做好我们该做的事情——对学术拖延行为的扎根研究 毕业论文外文翻译.doc

doing the things we do:a grounded theory of academic procrastinationmost people view procrastination as a negative personalitytrait.procrastinators are thought to be indifferent to the quality of their work and possibly of lower cognitive ability than their nonprocrastinating peers. previous empirical studies have supported this view of procrastination, revealing that procrastination results in lost time, poorer health, decreased long-term learning, and lower self-esteem (burns, dittman, nguyen, & mitchelson, 2000; ferrari,johnson, & mccown, 1995; milgram, dangour, & raviv,1992; tice & baumeister, 1997; wolters, 2003). a number ofstudies also have indicated that procrastination may be linked to anxiety and fear of failure (ferrari & tice, 2000). these findings suggest that procrastination is an impediment to academic success because it decreases the quality and quantity of learning while increasing the severity of stress and negative outcomes in studentslives (ferrari et al., 1995; milgram, gehrman, & keinan, 1992).however, previous studies have reported that many college students procrastinate despite these apparent consequences (conti,2000; saddler & buley, 1999). more than 70% of college studentsreported that they procrastinate regularly, and roughly 20% do so habitually (schouwenburg, 1995). higher ability students procrastinated more than lower ability students, and procrastination tends to increase as students advance in their academic careers and became more self-regulated (ferrari, 1991). these findings suggest that procrastination is common among college students. theyalso suggest that procrastination among successful college students may have little impact on performance or perhaps may be adaptive because it allows individuals to achieve a sustained level of flow and better use of their study time (brinthaupt & shin, 2001;csikszentmihalyi, 1990; sommer, 1990; tullier, 2000). alternatively,if procrastination does not play an adaptive role in some situations, then many college students may be under achieving because of regular procrastination.we begin by overviewing the rationale for the study and summarizing our methodology. we then define the construct of academic procrastination as intentionally deferring or delaying work that must be completed, consider its dimensionality, and review existing research. we describe several studies that report adaptive aspects of procrastination. next, we discuss the three main goals ofthis research. the present studythe purpose of the present research was to construct a grounded theory of procrastination on the basis of college students reports about their own procrastination. we did so for several reasons.one is that there is relatively little research on procrastination,even though it is a commonly occurring phenomenon among college students. second, most of the existing research has reportedcorrelations between self-reported procrastinatory behavior and academic outcomes, such as grades and study time. we hoped to expand on this research by providing a more in-depth descrip-tive account of academic procrastination. third, and most important to us, there is no existing theory or process model of procrastination.we conducted the present research to examine the process by which procrastination occurs and to propose a preliminary paradigm model (strauss & corbin, 1998) that can be tested in future research.we selected grounded theory methodology because it is ideally suited to construct a data-based theory that can be used as a basis for future research (creswell, 1998; strauss & corbin, 1998).currently, the existing literature on academic procrastination ischaracterized by lack of an explicit, testable theory and the view that procrastination has a negative impact on academic success.given the widespread nature of the phenomenon, we wondered how college students view their procrastination, and whether their experiences are aligned to the prevailing views in the literature.we believed that a grounded theory analysis would help researchers identify additional aspects of procrastination that might explain its widespread continued occurrence.grounded theory is an iterative, inductive method of data collection based on individual and group interviews that attempts todescribe a core phenomenon in detail and to relate it to potentialcauses, consequences, and situational conditions that affect it(creswell, 1998; strauss & corbin, 1994). grounded theory uses participants experiences as data to construct and validate the emergent theory. the end product of grounded theory is a paradigm model that systematically links antecedents, situational conditions,coping strategies, and consequences to the phenomenon of interest (strauss & corbin, 1998). these include conditions that elicit the phenomenon, contextual factors that affect how the phenomenon is enacted, strategies for implementing the phenomenon,and consequences. our main goal was to construct a paradigm model on the of college studentself-reports. dedinition of procrastinationdefinitions of procrastination vary from author to author. some are quite general in nature, such as schouwenburg (1995), who defined procrastination as the behavior of postponing tasks. others are more specific, such as solomon and rothblum (1984), who described procrastination as the act of needlessly delaying tasks past the point of discomfort. lay (1994) defined procrastination in terms of an intention behavior discrepancy, in which a delay of behavior does not become procrastinatory unless the individual has some genuine intent to complete the task. the greater the discrepancy between intent and behavior, the more severe the procrastination.most researchers have emphasized three core criteria for procrastination:it must be dilatory, needless, and counterproductive(schouwenburg, 1995). one problem with these criteria is that the extent to which behavior is needless or counterproductive is very difficult to document objectively. we define procrastinationfor present purposes as intentionally deferring or delaying work that must be completed. relating procrastination to behavioral and affective outcomesa number of researchers have examined relationships between procrastination and academic and nonacademic outcomes. most studies reported negative correlations between procrastination,grades, learning, and completion of course work. for example,rothblum, solomon, and murakami (1986) found that procrastination related negatively to course grades and positively to anxiety.tice and baumeister (1997) reported that self-reported procrastinators received lower final and term paper grades in one experiment, but they failed to replicate this finding in a second experiment. tuckman (1991) found a negative correlation between procrastination and completion of course-related homework.several studies have reported a correlation between procrastination and anxiety and affective dimensions of ones educational experiences. for example, tice and baumeister (1997) found that procrastination initially reduced stress and negative health symptoms in college students but, later in the same semester, produced higher stress and more negative symptoms. solomon and rothblum(1984) and lay, edwards, parker, and endler (1989) reported a positive correlation between procrastination and anxiety. alexander and onwuegbuzie (2006) found a negative relationship between self-report measures of hope and fear of failure. they suggested that increased hope may serve as a coping mechanism for procrastination.a variety of studies also have examined the relationship betweenprocrastination and socialaffective variables. ferrari et al.(1995) reported positive correlations between procrastination and self-handicapping, task avoidance, perfectionism, irrational beliefs,and depression. negative correlations were reported for selfesteem,internal locus of control, and personal standards. schouwenburg(1995) found a negative correlation betweenprocrastination and conscientiousness but no relationship with fear of failure. lay (1994) reported a modest yet significant correlation between procrastination and dejection. flett, blankstein, and martin(1995) concluded that procrastination increases anxiety anddepression. milgram, gehrman, and keinan (1992) reported similar findings. wolters (2003) found a positive relationship between procrastination and work-avoidance goals and a negative relationship with self-efficacy.the studies cited above and those reviewed by ferrari et al.(1995) consistently have reported positive correlations between procrastination and undesirable behaviors or affective outcomes(e.g., failure to complete assignments and low self-esteem). these data suggest either a negative relationship or no relationship at all between procrastination, grades, and overall course achievement.thus far, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are maladaptiveaspects of procrastination that are related to undesirable academicoutcomes in the r0.10 to 0.30 range.in contrast, several studies have examined adaptive aspects of procrastination. lay et al. (1989) reported that procrastinators experienced a greater sense of challenge and peak experience immediately prior to exams. sommer (1990) and vacha and mcbride (1993) found that students who procrastinate were more likely to cram, and that crammers outperformed noncrammers by using a greater variety of study strategies to achieve maximum efficiency. sommer argued that savvy students maximize the efficiency of their study time through a carefully orchestrated cycle of procrastination and cramming. brinthaupt and shin (2001)further explored the relationship of cramming to maximum efficiency and peak experience. they reported that crammers performed better on tests and reported higher levels of “flow” than noncrammers. they argued that cramming increases flow because it increases the level of task challenge and demands a higher level of performance from the student. collectively, these studies suggest that procrastination improves efficiency, challenge, and flow.the present study had three goals. our first goal was to construct a paradigm model that systematically relates five aspects of the procrastination experience. these aspects include conditions that are antecedents of procrastination, a detailed analysis of the phenomenon itself, situational conditions that affect the phenomenon,strategies used by individuals to take action, and consequences of taking action. our second goal was to explore in more detail adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination. previous research has focused largely on maladaptive aspects of procrastination(ferrari et al., 1995; schouwenburg, 1995; solomon &rothblum, 1984; tice & baumeister, 1997). in contrast, we believe that there may be adaptive aspects of procrastination, such as a greater ability to engage in sustained work and increased flow(brinthaupt & shin, 2001; sommer, 1990; tullier, 2000). we sought to identify these factors and clarify how and why they benefit learners. our third goal was to identify emergent principles that guide students procrastination. these principles would be suitable objects of study in future research and may help promote theory development and testing. discussion the purpose of this research was to explore the procrastination phenomenon in more detail. we did so by interviewing successful college students about their own procrastination behavior. the study was exploratory in nature and based on verbal reports that may be incomplete. we wish to emphasize that the rationale for this study was to construct a preliminary paradigm model that could be tested in future research, rather than test an existing theory. we also explored in greater detail the potential adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination. we present our conclusions as claims to be tested and expanded on by future qualitative and quantitative research. our findings are based on informantsperceptions and attributions regarding their behavior. one of the key characteristics of a qualitative study is that it focuses on participants perspectives and is not intended to generalize to a broader population (creswell, 1998).we had three specific research goals. the first goal was to construct a paradigm model that enabled us to understand procrastination more systematically. we constructed a paradigm model of academic procrastination that included antecedent conditions, an analysis of the phenomenon itself, situational conditions that affect the phenomenon, strategies used by individuals to take action, and consequences of taking action. this model extended previous research in two ways. one was to examine in greater detail a variety of assumptions, coping strategies, and consequences than previous studies. a second was to view procrastination in a more systematic manner that focused on the broader issues of why and how college students procrastinate. we believe that the paradigm model shown in figure 1 presents a systematic analysis of the process of procrastination that will aid future qualitative and quantitative research. we propose that the main findings of the model (i.e., themes, macrothemes, and principles) are consistent with both the adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination discussed in previous research.our second goal was to examine adaptive and maladaptive aspects of procrastination in more detail. previous research has focused primarily on negative aspects, such as anxiety (ferrari,1991), health problems (tice & baumeister, 1997), and lowered work quality (tuckman, 1991). we identified informants perceptionsof two adaptive and three maladaptive aspects of procrastination.participants indicated that adaptive aspects had a greater impact on their procrastinatory behavior than maladaptive factors.individuals procrastinated to manage their time more efficiently,reduce boredom, and work more efficiently (sommer, 1990;vacha & mcbride, 1993). most students felt that they could not accomplish these objectives without procrastinating. in contrast,maladaptive factors were seen as relatively unimportant. none of our participants reported procrastinating entirely because of laziness or fear of failure, even though most of our participants reported some degree of boredom, laziness, anxiety, or fear of failure. our findings are consistent with previous research, although the present study is the first that we know of to give students the opportunity to compare the adaptive and maladaptiveaspects of procrastination. when given that opportunity, our sample was clear that they procrastinated for adaptive reasons despite some of the maladaptive consequences.our third goal was to identify emergent principles that mayguide students procrastination. we identified six overarching principles affecting academic procrastination, which were verified by participants in phases 3 and 4 of the data collection process. the gist of these principles was that students attempt to produce quality work with as little effort as possible. they do so because they lead busy lives that leave them no other option.students achieve maximum efficiency using a variety of cognitive and affective coping strategies, by becoming shrewd judges of the courses they take and the teachers who teach them,and by focusing their resources on what must be done rather than on what might be done. the six principles we identified are consistent with previous research that has examined the adaptive aspects of procrastination (brinthaupt & shin, 2001; sommer,1990; vacha & mcbride, 1993). however, it is important to note that the six principles represent holistic constructions that we made on the basis of interviews. we believe that most students comments were consistent with these principles. nevertheless,informants rarely articulated any of these principles explicitly, with the exception of phase 4, in which individuals were asked to comment on the plausibility of the principles.phase 4 interviews did not yield any major disagreements with the six principles.collectively, our findings support several claims from previous research, are incongruous with others, and yield several new findings. our findings support the claim that procrastination produces stress and may have an adverse effect on health and feelings of well-being (milgram, dangour, & raviv, 1992; tice &baumeister, 1997). participants uniformly reported higher levels of stress and tension as deadlines approached. however, our findings are inconsistent with claims that procrastination is caused by fear of failure and laziness, and that procrastination leads to poorer performance and lower grades. according to respondents reports,they procrastinated for adaptive reasons and rarely felt that procrastination had a negative impact on learning. virtually all respondents indicated that they learned more efficiently than they would have had they not procrastinated. this may explain, in part,the fact that most college students procrastinate on a regular basisand do so with greater frequency as they become more selfregulated(ferrari, 1991) our findings also extend the literature by providing an indepth look at two adaptive aspects of procrastination, including ognitive efficiency and experience, as well as positive ffects on quality of work. students sometimes procrastinated intentionally to improve the overall quality and efficiency of their lives, even though it added stress and tension late in each emester for relatively short periods of time. students did so ecause added stress and tension were necessary components in he procrastination cycle that enabled them to perform at peak fficiency.the present findings raise questions about the role of procrastination in the college classroom. one is whether teachers and students should be more accepting of pro