See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323441873

Academic procrastination and academic performance: An initial

basis for intervention

Article in Journal of Prevention & Intervention Community · April 2018

DOI: 10.1080/10852352.2016.1198157

CITATIONS READS

81 51,237

1 author:

Marina Goroshit
Tel-Hai Academic College
32 PUBLICATIONS 1,098 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marina Goroshit on 02 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY
2018, VOL. 46, NO. 2, 131–142
https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2016.1198157

Academic procrastination and academic performance:

An initial basis for intervention
‫ בסיס ראשוני להתערבות‬:‫דחיינות אקדמית וביצוע אקדמי‬
Marina Goroshit
Department of Psychology, Tel-Hai Academic College, Upper Galilee, Israel

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Academic procrastination is a prevalent phenomenon with a Academic achievements;
range of negative outcomes. Many studies focused on causes academic performance;
and correlates of academic procrastination; however, the study academic procrastination
of interventions for academic procrastination is scarce. The
present study is an initial effort to study the relationship
between academic procrastination, online course participation,
and achievement, as a basis for developing an intervention for
academic procrastination. Findings indicated that studying
procrastination was negatively associated with final exam grade
as well as with the three online course participation measures.
Final exam grade was positively associated with two of the
online course participation measures, and they positively
correlated with each other. In addition, results indicated that
studying procrastination, in combination with online course
participation measures, explained about 50% of variance in final
exam’s grade. Frequency of activities in course Web site had the
strongest positive effect on final exam’s grade.
These findings strengthen the notion that studying
procrastination is an impediment to students’ academic
performance and outcomes and clarifies the need to develop
and study academic interventions for academic procrastination
as a means to decrease its prevalence in academic settings.
‫תקציר‬
‫דחיינות אקדמית היא תופעה נפוצה בקרב סטודנטים וקשורה למכלול‬
‫ מחקרים רבים עוסקים בגורמים ובהקשרים של‬.‫של תופעות שליליות‬
‫ אך מעטים מאוד המחקרים העוסקים בהתערבויות‬,‫תופעה זו‬
‫ המחקר הנוכחי הוא‬.‫אקדמיות למניעת דחיינות בקרב סטודנטים‬
‫ ביצוע והישג‬,‫מאמץ ראשוני ללמוד על הקשרים בין דחיינות אקדמית‬
‫אקדמי כבסיס לפיתוח ומחקר של התערבות אקדמית לדחיינות‬
‫ ממצאי המחקר הצביעו על כך שדחיינות אקדמית קשורה‬.‫אקדמית‬
‫ כמו כן‬. (‫באופן שלילי הן לביצוע אקדמי והן להישג אקדמי )ציון‬
‫ מהשונות בציון הסופי‬50% ‫דחיינות אקדמית וביצוע אקדמי הסבירו‬
‫ ממצאים אלו מחזקים את הטענה כי דחיינות אקדמית‬.‫של הקורס‬
‫פוגעת בביצוע והישג אקדמי ויש לעשות לפתח התערבויות למניעה‬
‫והפחתה של דחיינות בקהילות אקדמיות‬.

CONTACT Marina Goroshit marina@telhai.ac.il Department of Psychology, Tel-Hai Academic College, Upper
Galilee, 1220800 Israel.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wpic.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
132 M. GOROSHIT

Introduction
Procrastination is a common behavior in contemporary societies (Ferrari
et al., 1995). It is often defined as a voluntary delay of an intended course
of action, despite expecting to be worse off for the delay (Steel, 2007). It is
considered as a pervasive problem associated with a range of negative
outcomes and often occurs when people are faced with tasks that are seen
as aversive, across a variety of life domains (Sirois & Pychyl, 2013). Academic
procrastination usually refers to the voluntary delay of an intended course of
study-related action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay (Steel &
Klingsieck, 2016). Research findings indicate that approximately 30–60% of
undergraduate students report regular postponement of academic tasks to
the point at which optimal performance becomes highly unlikely (Rabin,
Fogel & Nutter-Upham, 2011).
Although academic procrastination can cause many difficulties to those
who afflicted, research concerning prevention and interventions for
procrastination in higher education communities is currently scarce (Pychyl
& Flett, 2012). One explanation may stem from the complexity of this
phenomenon and the wide range of personal and situational variables that
underlie its presence and may be the target of intervention (Van Eerde,
2003). It may also reflect the inconsistency in findings regarding the relation-
ship between academic procrastination and academic achievements and the
notion that addressing academic procrastination will not necessarily improve
students’ academic performance and achievements (Kim & Seo, 2015).
In a recent meta-analysis conducted by Kim and Seo (2015) findings
revealed that academic procrastination was negatively correlated with
academic achievements, however, higher correlations were found for specific
task grades measured, when grades were not self-reported, when procrasti-
nation was self-reported and when performance was externally observed. In
addition, they found that academic procrastination was most strongly
correlated with academic performance in younger students from westernized
societies. Their findings strongly supported the argument that procrastination
is a serious matter that affects the individual students, the academic com-
munity, and society in general (Pychyl & Flett, 2012) and therefore must be
addressed as soon as possible.
As an attempt to follow this lead several studies examined interventions for
academic procrastination and found some evidence to support the idea that aca-
demic procrastination can be treated and prevented on campus (Ozer, Demir, &
Ferrari, 2013; Perrin et al., 2011; Rozental, Forsström, Tangen, & Carlbring,
2015; Scent & Boes, 2014; Strunk & Spencer, 2012). However, most of these
studies examined small groups of students and utilized therapeutic methods.
The main goal of the current study was to examine the effects of self-
reported studying procrastination on participation in online course activities
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 133

and academic achievement as an initial step to help college instructors address

academic procrastination by designing courses and learning assignments that
can reduce or prevent procrastination among students. Our study was
designed based on a few studies that examined teaching strategies, academic
procrastination, and academic achievements (Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002;
Glick & Orsillo, 2015; Hedin, 2012; Klingsieck, Fries, Horz, & Hofer, 2012;
Milgram, Dangour, & Ravi, 1992; Morris & Fritz, 2015; Rotenstein, Davis,
& Tatum, 2009). More specifically, it followed Michinov, Brunot, Le Bohec,
Juhel, and Delaval’s (2011) study that examined participation in online
learning forums and Tuckman’s (1998) study that compared different motiv-
ation incentives. Our study examined the relationship between self-reported
studying procrastination and academic achievements as mediated by partici-
pation in online course activities. It was assumed that different types of
participation in online course activities would mediate the relationship
between the two in a different way and help the researcher understand better
how to support academic procrastinators.

Method
Course structure and assessment
The current study was conducted in an undergraduate college in northern
Israel. Data were collected during a 14-week compulsory course in statistical
inference. This was the third and last part in a sequence of research methods
and statistics courses. The course was taught using Moodle, the open-source
course management system (http://moodle.org). All course contents were
provided through the course Web site. This allowed us to track and assess
each student’s online academic activity regarding the course content.
Course content included general course materials (power point slides and
readings), online assignments those were developed and delivered to students
using the Moodle system, and a final test. The assignments contained
multiple-choice, true/false, matching, and closed questions. At the completion
of each assignment, students were given a grade and detailed feedback, speci-
fying and explaining the right and wrong answers. Overall, two types of
assignments were utilized during this course:
1. Short quizzes (SQ) contained four to five multiple-choice items. These
quizzes were given on a weekly basis, for 10 weeks, after the lecture.
Students were instructed to complete these quizzes during the week and
before the next lecture. These quizzes included relatively easy questions
and their main goal was to reinforce students’ belief in their ability to
succeed in the course and to reward them for their perseverance. Students,
who completed all 10 quizzes, received a bonus of three points toward their
final course grade (independently of their grade in these quizzes).
134 M. GOROSHIT

2. Long quizzes (LQ) were weekly practice assignments that contained 25–30-
item multiple-choice quizzes. Each quiz focused on the topic taught
during that specific week. These quizzes were more difficult than short
quizzes and students were told that they contain sample questions of the
final exam questions. These quizzes were optional, with unlimited access
during the course and remained available until the final exam, so students
could practice before the final exam. Students could choose whether they
preferred to practice these quizzes during the course, before the final test,
or both.
At the end of the course, students were given a final exam that included 33
multiple-choice questions. The general structure of the test was similar to the
structure of the long quizzes, except for the fact that each long quiz focused on
one weekly topic, while the final exam covered all the course topics. The
course grade was based on the results of the final exam and scored from
0 to 100. For students who completed the SQ, three points were added to
the final course grade.

Participants
The sample included 142 second-year undergraduate social sciences students
(58% education students and 42% social work students, 91% females, age
range 19–50 [M = 25.5, SD = 4.7]). The mean grade point average (GPA)
based on last-year courses was 86 (SD = 7), compared to a campuswide mean
GPA of 84.5 for social sciences students.

Measures
Procrastination
To measure studying procrastination, we used The Studying Procrastination
Scale (Wohl, Pychyl, & Bennett, 2010). This self-report instrument consisted
of three items on a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). Sample item: “I put off studying until the last minute”.
Mean score was computed for these three items (α = .91).

Participation
To measure online course participation, we used the logs of students’ activities
during the course time in Moodle. These activities included course Web site
entries, working with course materials, and doing online assignments.
According to these logs, we created three variables:
1. Frequency of activity on course Web site. Following Michinov et al.’s
(2011) study who measured online course participation by tracking
students’ activity on course Web site, we created a three-category variable.
A value of 0 was given to students who rarely entered and were active on
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 135

the course Web site. This category represented “low-active” students who
usually entered the course Web site at the beginning and at the end of
course a few days before the final exam. A value of 1 was given to students
who occasionally entered and were active on the course Web site, but not
on a weekly basis. This category represented “moderately active” students.
A value of 2 was given to students who entered and were active on the
course Web site on a weekly basis, at least one time during a week. This
category represented “highly active” students. Chart 1 in Appendix shows
example screenshots of students’ activities logs, for each category of
students: (a) low active (b) moderately active, and (c) highly active. X-axis
represents the course progress (from week 1 (left side of the chart) to week
14 and the day of final test (right side of the chart)) and Y-axis represents
the number of entries into course Web site in Moodle.
The next two variables were created in accordance with Tuckman’s idea
(1998) that there are two types of incentives to motivate procrastinators’
learning: (1) incentive motivation that represents students’ wish to get a
high grade or avoid a low one; (2) learning strategy that represents
students’ wish to develop a skill or an effective strategy use.
2. Participation in short quizzes (SQs) was created as a proxy of incentive
motivation. It was measured as a dichotomous variable: a value of 0
(“nonparticipators”) was given to students who choose not to participate
in this type of activity and a value of 1 (“participators”) was given to
students who took all SQs.
3. Participation in long quizzes (LQs) was created as a proxy of learning
strategy. It was measured as a three-category variable: a value of 0 (“low
participation”) was given to students who solved up to 2 out of 10 optional
long quizzes, a value of 1 (“moderate participation”) was given to students
who were partially active in this type of assignment and solved 3 to 7 out of
10 long quizzes, and a value of 2 (“high participation”) was given for
students who were active in this type of assignment and solved at least 8
out of 10 optional long quizzes.

Procedure
At the first week of the course, students were asked to complete a question-
naire about studying procrastination. We instructed students to think about
an important assignment in research methods and statistics course they had
completed during the past (fall) semester and reply to the questionnaire while
thinking about their behavior regarding this assignment. During weeks 2–11
of the course, every week, SQ and LQ assignments were displayed on the
course Web site and students were encouraged to do them. Using students’
activity logs in Moodle, we tracked each student’s activity on the Web site.
We were particularly interested whether students choose to participate in
136 M. GOROSHIT

SQ and/or LQ, and not interested in their achievements on these assignments.

About 1 week after the end of the course, students participated in a final
exam.

Results
As a preliminary stage data analysis, we computed descriptive statistics and
Pearson correlation coefficients among the research variables (Table 1). The
results showed that the average level of students’ self-reported studying
procrastination was around the middle of studying procrastination scale
(M = 2.6, SD = 1.2) and the mean final exam grade (M = 78.7, SD = 15.7)
was lower than the GPA reported by students. About 18% of the participant
did not or almost did not take part in online course activities and were
categorized as “low participation,” 35% of the students did not participate
in performing short quizzes (SQ) and 26% of the subjects showed low partici-
pation on long quizzes (LQ). On the other hand, about 44% of subjects were
active on course Web site on a weekly basis, 65% solved all short quizzes and
37% practiced all long quizzes (“high participation”).
Examination of intercorrelations between the investigated variables
revealed that studying procrastination was negatively associated with final
exam grade as well as with the three course participation measures: frequency
of activity on course Web site, SQ and LQ. Final exam grade, on the other
hand, was positively associated with these measures. The three measures of
course participation were also positively intercorrelated with each other.
At the second stage of our analysis, we built a structural equation
model with the final exam’s grade as the dependent variable, studying

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the investigated variables (N = 142,
p-values in parentheses).
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Studying procrastination 2.56 1.15 – −35 (<.01) −33 (<.01) −27 (.02) −26 (.03)
2 Final exam 78.73 15.74 – .63 (<.001) .30 (.01) .59 (<.001)
N %
3 Frequency of activity on – .62 (<.001) .56 (<.001)
course Web site
0: “Low activity” 25 17.74
1: “Moderate activity” 55 38.71
2: “High activity” 62 43.55
4 Participation in short – .28 (.02)
quizzes (SQ)
0: “Nonparticipators” 50 35.48
1: ” Participators” 92 64.52
5 Participation in long –
quizzes (LQ)
0: “Low participation” 37 25.81
1: “Moderate participation” 53 37.10
2: “High participation” 53 37.10
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 137

Figure 1. Structural equation model for prediction of final exam’s grade by studying procrasti-
nation and course participation measures. Notes: The errors of endogenous variables are omitted
to simplify the graphical presentation. Standardized coefficients are shown. Coefficients greater
than |.15| are statistically significant (p < .05).

procrastination as the independent variable and the three measures of

academic performance measures as mediators. A path model using AMOS
21 (Arbuckle, 2012) was employed to examine direct, indirect, and total
effects of studying procrastination on the final exam’s grade (Figure 1).
Further, a bootstrapping analysis (N = 2000) with 95% confidence intervals
estimated the mediating effects of studying procrastination on the final exam’s
grade (Table 2).
Results showed that studying procrastination, in combination with course
participation measures explained about 50% of the variance in final exam’s
grade. Among the three course participation measures, frequency of activities

Table 2. Standardized direct, indirect, and total effects of studying procrastination on final
exams’ grade.
Effect
95%
IV DV Direct Indirect bootstrap CI Total
Studying Frequency of activity –.31 – – –.31
procrastination on course Web site
Short quizzes (SQs) –.26 – – –.26
Long quizzes (LQs) –.25 – – –.25
Through Frequency –.10 –.16 –.34; –.02 –.30
Final exam’s grade Through SQ .04 –15; .20
Through LQ –.08 –.20; .06
Total –.20 –.38; –.05
Frequency of activity Final exam’s grade .51 – – .51
on course Web site
Short quizzes (SQs) –.14 – – –.14
Long quizzes (LQs) .32 – – .32
Notes: Coefficients greater than |.15| are statistically significant (p < .05).
138 M. GOROSHIT

in course Web site had the strongest positive effect on final exam’s grade
(β = .51; p < .001). Participation in LQ positively and weakly predicted final
exam score (β = .32; p < .01), while participation in SQ had a small negative
effect (β = −.14; p = .16). The direct effect of self-reported studying procrasti-
nation on final exam’s score was weak and negative (β = −.10; p = .32), but its
indirect effect was twice as strong (β = −.20; 95% CI = −38; − .05) and
occurred mostly through frequency of activity on course Web site (β = −.16;
95% CI = −34; −.02). Therefore, the total effect of studying procrastination
on final exam’s score was negative (β = −.30; p < .01) and two-thirds of it were
indirect.

Discussion
While it is clear that procrastination is a serious personal and situational
matter that must be addressed, the research on prevention of and intervention
for academic procrastination is scarce (Pychyl & Flett, 2012). The aim of this
research was to provide initial evidence for developing an academic inter-
vention that can help instructors in higher education communities to support
students to prevent and reduce procrastination tendencies. The present study
examined the relationship between self-reported studying procrastination and
final course grade when mediated by three different measures of participation
in online course assignments.
The results produced some interesting findings. As reported in previous
studies (Balkıs, 2011; Hen & Goroshit, 2014), direct relationships between
self-reported academic procrastination and academic achievement were nega-
tive but weak. Kim and Seo (2015) in their recent meta-analysis suggested that
self-reported data are often contaminated by all kinds of personal processes
and often when associated with externally observed data, results do not
express the actual situation. In our study, self-reported studying procrasti-
nation yielded medium levels of studying procrastination, while externally
observed final course grades showed lower than average GPA reported by stu-
dents, suggesting that maybe students reported lower levels of procrastination.
Further when examining the relationship between self-reported studying
procrastination and participating in online course material and assignments
(externally observed performance data), it is also negative and relatively weak.
These findings are not within the scope of this discussion but certainly should
be further explored to decide if self-reported data in this case can
predict actual behavior. However, interestingly when looking at the actual
participation of students in online assignment, which some scholars
considered as a behavioral measure of procrastination (Moon & Illingworth,
2005), up to 35% did not participate while up to 65% participated. This may
suggest that actual procrastination level was not so high in this course. Partici-
pation in online assignments was overall positively and mildly associated with
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 139

final course grade. This may suggest that if this is a measure of behavioral
procrastination then final course grade can to some degree be predicted by
measures of behavioral procrastination and also that participation in online
assignments can help students to increase course achievements. Participation
in the bonus online assignment (SQ), however, was negatively and weakly
associated with final course grade raising the possibility that motivation
incentive tasks contribute less than learning strategy tasks to final course
grade. However, participation measures were positively interrelated.
Finally, findings indicated that studying procrastination in combination
with course participation measures explained about 50% of the variance in
final exam’s grade and that indirect effect between procrastination and
achievement was twice as strong and occurred mostly through frequency of
activity on course Web site. Taken together these findings may have some
implications for instructors in academic settings.

Implications
The most important implication of this study is that students’ self-reported
procrastination taken together with their online behavior in course
assignments affects their academic achievements. Students who say they tend
to procrastinate and do not participate in the online assignments are at high risk
of scoring low in the final exam. Instructors need to pay attention, be aware, and
act when students do not participate in online assignments or do not use the
Web site during the course. It may be due to their tendency to procrastinate
and they may need some help to address this issue. If as instructors we choose
not to act it means we think students can overcome this tendency on their own,
or that we do not care about the student or about the academic community.
These findings also imply that not all participation in online assignments con-
tribute to final exam score in the same manner. In the present study, 65% of
the students had chosen to participate in the easy bonus assignment; however,
it weakly and negatively contributed to final grade, whereas the other two mea-
sures that where associated with more difficult tasks and engagement with
course materials positively contribute to course final grade. Therefore, instruc-
tors have to design tasks that will enhance learning strategies and engagement
with course materials and to strongly advise students and support procrastina-
tors to choose those tasks. Finally, this study’s findings encourage instructors to
better understand the situational aspects of academic procrastination and take
them into consideration when designing the course and its assignments.

Limitations
Like many studies, the present research has some limitations. First, the fact
that the participants in this study were the author’s students, could cause
some level of social desirability in replying on procrastination questionnaire.
140 M. GOROSHIT

Second, the subjects were students in one particular course, which may limit
generalization to student population in general. Third, the choice of Wohl
et al. (2010) Studying Procrastination Scale could be criticized because of
its small number of items and unidimensionality. Consequently, future
studies should extend and support the present findings using alternative
scales, such as Solomon and Rothblum (1984) Procrastination Assessment
Scale for Students, or other behavioral measures of procrastination.

References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). Amos 21 reference guide. Meadville: Amos Development Corporation.
Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance:
Self-control by precommitment. Psychological science, 13(3), 219–224. doi:10.1111/1467-
9280.00441
Balkıs, M. (2011). Academic efficacy as a mediator and moderator variable in the relationship
between academic procrastination and academic achievement. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi,
45, 1–16.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Assessment of academic and everyday
procrastination. In Procrastination and Task Avoidance (pp. 47–70). US: Springer.
Glick, D. M., & Orsillo, S. M. (2015). An investigation of the efficacy of acceptance-based
behavioral therapy for academic procrastination. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 144(2), 400. doi:10.1037/xge0000050
Hedin, B. (2012). Teaching procrastination-A way of helping students to improve their study
habits. In LTHs 7: e Pedagogiska Inspirationskonferens.
Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (2014). Academic procrastination, emotional intelligence, academic
self-efficacy, and GPA: A comparison between students with and without learning disabil-
ities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 116–124. doi:10.1177/0022219412439325
Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic
performance: A Meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 26–33.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038
Klingsieck, K. B., Fries, S., Horz, C., & Hofer, M. (2012). Procrastination in a distance
university setting. Distance Education, 33(3), 295–310. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723165
Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination,
participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers & Education,
56(1), 243–252. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025
Milgram, N. A., Dangour, W., & Ravi, A. (1992). Situational and personal determinants of
academic procrastination. The Journal of General Psychology, 119(2), 123–133.
doi:10.1080/00221309.1992.9921166
Moon, S. M., & Illingworth, A. J. (2005). Exploring the dynamic nature of procrastination: A
latent growth curve analysis of academic procrastination. Personality and Individual
Differences, 38(2), 297–309. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.04.009
Morris, P. E., & Fritz, C. O. (2015). Conscientiousness and procrastination predict academic
coursework marks rather than examination performance. Learning and Individual
Differences, 39, 193–198. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.007
Ozer, B. U., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2013). Reducing academic procrastination through a
group treatment program: A pilot study. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, 31(3), 127–135. doi:10.1007/s10942-013-0165-0
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 141

Perrin, C. J., Miller, N., Haberlin, A. T., Ivy, J. W., Meindl, J. N., & Neef, N. A. (2011).
Measuring and reducing college students’ procrastination. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 44(3), 463–474. doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-463
Pychyl, T. A., & Flett, G. L. (2012). Procrastination and self-regulatory failure: An Introduction
to the special issue. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30(4),
203–212. doi:10.1007/s10942-012-0149-5
Rabin, L. A., Fogel, J., & Nutter-Upham, K. E. (2011). Academic procrastination in college
students: The role of self-reported executive function. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 33(3), 344–357. doi:10.1080/13803395.2010.518597
Rotenstein, A., Davis, H. Z., & Tatum, L. (2009). Early birds versus just-in-timers: The Effect
of procrastination on academic performance of accounting students. Journal of Accounting
Education, 27(4), 223–232. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2010.08.001
Rozental, A., Forsström, D., Tangen, J. A., & Carlbring, P. (2015). Experiences of undergoing
internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for procrastination: A Qualitative study. Internet
Interventions, 13, 314–322. doi:10.1016/j.invent.2015.05.001
Scent, C. L., & Boes, S. R. (2014). Acceptance and commitment training: A Brief intervention
to reduce procrastination among college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy,
28(2), 144–156. doi:10.1080/87568225.2014.883887
Sirois, F., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short‐term mood regulation:
Consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 115–127.
doi:10.1111/spc3.12011
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-
behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503. doi:10.1037//0022-
0167.31.4.503
Steel, P. (2007). The Nature of procrastination: A Meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.133.1.65
Steel, P., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2016). Academic procrastination: Psychological antecedents
revisited. Australian Psychologist, 51(1), 36–46. doi:10.1111/ap.12173
Strunk, K. K., & Spencer, J. M. (2012). A brief intervention for reducing procrastination.
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 16(1), 91–96.
Tuckman, B. W. (1998). Using tests as an incentive to motivate procrastinators to study. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 66(2), 141–147. doi:10.1080/00220979809601400
Van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination.
Personality and individual differences, 35(6), 1401–1418. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(02)
00358-6
Wohl, M. J., Pychyl, T. A., & Bennett, S. H. (2010). I forgive myself, now I can study: How self-
forgiveness for procrastinating can reduce future procrastination. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48(7), 803–808. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.029
 142 M. GOROSHIT

Appendix

Chart 1. Examples of students’ activities logs in course Web site in Moodle. (a) Low activity,
(b) moderate activity, and (c) high activity.

View publication stats