A Comparison of Learning Styles and Study Strategies Scores of Brunei Secondary School Students by Test Anxiety, Success Attributions, and Failure Attributions: Implications for Teaching At-risk and Vulnerable Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survey assessed the learning styles and study strategies of 135 randomly selected Brunei secondary school students according to their test anxiety levels, internal-external attributions for success, and internal-external attributions for failing. Four significant differences were obtained on learning styles but only one was found on study strategies. Highly anxious students scored higher on the social-individual learning style than their less anxious peers. Learners who internalize success attributions scored higher on the social-group learning style than counterparts who externalize. Participants with internal attributions for failing scored higher on both the visual-language and expressive-written learning styles than those who externalize reasons for failing. Paradoxically, females were the most affected by test anxiety and yet they outperformed males in mathematics achievement. We discuss plausible explanations for these findings and suggest psychological and educational interventions to address the observed deficiencies. Further mixed-methods research is recommended to gain additional insights into the issues investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".