The Relationship Between Study Skills and Conceptions of Intelligence for High School Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a replication and extension of previous studies investigating the relationship between secondary and post-secondary students' thoughts about achievement and their study habits (Jones, Slate, Marini, & DeWater, 1993; Kovach, Wil gosh, & Stewin, 1999). The methodology is replicated, and the findings are extended to high school students enrolled in an urban Western Canadian setting. As well, focus group interviews were conducted to further explore student perceptions. The findings indicate that students with a more incremental view of intelligence reported better study habits. Similarly, students who reported liking school more or who considered themselves to be good students all reported better study habits. High school students, however, indicated that they perform less than 50% of the study ha bits identified in the Study Habits Inventory-High School (SHI-HS). A positive correlation was observed between students' reported grades, their study habits, and their thoughts about achievement. These findings are consistent with previous re search by Jones and his associates as well as the present research team.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".