1.

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY Time Management is of the essence that the things one does are consistently productive and efficient all throughout a certain period of time. It is the act or process of planning and exercising conscious control over the amount of time spent on specific activities, especially to increase effectiveness, efficiency or productivity (Wikipedia, 2013). The aim of managing time is to spend time doing the things that help achieve ones goals and the things that one personally prioritize and value (Oxford Brookes University, 2012). In this study, the time management of student officers will be measured by the Time Management Questionnaire, specifically their score in the test. On the other hand, in academic performance, the Quality Point Index (QPI) the student officer gets at the end of each semester while also being active in an organization is also being considered. Students involvement in extracurricular activities is generally considered advantageous to their overall educational experience (Astin, 2001). This is because aside from being clothed with academic and plain classroom learning, students also enhance their communication skills; learn about professional development issues, and group dynamics (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). This study basically aims to measure the Time Management Practices of Student Officers: their Time Planning, their Attitude toward Time and the things that distract them with their plans and goals. Also, the Pickle Jar Theory is evident in this study. The Pickle Jar, being filled with large rocks, followed by pebbles, sand and finally water. This time management theory then states that the pickle jar is life, the large rocks its major responsibilities, the small pebbles hobbies, the sand mundane activities and the water distractions. While the pickle jar theory focuses on identifying what is important, it also draws attention to the impact that distractions can have (Dave, 2012). Furthermore, because the respondents are primarily students, their academic performance is being noted and considered through determining their respective QPI as a further indicator and support of good time management. Determining the optimal amount of involvement in student organizations has implications for educators and student affairs professionals (Keeling, 2004). The extent to which students are actively engaged in the college experience can have either a positive or a negative effect on academic success (Community College Survey of Student Engagement, 2008; Holland & Andre, 1987). To determine this, one must understand how involvement affects students both in and out of the classroom. The dilemma becomes to what extent students can be involved in extracurricular activities without those activities becoming detrimental to the students QPI (Kiger & Lorentzen, 1988).

2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, HYPOTHESIS, STATISTICAL TOOL Research Problem Hypotheses 1. What are the time management Hypotheses Free practices of Student Officers in XU? 2. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of: - Academic Performance (QPI) - Term of Service - Gender - Study Load - Leisure Time 3. Does the Time Management Practices of Student Officers affect their Academic Performance (QPI)? Hypotheses Free Statistical Tool Descriptive Statistics - Means - SD Descriptive Statistics - Frequency - Percentage - Mean

H1: The Time Regression Management Practices of Student Officers affect their Academic Performance. H0: The Time Management Practices of Student Officers does not affect their Academic Performance.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This includes the method of research used, the participants of the study, data gathering procedure and the statistical treatment of the study. 3.1 Research Sample, Participants of the Study and Data Gathering Procedure This study will use a universal method of data gathering. This is a take-all method. The aimed respondents for this study are Student Officers of Xavier University Ateneo de Cagayan (XU-ADC), provided that he or she meets the following guidelines: (1) he or she must be a student officer, whether appointed or elected, (2) he or she must be an officer of any organization in XU-ADC , whether co-curricular or extra-curricular, and (3) he or she

must be an active officer of an organization with at least one year of administrative term of service. The process was done through giving a permission letter to the Head of Student Activities and Development (SACDEV) Office asking a formal consent to conduct the survey to the student officers. After the letter of proposal was approved by the said office, few suggestions were also given by the office before the survey can be officially conducted. As suggested, the researchers made a personal letter addressed to each cocurricular and extra-curricular president a formal asking for permission to conduct the survey and at the same time asking for help to provide the researchers the intended respondents the study is aiming to have, who is, someone who meets the aforementioned criteria or guidelines. This made the distribution of the questionnaires and gathering of the expected data easier than planned. Attach to the questionnaire as a front page is the informed consent for the respondents with the particular demographic profile to be filledup. 3.2 Psychometric Properties of the Scales Used The 35-item Time Management Questionnaire (TMQ), originally by Britton, Bruce K. and Tesser, Abraham (1991) were tested for reliability and validity by Sema Alay and Settar Koak last December, 2002 (27 items). Time management instrument measures several time management components; choosing goals and sub goals, prioritizing the goals, generating tasks and subtasks from goals, prioritizing the tasks, listing the tasks on a "to do" list, scheduling the tasks, and then carrying out the tasks. From the study done, they found 3 dimensions namely: Time Planning, Time Attitudes and Time Wasters. The Time Planning Dimension has 16 items, Time Attitude, 7 items and Time Waster, 4 items. Furthermore, total score on TMQ ranged from 47 to 123 with a mean of 86.68 and a standard deviation of 13.21. 27-item TMQ developed to measure time management practices of university students has 5-point Likert scale. Responses under each item consist of always, frequently, sometimes, infrequently and never. In scoring, 5 point was assigned to answer "always" at positive items, and 1 point was assigned to answer "always" at negative meaning items. Higher values on the TMQ correspond to better time management practices. The reliability of Time Management Questionnaire was addressed by using Cronbach alpha. The Table shows the reliability of Time Management Questionnaire for 361 selected university students.

Scales Time Planning Time Attitudes Time Wasters Total Scale

Number of Items 16 7 4 27

Coefficient Cronbach alpha N=361 0.88 0.66 0.47 0.87

Cronbach Alpha coefficients or internal consistency for three subscales of TMQ for selected 361 university students was ranged from .47 (Time Wasters) to .88 (Time Planning) .In additions to that, Cronbach alpha for total scale was .87. 4. RESULTS Table 4.1 The Time Management Practices of Student Officers in XU
Descriptive Statistics N Overall Time Management Score Valid N (listwise) 100 100 Minimum 75.00 Maximum 119.00 Mean 96.7100 Std. Deviation 10.74901

The original mean of the study conducted was 86.68 with a standard deviation of 13.21. From the results obtained, the mean was 96.71, 10.03 higher than the original mean with a standard deviation of 10.75, 2.46 lower than the original standard deviation. This suggests that the results obtained had a mean seemingly higher but was not enough to yield a high average mean. The mean score of 99.89(from adding 86.68 with the standard deviation 13.21) would have yielded a high average score. Table 4.2 The Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Statistics Gender Length of Service(In Years) Valid N Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation 0 1.5100 2.0000 .50242 0 2.2300 2.0000 .88597 0 3.7250 3.5000 2.18971 0 21.8600 22.5000 4.85761 0 2.8601 2.8750 .46512 100 100 100 100 100 Leisure Time(In Hours) Study Load QPI

Minimum Maximum

1.00 2.00

1.00 6.00

.00 10.00

12.00 36.00

1.60 3.90

There are a total of 100 respondents, the gender of the respondents got a mean of 1.5100, the length of service of the respondents got a mean of 2.2300, the leisure time of the respondents got a mean of 3.7250, the study load of the respondents got a mean of 21.8600, and the QPI of the respondents got a mean of 2.8601.

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male Valid Female Total 49 51 100 49.0 51.0 100.0 49.0 51.0 100.0 49.0 100.0

There are a total of 100 respondents, 49% are males and 51% are females.
Length of Service(In Years) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1.00 2.00 3.00 Valid 4.00 6.00 Total 7 1 100 7.0 1.0 100.0 7.0 1.0 100.0 99.0 100.0 17 53 22 17.0 53.0 22.0 17.0 53.0 22.0 17.0 70.0 92.0

Out of 100 respondents, 53% have served for 2 years, 22% have served for 3 years, 17% have served for 1 year, 7% have served for 4 years, and only 1 percent has served for 6 years.
Leisure Time(In Hours) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent .00 1.00 Valid 1.50 2.00 2.50 10 2 2 7 3 10.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 3.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 3.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 21.0 24.0

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 8.00 10.00 Total

25 3 17 2 11 2 7 1 1 4 3 100

25.0 3.0 17.0 2.0 11.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 100.0

25.0 3.0 17.0 2.0 11.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 100.0

49.0 52.0 69.0 71.0 82.0 84.0 91.0 92.0 93.0 97.0 100.0

Of the 100 respondents, 25% of them have 3 hours of leisure time, 17% of them have 4 hours of leisure time, 11% of them have 5 hours of leisure time, 10% of them have dont have leisure time, 7% of them have 6 hours of leisure time, 4% of them have 8 hours of leisure time, 3% of the respondents have 10 hours of leisure time, another 3% have 3.5 hours of leisure time, some other 3% have 2.5 hours of leisure time, 2% of them have 5.5 hours of leisure time, other 2% of them have 4.5 hours of leisure time, another 2% of the respondents have 1.5 hours of leisure time, and another 2% have 1 hour of leisure time, 1% of the respondents have 7 hours of leisure time and another 1% of the respondents have 6.5 hours of leisure time.
Study Load Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 12.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 Valid 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 3 14 1 7 14 3 3.0 14.0 1.0 7.0 14.0 3.0 3.0 14.0 1.0 7.0 14.0 3.0 35.0 49.0 50.0 57.0 71.0 74.0 4 1 8 1 7 11 4.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 7.0 11.0 4.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 7.0 11.0 4.0 5.0 13.0 14.0 21.0 32.0

26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 36.00 Total

7 5 7 6 1 100

7.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 1.0 100.0

7.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 1.0 100.0

81.0 86.0 93.0 99.0 100.0

For a total of 100 respondents, mostly of them have a 21 to 24 units of study load, 14% of them have a study load of 24 units, and another 14% of the respondents have a study load of 21 units. Also, there are 1% of the respondents have a study load of 36 units, another 1% of the respondents have a study load of 22 units, another 1% of the respondents have a study load of 16 units, and another 1% of the respondents have a study load of 14 units, Table 4.3 Relationship between the Respondents Time Management Practices and their Academic Performance (QPI)
Descriptive Statistics Mean QPI Overall Time Management Score 2.8601 96.7100 Std. Deviation .46512 10.74901 N 100 100

Correlations Overall Time Management QPI Pearson Correlation QPI Overall Time Management Score Sig. (1-tailed) QPI Overall Time Management Score N QPI Overall Time Management Score 100 100 100 100 . .011 .011 . 1.000 .230 Score .230 1.000

Variables Entered/Removed Variables Model 1 Entered Overall Time Management Score a. All requested variables entered. b. Dependent Variable: QPI Variables Removed

Method . Enter

Model Summary

Change Statistics Sig. F Adjusted R Model 1 R .230

a

Std. Error of the Estimate .45490

R Square Change .053

F Change 5.498 df1 1 df2 98

Chang e .021 Durbin-Watson 1.646

R Square .053

Square .043

a. Predictors: (Constant), Overall Time Management Score b. Dependent Variable: QPI

ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 1.138 20.280 21.418 df

Mean Square 1 98 99 1.138 .207

F 5.498

Sig. .021
a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Overall Time Management Score b. Dependent Variable: QPI Coefficients Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Overall Time Management Score a. Dependent Variable: QPI B 1.896 .010 Std. Error .414 .004 .230 Coefficients Beta t 4.580 2.345 Sig. .000 .021 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Lower Bound 1.074 .002 Upper Bound 2.717 .018
a

Coefficient Correlations

Overall Time Management Model 1 Correlations Overall Time Management Score Covariances Overall Time Management Score a. Dependent Variable: QPI 1.809E-5 Score 1.000

Collinearity Diagnostics

Variance Proportions Overall Time Management Model 1 Dimension 1 2 a. Dependent Variable: QPI Eigenvalue 1.994 .006 Condition Index 1.000 18.140 (Constant) .00 1.00 Score .00 1.00

Residuals Statistics Minimum Predicted Value Residual Std. Predicted Value Std. Residual a. Dependent Variable: QPI 2.6436 -1.14331 -2.020 -2.513 Maximum 3.0824 1.09672 2.074 2.411

Mean 2.8601 .00000 .000 .000

Std. Deviation .10721 .45260 1.000 .995

N 100 100 100 100

The tables showed that the correlation strength is a weak positive (r= .230). It means that Time Management Practices is directly proportional to the students Academic Performance(QPI) and also showed a significant relationship (p=.021). Statistics show that the Pearsons correlation value (.053) signifies that the Time Management Practices only accounts for 5.3% of the Students Performance. Since it only accounts for 5.3% there are also other variances that account the remaining 94.7% of the Students Performance.

Table 4.4 The Factors that Directly Affects the Academic Performance of the Student Officers.
Descriptive Statistics Mean QPI Total Time Planning Score Total Time Attitude Score Total Time Waster Score 2.8601 56.5300 26.6100 13.5700 Std. Deviation .46512 8.75532 2.62427 2.38791 N 100 100 100 100

Correlations Total Time QPI Pearson Correlation QPI Total Time Planning Score Total Time Attitude Score Total Time Waster Score Sig. (1-tailed) QPI Total Time Planning Score Total Time Attitude Score Total Time Waster Score N QPI Total Time Planning Score Total Time Attitude Score Total Time Waster Score 1.000 .225 .207 -.015 . .012 .019 .440 100 100 100 100 Planning Score .225 1.000 .228 .380 .012 . .011 .000 100 100 100 100 Total Time Attitude Score .207 .228 1.000 -.006 .019 .011 . .476 100 100 100 100 Total Time Waster Score -.015 .380 -.006 1.000 .440 .000 .476 . 100 100 100 100

Variables Entered/Removed Model 1 Variables Entered Total Time Planning Score

Variables Removed

Method . Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-toenter <= .050, Probability-of-F-toremove >= .100).

a. Dependent Variable: QPI

Model Summary

Change Statistics Adjusted R Model 1 R .225

a

Std. Error of the Estimate

R Square Change .051 F Change 5.229 df1 1 df2 98 Sig. F Change .024

R Square .051

Square .041

.45550

a. Predictors: (Constant), Total Time Planning Score

ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 1.085 20.333 21.418 df

Mean Square 1 98 99 1.085 .207

F 5.229

Sig. .024
a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Total Time Planning Score b. Dependent Variable: QPI Coefficients
a

Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Total Time Planning Score a. Dependent Variable: QPI B 2.184 .012 Std. Error .299 .005 .225 Coefficients Beta t 7.303 2.287 Sig. .000 .024

Excluded Variables

Collinearity Partial Model 1 Total Time Attitude Score Total Time Waster Score Beta In .164 -.118
a a

Statistics Tolerance .948 .856

t 1.639 -1.109

Sig. .104 .270

Correlation .164 -.112

a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Total Time Planning Score b. Dependent Variable: QPI

The tables showed that the correlation strength is a weak positive (r= .225). It means that the Time Planning Factor is directly proportional to and greatly affects the students Academic Performance(QPI) and also showed a significant relationship (p=.024).

Statistics show that the Pearsons correlation value (.051) signifies that the Time Management Practices only accounts for 5.3% of the Students Performance. Since it only accounts for 5.1% there are also other variances that account the remaining 94.9% of the Students Performance. In general, the total Time Management Practices is significantly affecting the students academic performance, but among the three factors of Time Management presented, Time Planning greatly affects and contributes to the students QPI compared to the other factors.

5. DISCUSSION Since the mean score obtained falls only on the average, the time management practices of Student Officers in XU would have an average time management score. One student officer, a student not only focuses on his or her academics but also in his or her extra-curricular involvement. Involvement includes attending organization meetings and events. Some students choose to become leaders within their organizations. Leadership ranges from active participation, chairing specific projects or committees, to acting as president or vice-president (McGrath, 2002). Students must balance course responsibilities, extracurricular activity, along with home, family, and friends (Astin, 2001). Student officer status within an organization promotes even greater duties and time commitment to the already active individual (Holland & Andre, 1987). Provided with this, student officers tend to have more responsibilities and additional priorities from time to time because of the said involvement. It is like indirectly saying that the more priorities, the more things to set and organize for management, the lesser the time they can possibly give and spare to each particular priorities. In this study, the Time Management was measured by dividing it to three categorical factors: Time Planning, Time Attitude and Time Wasters. Generally, the aforementioned factors are really significantly contributing to the academic performance of the student officers provided that the set of questions was indeed relevant and practical to them. In planning and attitude, a task list is being used. Task list (also to-do list or things-to-do) is a list of tasks to be completed, such as chores or steps toward completing a project. It is an inventory tool which serves as an alternative or supplement to memory (Wikipedia, 2013). In general, time management was tried to be measured through written process of schedules set for a certain period of time. The Validity and Reliability of Time Management Questionnaire (Sema A. & Settar K., 2002) got an average mean of 86.68 and a standard deviation of 13. The average obtained from the study was 96.71 with a standard deviation of 10.75 which is slightly above the mean of the original study. Given that the respondents of the aforementioned study were college students, it is like implying that when the same questionnaire with the same scoring procedure was used for this research, Time Management of Student Officers

of Xavier University, then the total score of the student officer respondents was actually above average than that of the score got by the ordinary college students of the original study. This is because additional priorities were considered aside from academic responsibilities, like having extracurricular and organizational involvements with corresponding tasks, considering also the weight of the demands the student officer encounters and obliged to do than those that are managed by ordinary students. In relation to finding out if Time Management Practices would affect academic performance, Britton and Tesser (1991) tested their hypothesis that college grade point averages could be predicted by time management practices. They had ninety freshman and sophomore college students at the University of Georgia answer a 35-question time management survey and submit their SAT scores. They found that two time management components directly affect the cumulative GPA; planning including utilizing short and long term goals -- and time attitudes, or, the perception of how their time needs to be spent. Students that practiced both planning and positive time attitudes found that they had much more time to complete their tasks because they felt more in control of how their time was spent therefore knowing when they had to say no to activities. It was also found that the students who reported using goal-oriented time management had a higher overall GPA. This seems to indicate that time management practices do have an influence on college academic achievement, but thats not all they affect. Time management practices have been proven to be some of the top indicators toward achieving a high level of academic success and performance. They arent the only influences on achievement, but time management also doesnt serve only one purpose (Delinger, 2012). Participating in events and being engaged in other outside-class work, not necessarily a job, but being active in organizations also has a strong correlation to reaching a high GPA. And time management practices lead not only to a high level of academic performance, but to good health and lower levels of stress (Delinger, 2012). Through this study the data suggests that time management practices do have an influence on academic performance. College students who are involved in extracurricular activities are forced, by the nature of their schedules, to manage their time better than those not involved. And those that are involved, proved to have a higher overall academic performance, as well as a higher desire to perform well. The desire to perform well could be a result of their competitive character that has transferred from their activities. Results from Britton and Tesser (1991) are parallel to the findings of this study. Students who felt more in control when scheduling their tasks reported a higher academic performance level, as well as the relationship between time attitudes and confidence and their performance level. Another similarity among studies is that this and a study conducted by Pierce (2007) suggest that those involved in extracurricular activities perform better. Pierce concluded that athletes were able to apply their concentration and desire to achieve from athletics to their academics. There are still a lot of factors that can affect students academic performances. Factors that affect academic achievement include their level of intelligence.

Social factors can greatly impact the academic achievements of children as well. Some social factors that should be monitored include aspiration levels, academic inclination, peer relations, social class, and home conditions. 6. CONCLUSION Time Management is simply a plain term but comes with corresponding consequences: it is just a matter of Hows and Whats; how one manages his or her time and what are the respective outcomes of the particular management. It is either good or bad, right or wrong. But the aforementioned labels do not come with the person managing the time as sole basis; it is still in the outcome that this label can be evident and that the management of time can be measured. Also, a good and efficient time management requires skill and appropriate attitude. It sets not just priorities but also major responsibilities. This comes from a decision, from a choice and from a plan. And most of all, one chooses to carefully manage his or her time because of the objective of achieving certain sets of goal in a given period of time. In this study, time management showed a significant contribution to the academic performance of a student officer of XU. But this relationship is not directly proportional since there are student officers who got high scores on the Time Management Test (TMT) but is only Fair achiever (QPI of 2.5) while some have a poor score in the TMT but is a Good achiever (QPI of 3). It can therefore be concluded that the relationship between the two variables being presented indeed help the researchers to confirm that there are unexplored factors that might affect the students academic performance aside from their time management and extracurricular involvement which are not contained within the studys scope. Because in the end, it is not time one is exactly managing, it is actually the self.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS From the finding and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are hereby presented. 1. To future researchers. That they would come up with a related study to explore the other factors affecting the relationship between time management and students academic performance (QPI) by considering the other measures and demographic variables not included in this study and utilize a bigger number of sample to widen and increase the generality of findings.

2. To the moderators of each organization. It is recommended that further studies be commenced to find out factors that affects the Student Officers time management in order to develop and be equipped student officers in terms of managing their time.

8. REFERENCES Delinger, Jamie C. (2012). The Effects of Time Management on College Students Academic Performance. Retrieved from http://firstyearcomposition.weebly.com/uploads/8/7/2/6/8726689/denlinger_en g_104_time_management_study.pdf Sema, A., and Settar, K. (2002). Validity and Reliability of Time Management Questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/200222SEMA%20ALAY.pdf. Time Management - Meaning and its Importance. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.managementstudyguide.com/time-management.htm Definition of Time Management. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.free-time-management-tips.com/definition-of-timemanagement.html Time management Oxford Brookes University. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.brookes.ac.uk/student/services/health/time.html The Pickle Jar Theory: How To Prioritize Your Time. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.time-management-success.com/pickle-jar-theory.html Time management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved October 4, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_management Garland, A. M. (2010). ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT INVOLVEMENT AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION.