Coping Strategies Employed by Malaysian Pre-University Gifted Students to Manage Examination Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p> <p>Different age group experiences different level of stress due to different causes all together. The main cause of stress experienced by students is academic tests and examinations (Kai-Wen, 2009). If students are not able to manage examination stress accordingly, it may lead them to serious psychological, physical, and mental problems.This study generally attempts to determine the causes of stress among a group of gifted and talented pre-university students in Malaysia.The study also attempts to evaluate the most frequent coping strategies used by ASASIpintar students to manage exam stress and also to identify the predominant type of coping strategies used by ASASIpintar students to cope with exam stress.Questionnaires were distributed randomly to students of Malaysian Pre-University gifted students situated in the Pusat PERMATApintar™ Negara (National Gifted Centre) in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (the National University of Malaysia). All the sixty-eight respondents were from different ethnicity and religion background. The findings showed that the highest percentage recorded for cause of stress among the students is school factor with 50%. Regardless, religion marked as the most frequently used coping strategy by ASASIpintar students by 84%. Another major finding was that ASASIpintar students tend to use emotion-focused coping to manage examination stress more (32%) than problem solving focused coping strategy (26.9%) by 5.1%.It is of utmost importance for gifted and talented students to have ability to use appropriate coping strategies so that the stress is not detrimental to them and their well-being.</p> <p>Keywords: Gifted Students, Examination Stress, Coping Strategies</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".