Results

Validation of Time Management Questionnaire

Since the Time Management Questionnaire is a new instrument used for this study, some reliability and validity tests are warranted to determine a level of confidence to place in this instrument.

A Cronbach’s Alpha score was computed on the 11 items making up the “Time Management Survey”. The reliability of this scale was found to be 0.351 which is a very low reliability score. An inter-item correlation of the 11 questions was then computed to see if any of the scale questions were related to each other.

Table 1: Time Management Survey Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11
Q1	-.029	-.091	.106	.349	.306	-.317	.142	-.153	.067	.427
Q2		.567	-.265	-.049	-.357	.068	-.451	.226	.402	.013
Q3			-.230	-.059	.110	.265	-.165	.166	.421	.133
Q4				.077	.124	.007	.106	.060	.081	.157
Q5					.256	-.308	.105	-.290	.019	.159
Q6						-.293	.333	-.292	-.049	.310
Q7							-.226	.379	.256	.020
Q8								-.222	-.444	.281
Q9									.031	.231
Q10										-.150

A Spearman correlation was also conducted between the 11 questions and student’s academic performance (Table 2). None of the 11 survey questions seem to correlate with academic performance.

Table 2: Spearman correlation between Time Management Survey Questions and Academic Performance

		Exam 1	Cumm. Perf
Q1	Correlation Coefficient	-.135	.053
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.439	.763
Q2	Correlation Coefficient	.150	-.024
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.390	.890
Q3	Correlation Coefficient	.113	-.080
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.517	.646
Q4	Correlation Coefficient	-.187	-.168
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.283	.335
Q5	Correlation Coefficient	-.035	-.007
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.842	.967
Q6	Correlation Coefficient	-.149	-.145
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.394	.406
Q7	Correlation Coefficient	.011	.017
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.952	.923
Q8	Correlation Coefficient	-.173	-.085
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.319	.625
Q9	Correlation Coefficient	.321	.286
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.060	.096
Q10	Correlation Coefficient	.020	-.011
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.909	.951
Q11	Correlation Coefficient	-.017	-.048
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.921	.783

Next, the students’ estimates of the amount of time they spent on various recreational activities were compared to the time management scale using a Spearman coefficient matrix. Although it was expected that students with a low score on the Time Management Survey would spend a greater proportion of their time on recreational activities, no significance was found between these two dimensions (Table 3).

Table 3: Correlation of self-estimates of recreational activities and self assessment of time management skills

		Plea-sure Reading	Watching TV	Time with Friends	Chatting on-line	Computer Games	Console Games	Social Networking	Surfing Internet	Shopping	Volunteering	Total Recreation Time	Time Management Scale
Exercising	Corr. Coef.	.482(**)	.053	.255	.108	.068	.157	.172	.052	-.166	-.239	.422(*)	-.166
Exercising	Sig. (2-tailed)	.002	.380	.139	.538	.698	.368	.324	.765	.339	.167	.012	.339
Pleasure Reading	Corr. Coef.		-.153	.309	.200	.091	.026	-.189	.049	-.278	.048	.517(**)	.000
Pleasure Reading	Sig. (2-tailed)		.380	.071	.249	.602	.881	.277	.780	.106	.783	.001	.998
Watching TV	Corr. Coef.			.137	.166	.116	.234	.475(**)	.021	-.188	-.279	.218	-.321
Watching TV	Sig. (2-tailed)			.433	.340	.508	.175	.004	.904	.279	.104	.209	.060
Time with Friends	Corr. Coef.				.082	.085	.021	.122	.215	-.407(*)	-.042	.511(**)	-.115
Time with Friends	Sig. (2-tailed)				.638	.629	.906	.487	.214	.015	.813	.002	.509
Chatting on-line	Corr. Coef.					.271	.142	.240	.027	-.115	.137	.510(**)	-.069
Chatting on-line	Sig. (2-tailed)					.115	.417	.165	.880	.509	.433	.002	.693
Computer Games	Corr. Coef.						.179	.070	-.229	.123	-.262	.368(*)	-.245
Computer Games	Sig. (2-tailed)						.304	.689	.185	.481	.129	.029	.157
Console Games	Corr. Coef.							.271	-.032	.218	-.338(*)	.367(*)	-.271
Console Games	Sig. (2-tailed)							.115	.857	.209	.047	.030	.116
Social Networking	Corr. Coef.								.138	-.155	-.176	.291	-.238
Social Networking	Sig. (2-tailed)								.428	.375	.312	.090	.169
Surfing Internet	Corr. Coef.									-.224	-.062	.417(*)	-.113
Surfing Internet	Sig. (2-tailed)									.195	.725	.013	.518
Shopping	Corr. Coef.										-.119	-.224	-.050
Shopping	Sig. (2-tailed)										.498	.195	.776
Volunteering	Corr. Coef.											-.198	.323
Volunteering	Sig. (2-tailed)											.255	.059
Total Recreation Time	Corr. Coef.												-.286
Total Recreation Time	Sig. (2-tailed)											.	.096
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Comparing Personality and Learning Styles with Academic Performance

Turning our attention to testing the proposed hypotheses, a Pearson Product Coefficient was calculated between each of the BFI indicators and academic performance (Table 4). Conscientiousness was the only scale to show a significance (p<0.05)—albeit a negative one—when correlated with the first midterm exam. However, this correlation was less significant when Conscientiousness was compared with academic performance over the entire semester (p@0.06).

In analyzing whether learning styles as measured by the ILS can predict academic performance, there appeared to be no significance at all (Table 5).

Table 4: Pearson product coefficients between BFI factors and performance on the first midterm and cumulative academic performance

		Exam #1	Academic Performance
Extraversion	Pearson Correlation	-.201	-.026
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.247	.882
Agreeableness	Pearson Correlation	-.184	-.202
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.291	.245
Conscientiousness	Pearson Correlation	-.374(*)	-.321
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.027	.060
Neuroticism	Pearson Correlation	-.023	-.087
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.896	.621
Openness	Pearson Correlation	-.057	-.091
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.747	.603
Exam #1	Pearson Correlation		.856(**)
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.000
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5: Pearson product coefficients comparing ILS styles with academic performance

ILS Style		Academic Performance
ACT	Pearson Correlation	-.190
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.275
REF	Pearson Correlation	.186
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.284
SNS	Pearson Correlation	-.101
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.563
INT	Pearson Correlation	.101
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.563
VIS	Pearson Correlation	-.117
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.505
VRB	Pearson Correlation	.117
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.505
SEQ	Pearson Correlation	-.193
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.268
GLO	Pearson Correlation	.193
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.268

Time Management and Academic Performance

Students’ self-assessment of time management practices and ability was also compared to academic performance. This analysis involved two phases. In the first phase, the participants’ assessment of their own time-management skills and abilities as measured from the first 11 questions were correlated to their academic performance. However, this relationship was not found to be significant (-.146, p=0.403). In the second phase, participants’ estimates of the time they spent on a variety of recreational activities were also collected. A frequency chart showing the number of students who reported engaging in the different activities is shown in Figure 1. This chart compares the median values of time spent per week for each activity with the number of students reporting that value.

Figure 1: Frequency of students participating in various recreational activities by hours spent per week in each activity.

Frequency of Recreational Activities

The time spent by each student on each recreational activity was then correlated with academic performance (Table 6). A positive correlation was found between time spent playing computer games and academic performance; however, no other recreational activities appeared to correlate with exam results.

Table 6: Spearman rho correlations between participants' estimates of time spent on recreational activities and academic performance

Recreational Activities		Exam #1	Academic Performance
Total Recreation Time	Correlation Coefficient	.193	.103
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.266	.558
Exercising	Correlation Coefficient	-.141	-.213
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.419	.219
Pleasure Reading	Correlation Coefficient	.158	.208
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.365	.231
Watching TV	Correlation Coefficient	.038	.000
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.829	.999
Time with Friends	Correlation Coefficient	.098	.084
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.576	.632
Chatting on-line	Correlation Coefficient	-.231	-.302
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.183	.078
Computer Games	Correlation Coefficient	.447(**)	.319
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.007	.062
Console Games	Correlation Coefficient	.084	-.109
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.633	.532
Social Networking	Correlation Coefficient	-.198	-.325
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.254	.057
Surfing Internet	Correlation Coefficient	.126	-.001
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.470	.995
Shopping	Correlation Coefficient	.144	.166
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.408	.342
Volunteering	Correlation Coefficient	-.112	-.061
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.524	.728
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Problem Solving Ability

Of the questions posed in the problem solving and logical thinking portion of the pre-study instrument, questions 11 and 9 (p≤0.01), as well as questions 7, 12 and 4 (p≤0.05) showed the strongest correlations with academic performance (Table 7). Conversely, problems 1 and 8, 2, 3, 5 and 10 showed almost no correlation at all.

Table 7: Spearman Rho Correlation Matrix between Problem Solving Questions and Academic Performance

		Problem 2	Problem 3	Problem 4	Problem 5	Problem 6	Problem 7	Problem 9	Problem 10	Problem 11	Problem 12	Academic Performance
Problems 1 & 8	Correlation Coefficient	.180	.240	.377(*)	.049	.147	.103	.165	-.196	.053	-.094	-.097
	Sig. (1-tailed)	.150	.082	.013	.391	.200	.279	.172	.129	.380	.295	.289
Problem 2	Correlation Coefficient		-.125	-.059	.111	-.076	-.053	-.232	-.153	-.167	.139	.000
	Sig. (1-tailed)		.237	.368	.263	.332	.380	.090	.190	.169	.212	.500
Problem 3	Correlation Coefficient			.141	.257	.249	.240	.101	.000	.000	.186	.202
	Sig. (1-tailed)			.209	.068	.075	.082	.283	.500	.500	.143	.122
Problem 4	Correlation Coefficient				.083	-.061	.245	.586(**)	-.144	.354(*)	-.066	.320(*)
	Sig. (1-tailed)				.319	.364	.078	.000	.204	.019	.354	.030
Problem 5	Correlation Coefficient					.117	.310(*)	.042	-.200	.093	.139	.136
	Sig. (1-tailed)					.251	.035	.405	.125	.297	.213	.218
Problem 6	Correlation Coefficient						.260	-.061	.307(*)	.298(*)	.245	.273
	Sig. (1-tailed)						.065	.363	.036	.041	.078	.056
Problem 7	Correlation Coefficient							.447(**)	.131	.187	.253	.388(*)
	Sig. (1-tailed)							.004	.227	.141	.071	.011
Problem 9	Correlation Coefficient								-.123	.452(**)	.182	.481(**)
	Sig. (1-tailed)								.241	.003	.148	.002
Problem 10	Correlation Coefficient									.117	.038	.014
	Sig. (1-tailed)									.252	.414	.468
Problem 11	Correlation Coefficient										.248	.531(**)
	Sig. (1-tailed)										.076	.001
Problem 12	Correlation Coefficient											.345(*)
	Sig. (1-tailed)											.021

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).