A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Study Skills and Learning Strategies Between Saudi and American Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study skills and learning strategies are essential in organizing and facilitating learning for academic purposes. Meanwhile, differences in the use of these skills among students coming from distinct cultures are usually based on stereotypes and prejudices.This paper examined the study skills and learning strategies of 236 university students coming from two universities in Saudi Arabia and in the USA by means of the Study and Learning Strategies Inventory (LASSI), a follow up interview and a study diary. To investigate differences in study skills and learning strategies’ use among university students, origin, as Saudi or American, was taken as the independent variable in this study. Results revealed that American students employ study skills and learning strategies other than those used by Saudi students when it comes to the cognitive skills. However, as far as the affective skills are concerned, both groups had difficulties. Such a finding suggests the possibility that study skills’ use varies across cultures. The results of this study could be implemented, first, in raising the awareness of students, teachers, policy makers and counselors about the role of culture in study skills and learning strategies’ use and second in offering training and counseling for incoming foreign university students.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".