Gender. Frontiers in Psychology. Frontiers.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614660

Zarrin, S. A., & Garcia, E. (2020, July). Prediction of Academic Procrastination by Fear

of Failure and Self-Regulation. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 34-43.

ERIC. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/jestp.2020.3.003.
 Zhao, Y., & Elder, K. G. (2020, May). Evaluating pharmacy student perceptions and

effectiveness of procrastination prevention events. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and

Learning, 12(5), 570-576. National Center for Biotechnology Information.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2020.01.008

Zickuhr, K. (2011, February 3). Generations and their gadgets. Pew Research Center.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/media/Files/Reports/

2011/PIP_Generations_and_Gadgets.pdf

APPENDIX

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/

1FAIpQLSfJ6lqSwB8vdM436llficwYty066yd2X5417UXNRTxn8GZ7WA/viewform (SURVEY

LINK)

https://www.canva.com/design/DAEXZVg-8F4/share/preview?token=GdRf9q--

ea3ik9LpfPlNvw&role=EDITOR&utm_content=DAEXZVg-

8F4&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=sharebutton (PPT LINK)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-kk9EP3dBHbEP4YfO32Y_Zzt4r1fMIYE1Xrs99gtbgg/

edit?usp=sharing (INFORMED CONSENT LINK)

INSTRUMENT 1 - Dependency on Technological Gadgets

Technological gadget dependency is considered as compulsive use of devices, even

when individuals are aware that it affects them mentally, socially, emotionally, and physically.

This survey questionnaire is adopted from a previous study (Revathi et.al, 2020) and employs a

Likert scale in acquiring your data.

 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = can’t say 4= agree 5 = strongly

agree

Statements 1 2 3 4 5

1. Survival is difficult without technological gadgets.

2. Technology is the best source of entertainment.

3. Unaware about surroundings while with gadgets.

4. Music makes work easy.

5. Gadgets ruin social relationships.

6. The Internet is the ultimate source of knowledge.

7. Technology makes the youth smart.

8. Computer education is mandatory for higher

education.

9. Excess use of gadgets is injurious to health.

10. Technology causes the generation gap.

INSTRUMENT 2 -The Academic Procrastination Scale (APS)

The following questions assess your habits and routines as a student. Please answer the

following as they apply to yourself. (Scored on a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale, with 1= Disagree and
5= Agree). The employed survey tool is the Academic Procrastination Scale (APS) developed

and validated by Justin McCloskey and Shannon Scielzo (2015).

Statement 1 2 3 4 5

1. I usually allocate time to review and proofread my work.*

2. I put off projects until the last minute.

3. I have found myself waiting until the day before to start a

big project.

4. I know I should work on schoolwork, but I just don’t do it.

5. When working on schoolwork, I usually get distracted by

other things.

6. I waste a lot of time on unimportant things.

7. I get distracted by other, more fun, things when I am

supposed to work on schoolwork.

8. I concentrate on schoolwork instead of other distractions.*

9. I can’t focus on schoolwork or projects for more than an

hour until I get distracted.

10. My attention span for schoolwork is very short.

11. Tests are meant to be studied for just the night before.
12. I feel prepared well in advance for most tests. *

13. “Cramming” and last-minute studying is the best way

that I study for a big test.

14. I allocate time so I don’t have to “cram” at the end of the

semester. *

15. I only study the night before exams.

16. If an assignment is due at midnight, I will work on it until

11:59.

17. When given an assignment, I usually put it away and

forget about it until it is almost due.

18. Friends usually distract me from schoolwork.

19. I find myself talking to friends or family instead of

working on school work.

20. On the weekends, I make plans to do homework and

projects, but I get distracted and hang out with friends.

21. I tend to put off things for the next day.

22. I don’t spend much time studying school material until

the end of the semester.

23. I frequently find myself putting important deadlines off.

 24. If I don’t understand something, I’ll usually wait until the

night before a test to figure it out.

25. I read the textbook and look over notes before coming to

class and listening to a lecture or teacher. *

* Indicates reverse-scored items