PROCRASTINATION LEVEL AND IT’S EFFECT ON THE ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE OF 2B MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS OF TARLAC

STATE UNIVERSITY.

In Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the Subject
Engineering Data Analysis

SALINAS, KYLA JEAN B.

BSME-2B
(Case Study)

DECEMBER 2022
 PROCRASTINATION LEVEL AND IT’S EFFECT ON THE ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE OF 2B MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS OF TARLAC
STATE UNIVERSITY.
Introduction
Procrastination is a common event and is often unavoidable because there are thousands
of potential tasks that we could be doing at any time. However, procrastination has been found to
be domain-specific. Researchers have identified six different aspects/domains of life where
people procrastinate: academic and work, everyday routines and obligations, health, leisure,
family and partnership, and social contacts (Gröpel & Kuhl, 2006; Klingsleck, 2013). Each
domain possesses different prevalence rate and correlations with other constructs, reasons, and
consequences. This review will focus specifically on the domain of academic procrastination. all
academic procrastination cannot be simply explained due to task evasiveness. Other concepts
need to be considered to fully understand the behavior. As time management and productivity
are the main keys in an academic performance, then procrastination can be one of the most
common problem of a student. Psychologists often attribute procrastination as a coping
mechanism against the anxiety we experience when faced with a difficult or unwanted task. As
an excuse, we find distractions to make ourselves “busy” and rationalize that these tasks are not
time-critical and can be done tomorrow or much later. This habit can lead to poor time
management. It would affect the Student’s academic performance therefore causing stress.
However, a study found the more general benefit of procrastination is the environment created by
an imminent deadline
Statement of the Problem
This research aims to investigate the procrastination level and it’s effects on the academic
performance of the selected 2B Mechanical Engineering Students who aimed to answer the
following questions:
1. What is the level of procrastination of 2B Mechanical Engineering students?
2. What are the factors contributing towards procrastination among 2B mechanical Engineering
students?
3. What are the perceived effects of procrastination in learning of 2B mechanical Engineering
students?
4. What intervention plans are suggested by the researchers based on the results of the study?

Scope
The research focused on the level of procrastination and its effect of the academic
performance of the students. The primary subject of the study will consist of ME 2B students
enrolled in academic year 2021-2022. The respondents will be limited to 52 ME students of
Tarlac State University.
The 52 respondents of the study will randomly selected through random sampling method.
The instruments that the researchers will use in this study are rating scale to determine the level
of procrastination and checklist/questionnaire to find the factors contributing towards the
students’ procrastination and its effects. The period of the study will last for approximately 3
months, which is enough to collect all the important data needed to accomplish this research.
Methodology
This presents the method of the research, respondents of the study, the method of the
gathering data, the research instruments and the statistical treatment of the gathered data.
Research Design
The researchers will be using the descriptive method in this study. This method will be
used to describe the students’ procrastination level and its effects on their academic performance
and to determine the factors contributing towards their procrastination and its perceived effects
in their learning. However, in this study, the researchers will focus only on the procrastination
level and it’s effects on the academic performance of the students. To achieve this, the
researchers will conduct a survey checklist method that will be answered by the respondents to
gather the desired and necessary data of the study.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study constituted the fifty-two (52) 2B Mechanical Engineering
students of Tarlac State University academic year 2021-2022. The respondents of this study
consisted of 52 respondents (87% of the total population) coming from the 2B Mechanical
Engineering students of Tarlac State University. The section ME 2B consisting of 38 boys and
14 girl’s respondents.
The distribution of the respondents is reflected in table 1:
Table 1
Distribution of Respondents
Section Gender Total Respondents
BSME-2B Boys 44 38
Girls 16 14
Total 60 52

As shown in Table 1, the total number of student-respondents was 52 which corresponds

to 87 % of the total number of Bachelor of science in Mechanical Engineering. The total number
of students was multiplied to 0.87 to determine the number of respondents.
Sampling Technique
According to Burns and Grove (1993), a population is defined as all elements
(individuals, objects and events) that meet the sample criteria for inclusion in a study. The study
population consist of 60 students from the BSME 2B of Tarlac State University, the 52
respondents of this study were chosen using random sampling through the mobile application
"Roulette of names. Who is next?" wherein every possible sample that could be selected has a
feasibility of being picked or chosen. The names of the respondents in class were written in the
choices box in the app. The researchers will use the app to pick names, to identify the 52
respondents of the study.
The total number of students was drawn using Solving’s Formula:
where:
N= Number of students
e= Margin of error (0.05)
n= sample size
Computing the number of respondents using the Solving’s formula with 0.5 as the margin
of error:
n=N/(1+Ne^2)
n=60/(1+60×〖0.05〗^2)
n=60/(1+60×0.0025)
n=60/(1+.15)
n=60/1.15
n=52.17
n=52
Where n = 52 respondents
Research Instruments
The research instrument that will be used to conduct this study is survey checklist. The
checklist is composed of three parts: First, is where the researchers use rating scale to determine
the procrastination level of the respondents, the verbal description that the researchers use is
adapted from the Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (PASS) created by Solomon and
Rothblum 1984. Second part, to know the factors contributing towards procrastination of
respondents, the researchers adopt the 2nd part of likert scale Procrastination Assessment Scale-
Students (PASS). The second part of PASS is constructed with 13 possible reasons for
procrastination: perfectionism, evaluation anxiety, low self-esteem, aversiveness of task,
laziness, time management, difficulty making decisions, peer pressure, dependency, lack of
assertion, risk taking, fear of success, and rebellion against control, there are two items for each
of reasons therefore having a total of twenty-six (26) items. The third part of the survey checklist
is also likert scale to determine the perceived effects of procrastination on learning of the
respondents, the researchers adopt and derived from an instrument used in a study conducted by
I. Hussain and S. Sultan (2010) titled “Analysis of Procrastination among University Students”.
After the researchers created the survey checklist it will be checked and validated by one of the
panel. These survey checklists will serve as guide in gathering data from the respondents. The
survey checklist will be administered with the use of Google forms.
The survey checklist is composed of thirty-seven (37) items, it is divided into three parts;
Procrastination Level one (1) item, factors contributing towards procrastination twenty-six (26)
items and perceived effects of procrastination on learning ten (10) items. I also ask permission to
my fellow students of Blame-2B to conduct the aforementioned methods before sending the
survey checklist on the respective email addresses or by sending the survey link in the Facebook
messenger accounts of the selected respondents. In addition, the researchers will use a table to
show the population of the respondents and the sample size that will constitute the study.
Data Gathering Procedure
Before conducting the study, the researchers will consult one of the panel to check the
survey checklist. After the consultation, I request a list of BSME 2B in our class representative.
Then, the i pick the fifty-two (52) respondents using random sampling method through an
application “Roulette of names. Who is next?”. I also write a consent from BSME-2B to be the
respondents of the study. A brief explanation about the objective or purpose of the study will be
given before the administration of the survey checklist starts.
After that, the researchers will administer the survey checklist to the respondents, the
researchers then will analyze and interpret the result using the Percentage Distribution Formula
and Arithmetic Mean to know the Procrastination level and it’s effect on the Academic
Performance of the respondents.
Statistical Treatment
The data collected in the survey checklist will be tabulated and tallied to ease the analysis
and to determine the respondents’ level of procrastination, factors contributing towards their
procrastination and the perceived effects of procrastination in their learning, the researchers will
use the Percentage Distribution Formula.
P=f/n×100
Where:
P= Percentage of interest and expectation
f = The number of frequency of the respondents answer
n = The number of respondents
To facilitate analysis and interpretation of data, the following scoring procedures are used:
A. Scoring System for Students’ Level of Procrastination
To describe the over-all procrastination level of the students, the researchers adapted a
scoring system used by J. Revilla in his study conducted in STI college of Santa Rosa and verbal
description was adapted in Procrastination Assessment Scale-Students (PASS) made by Solomon
and Rothblum (1984). The scoring system was comprised of five procrastination levels: Always
Procrastinate, Nearly Always, Sometimes, Almost never, Never Procrastinate.
Table 2 shows the scoring system for the over-all procrastination level of the respondents.
The scoring indicates that a score of 4.21-5.00 was considered as Always Procrastinate when it
comes to the respondents’ overall level of procrastination, Nearly Always for scores ranged from
3.41-4.20, Sometimes for scores ranged from 2.61-3.40, Almost never for scores ranged from
1.81-2.60 and Never Procrastinate for scores ranged from 1.00-1.80.
Table 2
Scoring System for Over-all Procrastination Level
Score Verbal Description
4.21-5.00 Always Procrastinate
3.41-4.20 Nearly Always
2.61-3.40 Sometimes
1.81-2.60 Almost Never
1.00-1.80 Never Procrastinate

B. Scoring System for Factors Contributing Towards the Procrastination of Student

To know the factors contributing towards their procrastination, the researchers used the
second part of the Procrastination Assessment Scale – Students made by Solomon and Rothblum
1984. The PASS was constructed with 13 possible reasons for procrastination there are two items
for each of these reasons, for a total of 26 items.
Table 3 shows the scoring system for factors contributing towards the procrastination of
the respondents. The scoring system indicates that every student who scores of 4.21-5.00 was
considered as Definitely Reflects Why I Procrastinated, Almost Reflects Why I Procrastinated
for scores ranged from 3.41-4.20, Somewhat reflects for scores ranged from 2.61-3.40, Nearly
Reflects Why I Procrastinated for scores ranged from 1.81-2.60, Not At All Reflects Why I
Procrastinated for scores ranged from 1.00-1.80.
Table 3
Scoring System for Factors Contributing Towards the Procrastination
Score Verbal Description
Strongly Disagree Definitely Reflects Why I Procrastinated
3.41-4.20 Nearly Reflects Why I Procrastinated
2.61-3.40 Somewhat Reflects
1.81-2.60 Almost Not Reflects Why I Procrastinated
1.00-1.80 Not At All Reflects Why I Procrastinated

C. Scoring System for Effects of procrastination on Learning of Students

To know the perceived effects of procrastination on learning of the students, the
researchers adapted a scoring system used by I. Hussain and S. Sultan in their study conducted at
The University of Bawalpur, Pakistan. The scoring system indicates that every student who got a
score of 4.21-5.00 was considered Strongly Agree for a score ranged from 3.41-4.20, Undecided
for scores ranged from 2.61-3.40, Disagree forscores rangedfrom 1.81-2.60, Strongly Disagree
for scores ranged from 1.00-1.80.
Table 4
Scoring System for Effects of Procrastination on Learning
Score Verbal Description
4.21-5.00 Agree
3.41-4.20 Agree
2.61-3.40 Undecided or Neutral
1.81-2.60 Disagree
1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents, analyzes, and interprets the gathered data from the respondents
followed by a discussion of the research findings. All data obtained through the Procrastination
Level and it’s Effect on the Academic Performance Survey Checklist, completed by fifty-two
(52) student-respondents, all the data are presented in tables and textual discussions.
1. Description of Respondents’ Procrastination Level
As described by the Journal of Counseling Psychology, Procrastination Assessment
Scale-Students pertains to the various levels of procrastination of an individual, from never
procrastinate to always procrastinate. The description of the respondents’ procrastination level
was presented in graph and table form.
Table 5
Procrastination Level of Students
Procrastination level Frequency(percentage) Over all procrastination
(mean score)
Always Procrastinate 10 (90%)
Nearly always 22 (42%)
Sometimes 19 (36%)
Almost Never 1 (1.9%) 3.78%
Never Procrastinate 0
0%

As seen in table 5, Out of fifty-two (52) respondents, twenty-two (22) or 42% said that
they procrastinate nearly always while there is also a nine-teen (19) or 36% of the respondents
said that they sometimes procrastinate. Ten (10) or 19% of the respondents declared that they do
the act of procrastination always. Only one (1) or 1.9% admitted that they almost never
procrastinate and none proclaimed that they never do the act of procrastination.
Generally, the average score of the respondents in procrastination level landed with a
mean of 3.78 which corresponds to a verbal description of Nearly Always Procrastinate.
According to Bay Area CBT Center, the result can be interpreted that students under this level
face moderate challenges with procrastination. They tend to delay and postpone important tasks
that need to be done and may have difficulty prioritizing what’s important. According to the
article “Procrastinator: A Guide to Understanding the People Who Procrastinate”, Nearly Always
Procrastinate or Average Procrastinators can be interpreted that someone under this level is
moderately affected by their procrastination. For example, someone who consistently delays
getting started on academic task until right before they are due can be said to be an Average
Procrastinator or Nearly Always Procrastinate.
2. Description of Factors Contributing Towards Procrastion of the Respondents
As described by Solomon and Rothblum, Procrastination Assessments Scale-Students
(PASS) there are thirteen (13) possible factors contributing towards their procrastination. The
description of the respondents about factors contributing towards procrastination was presented
in tabular form along with textual discussions.
Table 6
Factors Contributing towards procrastination of the respondents
Factors of Procrastination Mean Score
Perfectionism 3.08
Evaluation Anxiety 2.70
Low self-esteem 2.94
Averseness of task 2.71
Laziness 3.41
Time management 3.08
Difficulty in making Decisions 3.41
Peer Pressure 2.75
Dependency 3.23
Lack of Assertion 2.94
Risk of taking 3.20
Fear of Success 3.73
Rebellion Against Control 2.40

Table 6 reflects different factors of procrastination that were given by the respondents.
Overall, the leading factors of procrastination are Laziness and Difficulty in Making Decisions,
with the same mean score of3.41 which corresponds to a verbal description of Nearly Reflects
Why I Procrastinated. And the following that is in the range of 2.61-3.40 corresponds to a verbal
description of Somewhat Reflects Why I Procrastinated. Dependency with a mean score of 3.23;
next is Risk-Taking with a mean score of 3.20; Perfectionism with a mean score of 3.08; Time
Management with a mean score of 3.07; Low Self-Esteem and Lack of Assertion with the same
mean score of 2.94; Peer Pressure with a mean score of 2.75; Fear of Success with a mean score
of 2.73; Averseness of Task with a mean score of 2.71; Evaluation Anxiety with a mean score of
2.70. And the least factor contributing towards the respondents' procrastination is Rebellion
Against Control, with the mean score of 2.40 which corresponds to a verbal description of
Almost Not Reflects Why I Procrastinated. Generally, the three (3) leading factors contributing
towards procrastination of the respondents are Laziness, Difficulty in Making Decisions, and
Dependency. According to the article “Why People Procrastinate” Laziness reflects a person’s
intrinsic unwillingness to put in the effort needed to achieve their goals, even when they are able
to do so. A person's laziness can be one of the driving factors behind procrastination. Next is
Difficulty in Making Decisions, according to Christian, L (2020) procrastination occurs when we
have too many options, when you can’t figure out what to do, you’ll likely avoid taking action.
The third leading factor is Dependency, according to Mendelson and Stuckey, if you're unclear
about what to do when the task is unfamiliar, unprepared, or incapable of completing task it may
be hard to start and result in procrastination. Students under this factor, waited until a classmate
did his or hers so that he or she can get some advice and guidance. Also, waited to see if teachers
would give some information about the task. According to Collen and Swerdlik's (2010) study
task averseness, time management, laziness, rebellion against control, decision making, and lack
of assertion were the common reasons for students' procrastination. While the present study
shows that difficulty in making decisions, and dependency are the leading factors contributing
towards the procrastination of the respondents.
3. Description of Respondents’ Perceived Effects of Procrastination in their Learning
As described by Hussain and Sultan (2010) Procrastination have effects on the learning
of the students. The description of respondents’ perceived effects of procrastination in learning
was presented in tabular form along with textual discussions.
Table 7
Perceived Effects of Procrastination in their Learning
Effect of Procrastination Mean Score
Low Achievement 2.94
Failure in Exam 3
Reduce Productivity 3.32
Depression and anxiety 3.48
Poor time Management 4
Hesitation 3.71
Loses if Competition 3
Low Self-Esteem 3.42
Regrets 3.84
Stress 4.21

Table 7 indicates the perceived effects of procrastination on the learning of the

respondents. The leading perceived effect of procrastination is stress, with a mean score of 4.21
which corresponds to a verbal description of Strongly agree. The second is leading to poor time
management with a mean score of 4 which corresponds to a verbal description of Agree. The
third leading perceived effect is Regrets with a mean score of 3.84 which corresponds to a verbal
description of Agree. The following that is at the range score of 2.61-3.40 corresponds to a
verbal description of Agree. Hesitation with a mean score of 3.71; next is Depression and
Anxiety with a mean score of 3.48; Low self-esteem with a mean score of 3.42; Reduce
Productivity with a mean score of 3.32; Failure of Examination and Loses of Competition with
the same mean score of 3; and the least perceived effect of procrastination on the learning of
respondents are Low Achievements with the mean score of 2.94
Generally, the three (3) leading perceived effects of procrastination on the learning of
respondents are Stress, Poor Time Management, and Regrets. According to the researchers of
Tenney School, Houston, Texas (2015), they found that students who procrastinate tend to
reduce stress and feel lower stress at the beginning of the term, but the stresses increase rapidly
with time. Procrastination is a comfort, a defense mechanism at the beginning but it causes more
stress as the defense rapidly fails. The second leading effect of procrastination is Poor Time
Management. According to Alfonso et al. (2018), procrastination is commonly used to denote a
postpone in students' academic work until the last minute, therefore, leading to Poor Time
Management. The third leading perceived effect of procrastination in learning is Regrets.
According to Weigle, when you procrastinate and delay things you need to do, you end up
regretting as opportunities slip away. In addition, the result of the present study and the study of
Revilla, J (2017) revealed that Stress is the main effect of procrastination.
4. Intervention plan suggested by the researchers based on the result of the study
The findings of the study revealed that the overall procrastination level if the students
fall under nearly always procrastinate. The 3 leading factors contributing towards their
procrastination are Laziness, Difficulty in Making Decisions, and Dependency. The laziness and
difficultly in making decisions landed with a verbal description of nearly reflects why they
procrastinate, and dependency fall under somewhat reflects why they procrastinate. Also, the top
3 leading perceived effects of procrastination on the learning of respondents are Stress, Poor
Time Management, and Regrets. Stress is the main effect of procrastination with a verbal
description of strongly agree. While poor time management and regrets fall under the verbal
description of agree. Based on the result of the study the overall procrastination level of the
respondents fall under nearly always procrastinate. This implies that students are procrastinators
who are moderately affected by their procrastination, they start the task right before they are due.
Thus, students under this level of procrastination should lessen their procrastination act to
minimize the effect. First, to lessen or overcome the procrastination, students should know what
are the reasons why they procrastinate or the factors contributing towards their procrastination to
know what appropriate solution needs to execute. According to Voge (2007), you can't come up
with an effective solution if you don't understand the root of the problem.
Based on the result of the study the 3 leading factors contributing towards
procrastination of the respondents are Laziness, Difficulty in Making Decisions, and
Dependency. This implies that most of the respondents are lazy procrastinators, they are
reluctant to put in effort toward their goals and are often also unmotivated. Therefore, to avoid
laziness as a factor of procrastination it is suggested that the students have to stay disciplined and
motivated, students may find some reasons why they need to do the task and relevance for the
completion of the task. The next leading factor contributing towards procrastination of the
respondents is difficulty in making decisions. This implies that when students have too many
options, they can't figure what to do, they likely avoid taking action and start procrastination.
Therefore, it is suggested that students should simplify their decisions, remove unnecessary
choices like distractions, focusing on tasks one-by-one, prioritize tasks base on how important
they are, so they don't have to constantly think about what to do next. The third leading factor
contributing towards procrastination of respondents is Dependency. This implies that students
under this factor procrastinate because they are not familiar and unclear so they waited until a
classmate did the task to get some advice and guidance, also waited to see if teachers would give
some information about the task. Therefore, it is suggested that teachers should explain the task
clearly and students should be more attentive when the teacher is explaining a certain task. To
lessen the dependency or reliance on others, students should build confidence in their judgment
to start the task and avoid procrastination. Additionally, other factors contributing towards
procrastination of the respondents are risk-taking, perfectionism, time management, lack of
assertion, low self-esteem, peer pressure, fear of success averseness of a task, and evaluation
anxiety these are the factors that somewhat reflect why they procrastinate. Therefore, it is
suggested that students should familiarize themselves and understand these factors to have the
knowledge and appropriate solution to lessen or overcome their procrastination. Another area of
consideration is the effect of procrastination on students learning. Based on the result of the
study, the top 3 leading perceived effects of procrastination in the learning of the students are
Stress, Poor Time Management, and Regrets. Therefore procrastination gas negative on their
learning and this effect may continue or come if procrastination among students continues. Thus,
administrators should educate the students. It is suggested that students should be aware of these
effects and lessen or overcome their procrastination to avoid and minimize stress, poor time
management, and regrets that are caused by procrastination.