exploration on the effects of academic self-efficacy and perfectionism on academic procrastination Quantitative study Latest revision

A cross-cultural (cross-national) exploration on the effects of academic self-efficacy and perfectionism on academic procrastination Quantitative study Latest revision comment [March 23, 2022 13:04] Please, work in the file “3.20_841653_latest.docx” and amend: 1) Research rationale is virtually non existent, you second sentence states the issue of limited research, but there are no prior claims to back it up – you need to first briefly review the overall issues, state the main problem, explain how you will address it However, limited academic investigations explore the relevant variables among students studying in the Romanian and U.K. universities. The rationale of the current investigations aims to address the appropriate limitations in the existing literature. – what limitations? 2) Aims and first RO are the same There are no hypotheses 3) Check the brief – Hypothesis, Aims, and Objectives, which should be clearly stated. and the final paragraph in this section will usually consist of an outline of your design based on a stated rationale derived from the theories and findings previously discussed. 4) LR is not structured – there should be headings that define main themes within past literature It is also not critical at all – see the brief: You should then compare and contrast findings and different theories to show how you have decided (your rationale) on your design and your predictions. 5) Conclusion in LR is not really needed, it is also written as if the research ahs already been conducted while it is only 1 chapter of the work 6) Elaborate on research gap Numerous studies have been conducted to establish the existing connections between procrastination, selfefficacy, and perfectionism within students in the tertiary institutions. However, there is a significant gap in research on the relations between the latter variables among students in U.K. and Romanian universities 7) Check the file Reporting guidelines – adhere to the outline for Method – you may keep philosophy – approach, but the rest should be reorganised 8) Check for inconsistencies/missing info in Method The quantitative study was conducted using the pessimism research philosophy – ? The positivism research philosophy perceives the researcher as an objective analyst, anticipated to distance themselves from individual values throughout the investigations – keep this Woiceshyn & Daellenbach (2018) explains that the deductive process involves the development of hypotheses or hypothesis based on the prevailing theories – there are no hypotheses in the work Research Strategy – this section is not really needed How many people participated in the study? Limitations basically say that your research is no valid, you critique the whole method picked – why was it chosen in the first place then? > same in Conclusion 9) Results as such seem to be missing – there is demographic data (age and gender) but what about the actual findings? There is one figure that seems to relate to the collected data but its analysis is non existent Generally, the outcomes of the study as evidenced in the chart above indicate higher levels of procrastination in the U.K. than in Romania. However, there was a small significance of procrastination, especially for self-critical perfectionism. – is that it? 10) Discussion should compare own findings to those of other authors previously cited in the paper – this is also absent, the chapter is general You will also need to adjust the above chapter as Results should be rewritten 11) Rewrite limitations in Conclusion (as per point 8) 12) Wordcount is not met, Abstract is missing