University Students Who Overcame Learned Helplessness: What Helped or Hindered?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learned helplessness in an academic environment often affects educational performance and mental health in adverse ways (Ciarrochi et al., 2007; Hu et al., 2015). Using a modified version of the Enhanced Critical Incident Technique, this study aimed to develop a better understanding of what helps or hinders university students in overcoming learned helplessness. Analysis generated 14 categories of helping incidents and seven categories of hindering incidents, most of which were consistent with previous research. This study identified the category Being in the Spotlight, which had not been noted at all in past research. Examination of the results contributes information about reported interactions between hindering incidents and the importance of autonomy in overcoming learned helplessness, topics neglected or understudied in past research on learned helplessness in university students. Overall, the results of this study provide additional direction for counsellors working with university students who experience learned helplessness and highlight the need for further research to understand in more detail the helping and hindering factors outlined in this study.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".