4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Students’ Time Management Inventory
The responses from the Time Management Inventory were exported and uploaded into SPSS
for data processing. Descriptive statistics, particularly the mean and standard deviation were
used to statistically analyse the data and asses the respondents’ productivity skills. The
analysis results are shown in the table below.
Table 1.0 Participants’ Time Management Inventory
Subscales N M SD Verbal Interpretation
Time Planning (TP) 100 2.493 .58613 Moderately Productive
8
Time Attitudes (TA) 100 2.726 .87409 Neutral
7
Time Consumers (TC) 100 2.726 .87409 Neutral
7
OVERALL TIME MANAGEMENT 100 2.461 .47206 Moderately
INVENTORY 1 Productive
Legend: 1.0 - 1.8 (Very Productive); 1.81 – 2.6 (Moderately Productive); 2.61 – 3.4
(Neutral); 3.41 - 4.2 (Slightly Productive); 4.21 – 5.0; (Not Productive)
Table 1.0 shows that the participants, comprising a total of 100 individuals, exhibited
moderate productivity with a mean score of 2.4611 and a standard deviation of 0.47206. This
aligns with similar findings from time management practices in academic settings conducted
by Khanam et al. (2017), which reported a mean of productivity score of 2.61 and a standard
deviation of 0.34 among 95 respondents. The research highlighted that a significant portion
of participants experienced moderate time management challenges, suggesting room for
improvement. Aeon and Aguinis (2017) also found that time management issues often result
in moderate productivity, reinforcing the idea that better planning and prioritization could
lead to improved outcomes.
The highest mean score in the survey was Time Attitudes and Time Consumers which is
2.726 and a standard deviation of 0.47206 indicating a “neutral” productivity skills. This
suggests that the students neither excels at managing their time effectively nor struggles
significantly with it. This reflects the findings of Mckay and Andretta (2017) which stated
that while attitudes toward time can shape how people perceive productivity, those with a
neutral stance often lack the motivation needed to turn time management into tangible
performance improvements. Moreover, a study by Zimbardo (2023) which is Time
Perspective Theory supports the notion that individuals with balanced or neutral time
attitudes may not necessarily achieve peak productivity as they are less likely to exhibit
strong future-oriented behaviors like goal-setting and planning, key drivers of efficiency.
Based on a thorough analysis of data
5.2 Students’ Time Management Inventory across Subscales
Table 1.1 Respondents’ Distribution of Responses across TP Subscale
Responses
No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5 M SD Interp.
N % N % N % N % N %
1 Do you 37 37.0 2 25.0 3 32.0 4 4.0 2 2.0 2.09 1.016 Moderately
plan your 5 2 Productive
day before
you start?
2 Do you 6 6.0 1 19.0 4 48.0 1 15.0 12 12. 3.08 1.032 Neutral
make a list 9 8 5 0
of things
you have to
do each
day?
3 Do you fix 24 24.0 2 23.0 3 30.0 1 17.0 6 6.0 2.58 1.199 Neutral
a date to 3 0 7
complete
your
studies?
4 Do you 29 29.0 2 27.0 2 25.0 1 11.0 8 8.0 2.42 1.241 Neutral
mark 7 5 1
important
dates for
you on a
calendar
(date of
exams,
assignment
submission
dates, etc.)?
5 Do you 20 20.0 2 25.0 3 36.0 1 13.0 6 6.0 2.60 1.128 Moderately
revise your 5 6 3 Productive
lesson
notes, even
if you do
not have an
exam soon?
6 Do you 24 24.0 2 27.0 3 35.0 1 10.0 4 4.0 2.43 1.085 Moderately
carry things 7 5 0 Productive
with you
which you
can study in
case you
have free
time?
7 Do you 40 40.0 2 27.0 2 23.0 8 8.0 2 2.0 2.05 1.067 Moderately
determine 7 3 Productive
your
priorities
and follow
them?
Do you 17 17.0 2 24.0 3 37.0 1 16.0 6 6.0 2.70 1.115 Neutral
carry out 4 7 6
matters
concerning
yourself
every week
without
planning or
pursuing
them
beforehand
?
Responses’ Legend: 1 = always, 2 = often, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Rarely, 5 = Never
Table 1.2 Respondents’ Distribution of Responses across TA Subscale
Responses
No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5 M SD Interp.
N % N % N % N % N %
9 Do you use 21 21.0 36 36.0 3 35.0 5 5.0 3 3.0 2.34 .960 Moderately
your time 5 Productive
constructively?
10 Do you need 43 43.0 29 29.0 2 22.0 4 4.0 1 1.0 2.21 3.251 Moderately
to improve 2 Productive
yourself in
planning your
time?
11 Do you in 28 28.0 22 22.0 4 40.0 5 5.0 5 5.0 2.37 1.098 Moderately
general feel 0 Productive
that you
yourself plan
your time?
12 Do you usually 40 40.0 27 27.0 1 19.0 10 10.0 4 4.0 2.11 1.163 Moderately
think that you 9 Productive
will be able to
achieve your
all goals in the
time given to
you?
13 Do you often 20 20.0 24 24.0 3 37.0 14 14.0 5 5.0 2.60 1.110 Moderately
find yourself 7 Productive
busy with
tasks that
prevent you
from doing
your school
work only
because you
cannot say
“No” to
people?
14 Do you find 32 32.0 25 25.0 2 24.0 9 9.0 10 10. 2.40 1.295 Moderately
yourself 4 0 Productive
waiting if you
do not have
anything to
do?
Table 1.3 Respondents’ Distribution of Responses across TC Subscale
Responses
No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5 M SD Interp.
N % N % N % N % N %
15 On a typical 16 16.0 14 14.0 3 30.0 19 19.0 21 21 . 3.15 1.344 Neutral
school day, do 0 0
you spend
more time on
private issues
than on school
tasks?
16 Do you spend 22 22.0 26 26.0 2 21.0 21 21.0 10 10.0 2.71 1.297 Neutral
time on habits 1
or activities
from which
you do not
benefit at all?
17 Do you 30 30.0 28 28.0 2 29.0 6 6.0 7 7.0 2.32 1.171 Moderately
usually work 9 Productive
on a very
important
school
assignment
the night just
before the due
date?
The arithmetic mean of Time Consumers is 2.7267, indicating that they were “neutral”. This
refers that activities or tasks neither positively nor negatively affect the students’ productivity
or well-being. According to Yanping Tu and Dilip Soman (2014),
Dependen Independent N Mean Std. Deviation Sig. (2-tailed)
t Variable
Variable
TP Male 39 2.5449 .51418 .469
Female 61 2.4611 .62979
TA Male 39 2.3675 1.07550 .786
Female 61 2.3169 .53029
TC Male 39 2.4359 .82771 .007
Female 61 2.9126 .85830
Overall Male 39 2.4630 .54437 .802
Female 61 2.4899 .48110
Table 1.0 Participants’ Academic Stress Inventory
Subscales N M SD Verbal Interpretation
Factor 1: Teachers’ Stress (TS) 100 2.4800 .88169 Moderately Stressed
Factor 2: Results Stress (RS) 100 2.8333 .97500 Indifferent
Factor 3: Tests Stress (FTS) 100 2.8050 1.0172 Indifferent
6
Factor 4: Studying in Group Stress 100 2.9520 1.0061 Indifferent
(SGS) 5
Factor 5:Time Management Stress 100 2.8900 1.0358 Indifferent
(TMS) 9
Factor 6: Self-inflicted Stress (SIS) 100 2.6433 .96662 Indifferent
OVERALL ACADEMIC STRESS 100 2.7772 .67914 Indifferent
INVENTORY
Legend: 1.0 - 1.8 (Very Stressed); 1.81 – 2.6 (Moderately Stressed); 2.61 – 3.4 (Indifferent);
3.41 - 4.2 (Slightly Stressed); 4.21 – 5.0; (Not Stressed)
5.2 Students’ Academic Stress Inventory across Subscales
Table 1.1 Respondents’ Distribution of Responses across TS Subscale
Responses
No. Statements 1 2 3 4 5 M SD Interp.
N % N % N % N % N %
1 I feel that 24 24.0 3 32.0 2 27.0 13 13. 4 4.0 2.41 1.111 Moderately
the forms 2 7 0 Stressed
and content
of exercises
and reports
of some
teachers are
too strict,
difficult,
and
excessive.
2 I feel that I 21 21.0 2 29.0 3 34.0 9 9.0 7 7.0 2.52 1.132 Moderately
do not 9 4 Stressed
understand
a lot about
some
teachers’
teaching
content.
3 I feel that I 24 24.0 3 30.0 2 25.0 13 13. 8 8.0 2.51 1.219 Moderately
am not able 0 5 0 Stressed
to adapt to
some
teachers’
teaching
methods.
Dependent Independen N Mean Std Deviation Sig (2-tailed)
Variable t
Variable
TS Male 39 2.5128 0.86466 0.766
Female 61 2.4590 0.89890
RS Male 39 2.6154 0.89684 0.067
Female 61 2.9727 1.00424
FTS Male 39 2.7949 1.08651 0.939
Female 61 2.8115 0.97964
SGS Male 39 2.9671 0.84454 0.907
Female 61 2.9426 1.10151
TMS Male 39 2.8120 0.89114 0.550
Female 61 2.9399 1.12301
SIS Male 39 2.7094 1.00052 0.592
Female 61 2.6011 0.95028
OVERALL Male 38 2.7485 0.58862 0.729
Female 61 2.7951 0.73406
Correlations
OVERALLASIT OVERALLTMIT
OTAL OTAL
Pearson Correlation 1 .141
OVERALLASITOTAL Sig. (2-tailed) .164
N 99 99
Pearson Correlation .141 1
OVERALLTMITOTAL Sig. (2-tailed) .164
N 99 100
