One such discordant behavior is procrastination (Klingsieck, 2013), i.e., the voluntary but irrational delaying of tasks or actions from what was planned or scheduled, and which has a damaging effect on the person in question (Steel, 2007). This type of behavior is very common in university education, where around 30% of students always procrastinate (Bäulke et al., 2021), although between 70% and 90% do so with varying frequency and in different situations (Martín-Antón et al., 2022a; Klassen et al., 2008; Ziegler & Opdenakker, 2018). This passive or involuntary procrastination differs from the delaying which other students intentionally engage in. These active procrastinators motivate themselves by deliberately postponing tasks in order to curb boredom and enhance efficiency (Pelikan, Lüftenegger, et al., 2021). Such people are able to meet deadlines and achieve goals by using the pressure of time as a spur, unlike passive procrastinators, who tend to freeze up when under pressure. Indeed, even though passive procrastinators display low levels of self-efficacy (Wäschle et al., 2014), a positive link between intentionally delaying tasks and self-efficacy has been found to exist (Choi & Moran, 2009). Yet for some it can prove to be damaging (Fernie et al., 2017) when the two types of procrastination concur (da Silva et al., 2020).

Undergraduate education degree students share many of the features of procrastinating behavior with other university students (Balkis & Duru, 2009). Nevertheless, it is a problem that may be deemed specific to this group insofar as it impacts their future professional practice (Barnová & Krásna, 2021). Many teachers procrastinate in their teaching and in their daily lives (Laybourn et al., 2019), which can then influence the procrastinating behavior of their students.

Putting off tasks tends to be seen as a problem of self-regulation of learning (Martín-Antón et al., 2022b), which leads to difficulties in time management (Sæle et al., 2017). Having more time available to carry out a task is no guarantee that it will be completed on time (Melgaard et al., 2022; Wolters et al., 2017), and knowing how to manage and organize activities within the time available is essential. Teachers can help with this by proposing tasks to be completed in the short and medium term, and with immediate feedback, thereby reducing the risk of procrastination (Valenzuela et al., 2018). However, this type of supervision and support can be limited, thus requiring greater steadfastness if longer term goals are to be accomplished (Daura et al., 2022).

The study of procrastinating behavior during the pandemic was carried out using different approaches: health, sociological, educational ... In all of them, it was found that the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in procrastination (Lim & Javadpour, 2021) by intensifying the origin and negative consequences of such behavior (Pelikan, Lüftenegger, et al., 2021). Students increasingly identify laziness and lack of willpower as the principal factors (Rahimi & Hall, 2021), which then generates anxiety as well as feelings of shame and guilt. Yet there are more factors – both personal (da Cruz et al., 2021) and contextual (Stoliarchuk et al., 2022) – that influenced the escalation of this behavior, and which we now detail.

Firstly, there was a general rise in the levels of academic stress (von Keyserlingk et al., 2022). Fear of COVID-19, the general apprehension caused by the lockdown, less social contact (Pelikan, Korlat, et al., 2021), or limitations on leisure, intensified the threat to mental health (Jia et al., 2021), leading to psychological problems such as anxiety and depression (Hofmann, 2021) or life changes in the way reality is perceived (Chaturvedi et al., 2021). These problems have a profound effect on task deferment (Eisenbeck et al., 2019; Wolters et al., 2017), since they are linked to poor emotional regulation and to the onset of negative feelings (Wang et al., 2022) – which are not confined to the academic sphere – thereby exacerbating the negative impact on procrastinating behavior (Unda-López et al., 2022) and performance (Hong et al., 2021).

A second consequence was the increased uncertainty, coupled with a climate of alarm, which does not augur well when envisioning a return to the pre-pandemic situation (Schimmenti et al., 2020). There is a close link between contextual unpredictability and intense procrastination (Lim & Javadpour, 2021), which leads to avoidance behavior (Schodl et al., 2018), and anticipating excuses in order to justify possible failure, and detaching this from personal competence (Yildirim & Demir, 2020).

A third aspect concerns increased feelings of loneliness and isolation (Rasheed et al., 2020) due to social distancing measures, which also had a negative impact (Bu et al., 2020). This is because cooperation with colleagues is a key factor (Jia et al., 2021), particularly in university degrees that seek to foster teamwork such as teacher training, and which encourage social and academic interaction amongst classmates so as to secure closer ties and informal support that goes beyond the academic sphere (Balkis & Duru, 2009).

A fourth aspect to consider is the fight against distraction (Meier et al., 2016). As a result, a desire for non-academic activities also predicts procrastination (Rahimi & Vallerand, 2021), since tasks tend to be put off so that other more enjoyable activities may be pursued. Those who work online are therefore more likely to procrastinate since they have a greater chance of becoming distracted (Meier et al., 2016), although only if the emotional link to the non-academic activity is obsessive (Peixoto et al., 2021).

Finally, there are the organizational and methodological changes introduced by universities, which are linked to impaired student dedication (Stoliarchuk et al., 2022). This is brought about by changes to the teaching program, such as the increased workload, too much flexibility when it comes to assignment deadlines, changes in the required standards, or a feeling of lack of support from teachers (Grunschel et al., 2013). Other difficulties are related to organization, such as changes in the required physical presence in the classroom or unforeseen alterations to the schedule (Flores et al., 2022), difficulties with online connections, or less availability of resources (Hong et al., 2021; Rasheed et al., 2020). All of this led to changes in work habits, such as structuring students’ study timetable, time management, or the search for support (Naujoks et al., 2021), aspects with which procrastinators have difficulty (Melgaard et al., 2022). Research has revealed a reduction in the number of study hours and in students’ sleep, which interferes with the planning, regulation, and assessment of learning, thereby increasing procrastination and impacting performance (Hong et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, some students did benefit from the changes that took place by developing greater self-management in their studies, making a greater effort, and by engaging more with classmates as well as by opening up more to new experiences (da Cruz et al., 2021). Such students also learnt to adapt to a more comfortable environment and to the possibility of studying at their own pace, and particularly to having more time available to study and make headway with their tasks (Melgaard et al., 2022).

Student self-efficacy is a key variable in procrastinating behavior – wherein low levels of self-efficacy are linked to putting off tasks (Ziegler & Opdenakker, 2018). This linkage was also impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, in which self-efficacy plays a protecting role (Graff & Barenholtz, 2023), since those who display greater self-efficacy will not suffer as much from increased academic stress (von Keyserlingk et al., 2022) and will demonstrate greater self-regulation (Wäschle et al., 2014) and less procrastinating behavior (Klassen et al., 2008).

Few studies have explored the link between the COVID-19 pandemic and procrastination from an educational perspective, or have examined in depth the explanations given by students (Lim & Javadpour, 2021; Melgaard et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). In this regard, it may prove useful to gain insights into the reasons put forward by students themselves concerning what impact the pandemic had on their learning curve, both with regard to personal changes in the social climate as well as other changes resulting from the methodological and didactic adaptation the university institutions were forced to implement in order to adapt to the legal requirements issued by the authorities. The results to emerge may provide information that can help universities, teachers, and students anticipate those actions that would prove most relevant should the situation arise again.

As a result, this paper seeks to understand procrastinating behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic by looking closely at the underlying causes, considering self-efficacy as the moderating variable. The study examines a particularly important group – pre-service teachers – given the impact they, as teachers, will have on their students, and the link between early leaving and anxiety as well as the emotional toll of the academic experiences they had to live through (Cervero et al., 2021). Specifically, we aim to ascertain: (a) levels of procrastination in the COVID-19 pandemic compared to those from a similar sample taken prior to the pandemic, (b) the perception and explanation given by students with regard to how the situation triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic affected their procrastinating behavior, and (c) to determine whether there are differential effects depending on other variables, such as type of procrastination, self-efficacy, or gender. We expect there to have been greater academic procrastination during the pandemic and for this to have been linked mainly to academic causes stemming from the methodological adaptation undertaken by universities in response to the health measures enforced.

The sample is made up of 910 Spanish university students who were taking degrees in infant and primary education or the master’s degree in secondary education (Table 1), on 14 university campuses located in various regions of Spain. Most (88%) were taking official onsite degrees, although the health measures imposed forced them to temporarily pursue a blended learning course (onsite teaching and synchronous online teaching). The results obtained in this sample were compared to those obtained from 794 university students (622 of whom were female) taking the same degrees and who studied on eight university campuses in the region of Castilla y León – the results for which were collected immediately prior to the pandemic (Martín-Antón et al., 2022b).

The research adopts a multi-methodological approach, using measures taken from various self-reports which complement one another by measuring a range of different procrastination variables, together with qualitative information. Specifically a number of scales was used.

This study was approved by the CEIm Research Ethics Committee (PI 21-2258), and by those in charge of data protection. Students were sent a message informing them of the aims of the research, the ethical considerations involved, and requesting their informed consent. A message was sent to the students informing them of the aim of the research and requesting their cooperation in filling out surveys by accessing a link, which first informed them of the ethical safeguards, the ethical research committee’s code of approval, and the informed consent which, unless accepted, prevented them from completing the survey. Together with the surveys, they were asked about their age, university and campus, degree studies, and year of the degree.

The data collected refer to the period between November 2020 and December 2021, which was the period corresponding to the second state of emergency decreed in Spain, in which universities were forced to implement protective measures, such as social distancing, or specific semi-online or online periods of teaching when people tested positive. This was why participants were asked whether or not they felt that the situation triggered by the pandemic had altered (by either increasing or reducing) their procrastinating behavior and – if they answered affirmatively – the cause or causes which they attributed to said change. They were also asked about the mode of teaching (on-site, blended, or online) set out in their curriculum, regardless of whatever changes might have occurred as a result of the pandemic.

The results obtained were compared to those collected in another sample of undergraduate education degree students just prior to the pandemic (Martín-Antón et al., 2022b), and which were collected between October 2017 and June 2019.

A mixed analysis approach was used, using quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques. We first conducted the student t test of two independent groups in order to determine differences between the results of the pre-pandemic sample and the current study, including a calculation of the size of Hedges’ g effect, with the cut-off points: (a) g = .20 small effect size, (b) g = .50 moderate effect size, and (c) g = .80 large effect size. We calculated the chi-squared statistic (χ²) to ascertain whether there were differences in the frequency of cases in variations in procrastination (reduction, no variation, increase) and gender, calculated using the adjusted standardized residual (ASR), with significant differences being deemed to exist when the value exceeded the range [-1.96, 1.96]. For effect size, we calculated Cramer’s V, whose cut-off points are (df = 2): (a) φ_c = .07, small effect size, (b) φ_c = .21, moderate effect size, and (c) φ_c = .35, large effect size. In order to further explore the differences between the three groups, we calculated the ANOVA, with post-hoc analysis using the Bonferroni method, calculating the effect size, η², with cut-off points: (a) η² = .01, small effect size, (b) η² = .06, moderate effect size, and (c) η² = 0.14, large effect size. We used the IBM SPSS Statistics statistical package, version 28 (2021).

In order to analyze the reasons put forward by the students, we carried out an initial categorization of the open responses by conducting a Synonym-Based Word Frequency query, generating word clouds, and cluster analysis, through the NVIVO computer program, v. 12. Categories were subsequently triangulated and negotiated with three experts in educational psychology.

There are significant differences in virtually all the variables analyzed (Table 2), with higher scores in the pandemic, albeit with small effect sizes. This behavior is perceived as being more problematic than before the pandemic, but without any differences in the intention to reduce such behavior. As regards the causes, the greatest differences are found in the inadequate response to task demands. Nevertheless, in the variables related to intentional procastination there are either no differences (search for excitement) or these are even lower during the pandemic (risk taking).

Thirty-eight percent of participants believe that the COVID-19 pandemic increased their postponing of activities, whereas 9% managed to reduce this behavior. The remaining 53% perceived no changes. This distribution is not uniform if we take gender into account (Table 3), with proportionally more women feeling that they increased such behavior, with a small effect size.

When analyzing the differences between these three groups (Table 4), in most variables the group which believes they increased the delaying of tasks has higher scores in general and in academic procrastination than the other two groups – albeit with small effect size – with the greatest differentiating factors being fear and insecurity, inadequate response to task requirements, and poor time management. These respondents also obtain the highest scores in intentional procrastination. However, they are the least able to meet the deadlines set for tasks, the least able to withstand pressure, and the least satisfied with their results, although in this regard they equal those who believe they have been able to reduce delaying tasks. It is worth highlighting that those who feel that their procrastination has changed (has either intensified or diminished), are those who most consider such behavior to be problematic. However, only those in whom it has increased express a greater desire to reduce their procrastination – even though they actually fail to do so.

When looking at self-efficacy, the results follow a similar trend to the rest of the variables studied, with statistically significant differences between the three groups, F(2, 907) = 4.99, p = .007, with a small effect size, η² = .011. These differences occur between those who consider their procrastination increased (M = 27.24, SD = 7.26) and the group where it has not changed (M = 28.58, SD = 6.46), and those who consider it decreased (M = 29.18, SD = 6.80), but not between these latter two groups.

The main reasons given to justify the increase are time, assignments and study, and motivation (Figure 1).

Having established the categories (Table 5), the most common are the failure to adapt pre-pandemic routines and habits (22.3%), and inadequate time management (17.2%), as a result of believing they had more time than they needed, which was not the case. Demotivation is another reason (15.1%), and is triggered by the changes in the course teaching method, added to which are the mental health problems brought on by the pandemic (13.4%), such as anxiety, depression, and so on. Another reason is the loss of social relations (7.6%), the increased workload, or the demands of the course (6.1%), although the feeling that the course is easier to pass (4.7%) means that they end up failing to devote sufficient time to actually passing it. Finally, worthy of note is the shift in priorities expressed by some students (4.1%), where the pandemic led them to reflect on the importance of other life activities beyond those of an academic nature.

As regards the reasons why they believe they reduced their procrastinating behavior, the factor which most often appears is, again, time, together with the organization of work and study (Figure 2).

As regards the categories of reasons (Table 6), the most noticeable by far is optimal time management (40.6%), which allows them to be freer, and even to curb the feeling of inactivity, thereby promoting better organization of their studies (21.9%), favoring new learning strategies (12.5%), such that they see the situation as an opportunity to improve. For others, however, this was driven by the increased workload (7.3%), which led them to refocus their learning strategies (7.3%), so as to be more certain of success.

This paper does, however, evidence certain limitations, due mainly to the use of self-reports as the data collection technique, and which we sought to minimize by employing various instruments that measure procrastination, in addition to the qualitative information provided by students. A further limitation concerns having compared data from a sample taken during the pandemic with data from another sample taken prior to the pandemic. It would have been desirable to conduct a longitudinal design, although many of the participants would probably have finished their degree during the pandemic, and in 2019 nobody could have foreseen the situation that was to unfold with the pandemic. We do, nevertheless, draw on two broad samples, from various university campuses, and from the same university degree courses. We cannot overlook either the different teaching methods employed in the various teacher training degrees, both in the specific courses as well as in the actual degrees and universities themselves. This involves, for instance, the different importance and weight attached to assignments, examinations, weekly readings, joint tasks, etc., differences which are even more evident between bachelor’s and master’s degrees (Rahimi & Hall, 2021). Moreover, many of the measures were adopted at all the universities, since they were imposed at a national scale and not only in the field of education (e.g., social distancing measures). However, other measures were specifically applied by the regions or universities, such that certain individual student experiences might not be comparable. Finally, further inquiry could have been carried out into how the pandemic might have impacted self-efficacy. Although its link to procrastination has been widely studied, it has not been explored to such an extent as a dependent variable of student behavior.