The objectives of the study were: (1) To prepare a tool to determine (a) the learning strategies - the learning style, the approaches to learning and the study habits of students, and (b) Creativity of students. (2) To compare the learning strategies of secondary school students having different levels of Intelligence and Creativity. (3) To ascertain the relationship between learning strategies of secondary school students and Intelligence and Creativity separately. (4) To ascertain the relationship between learning strategies and creativity of Secondary school students when the effect of intelligence is partialled out. (5) To ascertain the relationship between learning strategies and Intelligence of secondary school students when the effect of Creativity is partialled out. (6) To compare the learning  strategies of secondary school students forming differential ability groups and different talented groups. (7) To compare the academic achievement of secondary school students on the basis of different Learning Strategies. (8) To ascertain the relationship between academic achievement of secondary school students and their Learning Strategies. (9) To compare the academic achievement of secondary school students having different levels of  (a) different learning style, (b) different learning approaches, and (c) different study habits. (10) To compare the academic achievement of secondary school students forming (a) differential ability groups and (b) different talented groups.

The hypotheses of the study were: (1) There is no significant difference in the learning strategies of secondary school students with different levels of Intelligence. (2) There is no significant relationship between the learning strategies of secondary school students and their Intelligence. (3) There is no significant difference in the learning strategies of secondary school students with different levels of creativity. (4) There is no significant relationship between the learning strategies of secondary school students and their Creativity. (5) There is no significant relationship between the learning strategies, Intelligence and Creativity of secondary school students. (6) There is no significant relationship between the learning strategies and Creativity of secondary school students when the effect of Intelligence is partialled out. (7) There is no significant relationship between the strategies and Intelligence of secondary school students when the effect of Creativity is partialled out. (8) There is no significant relationship in the learning strategies of secondary school students forming differential ability groups. (9) There is no significant relationship in the learning strategies of secondary school students in different talented groups. (10) There is no significant different in the academic achievement of secondary school students having different levels of learning strategies. (11) There is no significant relationship between the academic achievement of secondary school students and their learning strategies. (12) There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of secondary school students having (a) different levels of learning style, (b) different levels of approaches to learning, and (c) different levels of study habits. (13) There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of differential ability groups of secondary school students. (14) There is no significant difference in the academic achievement of different latent groups of secondary school students.

The sample selected by using random sampling technique comprised of 873 students of eleven secondary schools of English medium. 

The tools used were Nafde’s non-verbal test of intelligence, Creativity test, Inventory to measure the study habits, a rating scale for rating learning style, and rating scale for approaches to learning  were constructed by the investigator. 

The method adopted for the study was the descriptive method of causal- comparative and correlation types.

ANOVA, t-test, Product Movement correlation, eta-coefficient, multiple and partial correlation were used as statistical technique for data analysis. 

The findings of the study were: (1) There is no significant difference in the learning strategies of secondary school students with different levels of Intelligence. (2) Students with different levels of intelligence differ on their reproducing oriented learning style with the low Intelligence group being the highest on this style. (3) There was no significant relationship between the meaning oriented learning style and Intelligence of students.  But there is a significant negative low relationship between the reproducing oriented learning style and intelligence of students. (4) It has been found that the students with low intelligence have a high score on both the wholist and serialist learning approaches. (5) There is significant negative and low relationship between both the wholist learning approach and intelligence of students and the serialist learning approach and intelligence of students. (6) The students with low intelligence have a high score on the regularity of study habits and systematization of study habits. (7) The higher the Creativity, higher is the meaning oriented learning style of students. (8) The higher the Creativity, lower the serialist learning approach of students. (9)  Study habits are not found to differ among students with different levels of intelligence. (10) It was found that higher the Creativity, higher is the systematization of study habits. (11) Once Intelligence is partialled out, the relationship between the meaning oriented learning style and Creativity becomes marginally stronger, (12) Intelligence and Creativity both make negligible contribution to the variance in reproducing oriented learning style scores. (13) Intelligence and Creativity both make negligible contribution to the variance in the wholist learning approach scores. (14) The intelligence and Creativity make negligible contribution to the variance in the serialist learning approach scores. (15) Intelligence and Creativity both make negligible contribution to the variance in the regularity of study habits scores. (16) Intelligence and Creativity both make negligible contribution to the variance in the systematization of study habits scores. (17)  It has been found that the students low on Intelligence and either low or moderate on Creativity have a reproducing oriented learning style. (18) It has been found that there is no significant difference in the learning strategies, that is, meaning oriented learning style, reproducing oriented  learning style, wholist learning approach, serialist learning approach, regularity of study habits, systematization of study habits of different talented groups of secondary schools students. (19) The lower the academic achievement score, lower is the regularity and systematization of study habits of students. (20) The students who score high in their academic achievement have either low or moderate level of reproducing oriented learning style. It has also been observed that students who score high in their academic achievement have either low or moderate level of wholist as well as serialist learning approach. And the students high in their academic achievement have either high or moderate level of regularity as well as systematization of study habits. (21) It has also been found that the academic achievement of differential ability groups of students, who are high on both Intelligence and Creativity perform well academically.