本文選題：學(xué)業(yè)拖延心理機(jī)制模型 + 元認(rèn)知干預(yù)技術(shù)��； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：本研究在綜述以往國內(nèi)外拖延理論的基礎(chǔ)上,以元認(rèn)知干預(yù)技術(shù)為理論核心,提出了學(xué)業(yè)拖延心理機(jī)制模型,并依據(jù)該模型設(shè)計(jì)一套用于改善大學(xué)生學(xué)業(yè)拖延行為的團(tuán)體心理輔導(dǎo)方案一,同時(shí)以認(rèn)知-行為療法的拖延理論為基礎(chǔ)設(shè)計(jì)了另一套用于改善大學(xué)生學(xué)業(yè)拖延行為的團(tuán)體心理輔導(dǎo)方案二。通過實(shí)驗(yàn)研究,一方面證實(shí)了學(xué)業(yè)拖延模型的合理性,另一方面也對(duì)比了兩套方案干預(yù)效果的差異性。本研究首先從南京工程學(xué)院以班級(jí)為單位,分層次隨機(jī)抽取20班,采用《大學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)拖延問卷》以及《主動(dòng)拖延問卷》,對(duì)大學(xué)生學(xué)業(yè)拖延現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行調(diào)查,共發(fā)放問卷800份,實(shí)際回收722份,剔除無效問卷(未全部作答和胡亂作答)后,統(tǒng)計(jì)有效問卷600份。其次,利用spss17.0進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)處理,統(tǒng)計(jì)分析不同性別、不同專業(yè)、不同年級(jí)的大學(xué)生學(xué)業(yè)拖延水平的情況。再次,區(qū)分主動(dòng)拖延和被動(dòng)拖延。最后,從被動(dòng)拖延者中選取自愿參加團(tuán)體輔導(dǎo)的學(xué)生中進(jìn)行面談,篩選出27名被試,平均分成3組,每組9人,其中2組為實(shí)驗(yàn)組1和實(shí)驗(yàn)組2,剩下一組是控制組。對(duì)三組進(jìn)行前后測(cè),并進(jìn)行一系列的統(tǒng)計(jì)分析,得到如下結(jié)果：(1)大學(xué)生拖延現(xiàn)象普通存在,拖延者大約占50%，，在拖延者中,有大約四分之一的是主動(dòng)拖延者。(2)大學(xué)生學(xué)業(yè)拖延水平在性別上整體上差異不顯著,從均值來看,女生在復(fù)習(xí)備考維度上比男生拖延程度低,而在拖延情緒影響上,男生比女生低。大學(xué)生拖延水平在專業(yè)上差異不顯著,從均值看,理科專業(yè)拖延程度稍低于文科專業(yè)。大學(xué)生學(xué)業(yè)拖延水平在年級(jí)上差異顯著,其中大一拖延水平最小,其次是大二、大三,大二與大三拖延水平差異不顯著。(3)學(xué)業(yè)拖延模型能夠很好的解釋拖延形成的過程,以此設(shè)計(jì)的拖延團(tuán)體干預(yù)方案,效果顯著。(4)兩個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)組干預(yù)效果顯著,兩組團(tuán)體輔導(dǎo)都能有效改善大學(xué)生學(xué)業(yè)拖延行為,并且能提高大學(xué)生的壓力應(yīng)對(duì)方式。實(shí)驗(yàn)組1和實(shí)驗(yàn)組2在干預(yù)拖延效果上總體上不存在顯著性差異,但在情緒影響、自責(zé)、求助這三個(gè)維度呈現(xiàn)顯著性差異。在完成作業(yè)、復(fù)習(xí)備考、自主學(xué)習(xí)、解決問題等維度不存在顯著性差異。
[Abstract]:Based on the theory of procrastination in the past and the theory of metacognitive intervention, this study puts forward the psychological mechanism model of academic procrastination, and designs a set of group counseling programs to improve college students' academic procrastination based on this model. It is based on the procrastination theory of cognitive behavioral therapy. Another set of group counseling programs to improve college students' academic procrastination two. Through experimental research, on the one hand, it confirmed the rationality of the academic procrastination model, on the other hand, compared the difference of the intervention effect of the two sets of programs. First of all, the study was divided into 20 classes randomly from class level in Nanjing Institute of Technology. The students' study procrastination questionnaire and the active procrastination questionnaire were investigated, 800 questionnaires were issued, 722 copies were actually recovered, and the invalid questionnaires were eliminated (not all answers and unanswered), and 600 valid questionnaires were collected. Secondly, the data were processed by SPSS17.0, and the statistical analysis of different sex and different specialties was made. At the same time, the level of academic procrastination in the same grade. Again, to distinguish between active procrastination and passive procrastination. Finally, the students selected from the passive procrastinators who volunteered to participate in group counseling were interviewed, and 27 subjects were selected, with an average of 3 groups, 9 in each group, of which 2 were the experimental group 1 and the experimental group 2, the remaining group was the control group. Three groups were carried out. The results are as follows: (1) the Procrastination of college students is common, the procrastinators are about 50%, and in the procrastinators, about 1/4 of the procrastinators are active procrastinators. (2) the academic procrastination level of college students is not significant in gender as a whole. From the mean point of view, girls are compared to the review dimension. Boys are lower in procrastination, but boys are lower than girls in procrastination. The level of procrastination of college students is not significant, and the degree of procrastination of science majors is slightly lower than that of liberal arts. The level of Academic Procrastination of college students is significantly different in grade, among which the level of major dragging is the least, followed by sophomore, sophomore and junior. There is no significant difference in the level of procrastination. (3) the academic procrastination model can explain the process of procrastination well, and the effect of the procrastination group intervention scheme is significant. (4) the effect of the two experimental groups is significant. The two group counseling can effectively improve the academic procrastination of College Students, and can improve the coping style of the college students. Group 1 and experimental group 2 have no significant difference in the effect of intervention on procrastination, but there are significant differences in the three dimensions of emotional impact, self reproach and help seeking. There is no significant difference in the dimensions of completing the homework, reviewing the exam, autonomous learning and solving the problem.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：B842.1


本文編號(hào)：1978770