The Relation Between Learning Styles, LINGUISTICS
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
PERGAMON
Personality and Individual Differences 26 (1999) 129±140
The relation between learning styles, the Big Five
personality traits and achievement motivation in higher
education
Vittorio V. Busato
a,
*, Frans J. Prins
b
, Jan J. Elshout
a
, Christiaan Hamaker
a
a
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Psychonomics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b
University of Leiden, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Leiden, The Netherlands
Received 22 January 1998
Abstract
In his dissertation, Vermunt [Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in
het hoger onderwijs. (Learning styles and guidance of learning processes in higher education). Amsterdam/
Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger] postulated four dierent learning styles: a meaning directed, a reproduction
directed, an application directed and an undirected style. Aim of this project is to investigate the relation
between these learning styles, the big ®ve personality traits and achievement motivation. Subjects were
about 900 university students. Extraversion correlated positively with the meaning directed, reproduction
directed and application directed learning style. Conscientiousness was associated positively with the
meaning, reproduction and application directed learning style, and negatively with the undirected
learning style. Openness to experience correlated positively with the meaning and application directed
learning style, and negatively with the undirected learning style. Besides, it was found that neuroticism
correlated positively with the undirected learning style and negatively with the meaning and
reproduction directed learning style. Agreeableness was associated positively with the reproduction and
application directed learning style. Positive correlations were found for achievement motivation with the
meaning, reproduction and the application directed learning style, and a negative one with the
undirected learning style. Regression analyses con®rmed these patterns. Although there was some
systematic overlap for the four learning styles with personality variables and achievement motivation,
the conclusion is that it certainly makes sense to measure these three groups of variables separately in
educational settings.
#
1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Learning style; Learning strategies; Personality; The Big Five personality traits; Achievement motivation;
Higher education
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-525-6724; Fax: +31-20-639-1656; e-mail: pn_busato@macmail.psy.uva.nl
S0191-8869/98/$19.00
#
1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0191 -8869( 98 )00112- 3
130
V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 26 (1999) 129±140
1. Introduction
In 1992 the Dutch psychologist Jan Vermunt published a dissertation study about the ways
university students learn, that received a lot of attention in the Dutch educational community
(e.g. Schouwenburg and Groenewoud, 1995; Kaldeway et al., 1996; Prins et al., 1996, 1998;
Kallenberg and van den Brink, 1997; Busato et al., 1998).
Vermunt considers the way a student learns as a learning style. In literature, learning styles
are very often considered as a kind of general strategy, for example characterized as surface-
level or deep-level processing (Marton and Saljo
È
, 1976), a holistic vs a serialistic style (Pask,
1976), deep processing, elaborative processing, fact retention and methodical study (Schmeck,
1983). But learning styles are also described as types of learning like, for example, concrete
experience, re¯ective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation,
resulting in four learning styles: divergers, accommodators, convergers and assimilators (Kolb,
1984), as orientations like achieving, meaning, reproducing and nonacademic (Entwistle, 1988),
or as approaches to learning like surface, deep and achieving (Biggs, 1993). (See Riding and
Cheema (1991), Rayner and Riding (1997) and Sadler-Smith (1997) for more thorough
reviews.)
Elaborating on these theories, Vermunt (1992, 1996, 1998) describes the concept of a
learning style as consisting of four aspects: processing strategies, regulation strategies, mental
models of learning and learning orientations. Processing strategies are thinking activities
students use to process information in order to obtain certain learning results like, for example,
knowing the most important points in the study material. (Metacognitive) regulation strategies
are activities students use to monitor, to plan and to control the processing strategies and their
own learning processes. Mental models of learning are conceptions and misconceptions students
have about learning processes. Learning orientations are personal aims, intentions, expectations,
doubts, etcetera, students may experience during their educational career.
Vermunt (1992) distinguishes four dierent learning styles: an undirected, a reproduction
directed, an application directed and a meaning directed learning style. Students characterized
by an undirected learning style have, for example, problems to process the material for study,
experience diculties with the amount of study material and with discriminating what is
important and what is not. Students with a reproduction directed learning style are
characterized by study behaviour directed mainly at reproducing what is learnt at
examinations, in order to pass these successfully. Students with an application directed learning
style try to employ what they learn to actual, real-world settings. Finally, students with a
meaning directed learning style wish to ®nd out what is meant exactly in their study material,
interrelate what they have learned and try in a critical sense to develop their own view.
To measure these learning styles, Vermunt (1992) developed the inventory of learning styles
(ILS), a diagnostic instrument intended to measure aspects of study method, study motives and
mental models about studying in higher education (see for the English version Vermunt
(1994)). With this questionnaire, it is possible to express each of the four styles in a single
score. Students, therefore, show characteristics of each style but, as Vermunt assumes, one style
dominates. With a dierent sample of university students, Busato et al. (1995) and
Schouwenburg (1996) replicated the ®ndings of Vermunt (1992) with remarkable exactness.
V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 26 (1999) 129±140
131
Not very much is known yet about the relation between learning styles, personality and
achievement motivation (Miller, 1991; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996; Ackerman and
Heggestad, 1997). For the ILS, no published studies exist which deal explicitly with the relation
between learning style and personality, or with the relation between learning style and
achievement motivation. In this study we investigate the relations of the four learning styles, as
measured by the ILS, with the big ®ve personality traits and achievement motivation.
For a relatively young science like psychology, there is nowadays a more or less unique
consensus about the description of personality based on ®ve universal traits (e.g. Elshout and
Akkerman, 1973, 1975; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; Hofstee and de Raad, 1991; Costa and
McCrae, 1992, 1995; Furnham, 1996a; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996), although there are,
of course, also theorists who have doubts on the validity of this so called ®ve factor approach
(e.g. Eysenck, 1991, 1992; Zuckerman, 1992; Block, 1995). These ®ve personality factors are
usually named extraversion, agreeableness (also referred to as sociability), conscientiousness,
neuroticism and openness to Experience (also referred to as intellect or culture).
A few studies exist which deal explicitly with the relation between learning style and
personality. Furnham (1992), for example, investigated the relation between three learning style
instruments, the Honey and Mumford learning style questionnaire (LSQ), the Whetten and
Cameron cognitive style instrument (CST), the Kolb learning style inventory (LSI) and the
personality traits extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and lie (dissimulation), measured by
the Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ). For the LSQ, Furnham found positive
correlations between extraversion and the learning styles ``activist'' and ``pragmatist''.
Extraversion correlated negatively with the learning style ``re¯ector''. For the CST, Furnham
reported that the more active cognitive style correlated positively with extraversion, while
extraversion correlated negatively with the more re¯ective cognitive style. For the LSI,
Furnham found a positive correlation between extraversion and the learning styles ``converger''
and ``accomodator''. Neuroticism correlated negatively with the learning styles ``assimilator''
and ``accomodator''. Psychoticism correlated positively with the learning style ``diverger''. (For
a description of the above terms, we refer to Furnham (1992).) Jackson and Lawty-Jones
(1996) replicated the correlations reported by Furnham (1992), suggesting the same substantial
overlap between personality and learning style. Jackson and Lawty-Jones agree with Furnham
there is no need to measure both personality and learning style. In another investigation,
Furnham (1996b) studied the relation between the big ®ve inventory NEO-PI, developed by
Costa and McCrae, and the learning style questionnaire. He reported modest correlations
between these instruments, similar though overall lower than the correlations between the
Eysenck personality questionnaire and the LSQ (Furnham, 1992), suggesting less overlap
between these two measures. The activist learning style correlated with agreeableness,
conscientiousness and extraversion. Neuroticism did not correlate systematically with any of
the learning styles. So, considering these publications, some overlap might also be expected for
the ILS and the big ®ve personality factors.
It is well known that achievement motivation and the related concepts positive or negative
fear of failure are important variables in learning and education (e.g. Atkinson and Feather,
1964; Dweck, 1984; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996). As far as
we are aware, though, no studies are published to date which systematically examine the
132
V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 26 (1999) 129±140
relation between learning style, achievement motivation and fear of failure. So, as a ®rst
attempt and for explorative purposes, we will study this relation for the ILS.
The aim of this project is as follows. In a correlational design we want to investigate the
relation between learning style, personality and achievement motivation. Considering the
similarities in description between the meaning-directed learning style and the re¯ector (LSQ)
and the more re¯ective cognitive style (CST), one might expect this learning style to correlate
negatively with extraversion. For the application-directed learning style, considering the
similarities with the pragmatist (LSQ), the more active cognitive style (CST) and the converger
and assimilator (both LSI), one might expect a positive relation with extraversion (see again
Furnham, 1992). According to de Raad and Schouwenburg (1996), the big ®ve factors
extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience are educationally relevant. So, we
will analyse how these factors relate to the four learning styles as proposed by Vermunt (1992).
Exploratively, we expect a negative relation between the undirected learning style and
conscientiousness and a positive one with neuroticism. Also exploratively, we expect fear of
failure negative to correlate positively with the undirected learning style and fear of failure
positive to correlate negatively with this learning style. We expect achievement motivation and
fear of failure positive to correlate with the meaning directed learning style.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
Participants were ®rst-year psychology students at the University of Amsterdam. These
students participated obligatorily in the so-called ``test-week'', which is held every year for
freshmen psychology students at this university. During this ``test-week'', a great variety of
psychological tests are administered, including the tests measuring the variables under
consideration. For this research project, data on learning styles were available from psychology
students who started their study in 1993, in 1994 and in 1995. The data of 1994 and 1995 were
gathered in the respective ``test-week'', the data of 1993 were gathered in the Busato et al.
(1995) study. Altogether, from 1072 students' data on learning styles were known. Data on the
big ®ve personality factors and achievement motivation were available from psychology
students who started their study in 1992, 1993, 1994 and in 1995, all gathered in the respective
``test-weeks''. Altogether, data on personality and achievement motivation of 1701 students
were known.
2.2. Learning style
The learning styles were measured by the ILS (Vermunt, 1994). This questionnaire consists
of 20 subscales, containing 120 statements, measuring dierent aspects of processing strategies,
regulation strategies, mental models of learning and learning orientations. Of each statement, a
student has to indicate on a ®ve point scale to what extent the statement is descriptive of his or
her study behaviour. Depending on the formulation of the item, answers can range from 1 ``I
do this seldom or never'' to 5 ``I do this almost always'', or from 1 ``disagree entirely'' to 5
V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 26 (1999) 129±140
133
``agree entirely''. An example of a processing strategy statement, belonging to the subscale
``relating and structuring'' is: ``I try to combine the subjects that are dealt with separately in a
course into one whole''. An example of a regulation strategy statement, belonging to the
subscale ``self-regulation of learning processes and results'' is: ``to test my learning progress, I
try to answer questions about the subject matter which I make up myself''. An example of a
learning orientations statement, belonging to the scale ``certi®cate directed'' is: ``the main goal I
pursue in my studies is to pass exams''. An example of a mental models of learning statement,
belonging to the scale ``stimulating education'' is: ``the teacher should motivate and encourage
me''. Vermunt (1992) reported good internal consistencies for the dierent scales of the ILS,
with alpha coecients varying in between 0.68 and 0.93.
Principal components analyses of the twenty subscales of the ILS by Vermunt (1992) and by
Busato et al. (1995) resulted in identical factor structures, with four factors. These factors
correspond to Vermunt's four learning styles. Fig. 1 lists the ILS-subscales loading on each of
the four learning style factors, as well as the subscales which are not speci®c for one learning
style.
2.3. Personality
The ``vijf persoonlijkheids-factoren test, 5PFT'', developed by Elshout and Akkerman (1975),
is the ®rst published personality questionnaire ever, speci®cally designed to measure the
personality factors now known as the big ®ve, that were ®rst discovered by Tupes and Christal
(1992). Within the Dutch psychological community, it has been in successful use ever since (see
for example Evers et al., 1992). The 5PFT consists of 70 items, 14 for each of the factors
extraversion, sociability (or agreeableness), conscientiousness, neuroticism and culture (or
openness to experience). Each item consists of a short description, e.g. ``cultured, reads a lot
and has widely reaching intellectual interests''. The subject has to indicate on a seven-point
scale how well this description ®ts him or her. It's a reliable instrument, with alpha coecients
found in the ``test-week'' usually above 0.80.
2.4. Achievement motivation
The ``prestatie±motivatie±test, PMT'', developed by Hermans (1976), measures achievement
motivation, fear of failure positive and fear of failure negative. The items contributing to the
positive score refer to feelings of thrill when challenged, while the items referring to the
negative score deal with habitual feelings of worry, unpleasant tension and lack of con®dence
about future performance. These two scores correlate negatively, so they can be regarded as
dierent measures for the same construct. The PMT is just like the 5PFT (Elshout and
Akkerman, 1975) one of the standard and most often used psychological tests in the
Netherlands (see again Evers et al., 1992). The PMT consists of 89 items, 47 for achievement
motivation, 26 for fear of failure negative and 16 for fear of failure positive. On a dichotomous
scale, the subject has to indicate how well the description ®ts him or her (e.g. ``most people feel
tension when taking an intelligence-test. I think this tension will rather improve/worsen my
performance on such a test''). It's a reliable instrument, with alpha coecients found in the
``test-week'' usually above 0.80.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]