رابطه بین ویژگی های شخصیتی پنج عامل بزرگ و انگیزه تحصیلی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34193||2005||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 39, Issue 3, August 2005, Pages 557–567
Understanding the relationship between personality characteristics and academic motivation may be central to developing more effective teaching strategies. The current research examined the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and individual differences in college students’ academic motivation. Individuals (172 undergraduates) were asked to complete the NEO Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the Academic Motivations Inventory (AMI; Moen & Doyle, 1977). Results revealed a complex pattern of significant relationships between the Big Five traits and the 16 subscales of the AMI. Stepwise (forward) multiple regressions further clarified the relationships between personality and three core factors of the AMI (engagement, achievement, and avoidance). Specifically, engagement was best explained by Openness to experience and Extraversion. Achievement was best explained by Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to experience. Finally, avoidance was best explained by Neuroticism, Extraversion, and by an inverse relationship with Conscientiousness and Openness to experience. Results are interpreted in terms of creating an appropriate fit between teaching modalities and individual differences in students’ academic motivation due to personality traits. Directions for future research and educational practice are considered.
Individuals differ in their learning styles and educational preferences. These individual differences provide important clues about how best to design educational offerings. Students also differ in the level of motivation they display in the classroom. Some approach learning opportunities with enthusiasm and an intrinsic desire to know more while others seem bored and uninterested. There are various factors, both personal and contextual, that explain these differences (Stipek, 2002). While a number of studies have examined individual differences in learning styles, thinking styles, academic achievement, and academic success, few have focused on individual differences in academic motivation. Yet, academic motivation is a key determinant of academic performance and deserves closer attention (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). The current research was designed to examine how the Big Five personality traits may relate to individual differences in academic motivation. 1.1. Theoretical background Several general perspectives on learning suggest reasons why personality should relate to motivation. First, research has demonstrated that students can be either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, with some students displaying intellectual curiosity and others remaining disengaged (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Second, research on individual differences in learning styles (e.g., Biggs, 1993) suggests that students approach learning with either a surface, deep, or achieving style. Third, Dweck and Leggett (1988) have offered a theory suggesting implicit theories of intelligence influence students’ academic performance goals. Similarly, Elliot and McGregor (1999) have emphasized that anxiety can affect learning goals and performance. Finally, research regarding multiple types of intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998) suggests that students who are taught in a way that matches their abilities are likely to achieve at higher levels. These views converge to suggest that the degree of match between the academic environment and student learning preferences related to personality should be related to academic motivation. 1.2. Literature review While a number of studies have examined individual differences in academic performance, most have focused on academic achievement rather than motivation. Moreover, much of the existing motivation research has focused on elementary, middle, and high school students rather than college students. The relevant research on academic issues that may be related to personality and motivation in college students has focused on: (a) personality and academic performance, (b) personality and learning styles, and (c) personality and motivation. Personality and academic performance. Prior research indicates that the Big Five traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness) reflect core aspects of human personality and have strong influences on behavior ( Costa & McCrae, 1992). Some studies have specifically examined the role of the Big Five in predicting academic success. Conscientiousness has consistently and positively predicted examination performance ( Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003), as well as grade point average (GPA) and academic success ( Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 2000). Openness is positively related to final grades, with high scorers using learning strategies that emphasize critical thinking ( Lounsbury, Sundstrom, Loveland, & Gibson, 2003). In addition, Neuroticism is related to reduced academic performance ( Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003), whereas Agreeableness is positively associated with grades ( Farsides & Woodfield, 2003). Entwistle and Entwistle (1970) found that stable introverts using good study methods achieved higher performance than extraverts or emotionally unstable students, whereas Furnham and Medhurst (1995) showed a significant positive correlation between sociability and performance in a seminar class. Other studies have focused on additional personality traits, as well as on emotional and social factors. Pritchard and Wilson (2003) report that perfectionists had higher GPAs and tended to stay in school, whereas students with low self-esteem were more likely to drop out. Other studies have also found a negative correlation between emotional instability and academic performance (Furnham & Mitchell, 1991; Heaven, Mak, Barry, & Ciarrochi, 2002). Work drive has been reported to account for significant variance in GPA, beyond that explained by intelligence and the Big Five traits (Lounsbury et al., 2003). Additional research has identified achievement, dominance, exhibitionism, and self-control as significant predictors of classroom performance (Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, & King, 1994; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). In an interesting meta-analysis, Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) found some modest relationships between personality and intellectual ability measures. For example, Openness was positively related to intellectual ability, whereas Neuroticism, psychoticism, and test anxiety were negatively related to intellectual ability. These researchers concluded that intellectual abilities, interests, and personality are interrelated and that intellectual ability level and personality traits determine success, whereas interest determines task motivation. Personality and learning styles. A few studies have examined the importance of self-confidence and self-esteem in explaining individual differences in learning styles. Abouserie (1995) and Schmeck and Geisler Brenstein (1991) found that students with high self-esteem and high achievement motivation preferred a deep processing learning style. In contrast, students with low self-esteem and self-doubt preferred a surface processing style. Similarly, Livengood (1992) found that students who had high confidence in their intelligence preferred learning rather than performance goals and preferred professors who emphasized learning. Several studies highlight the importance of adjusting the learning environment to match individual differences. Furnham (1992) found that extraverts tend to be more active than reflective, whereas introverts are more reflective. Individuals high on psychoticism preferred to evaluate information intuitively, whereas individuals low on psychoticism used systematic processing. Zhang, 2002 and Zhang, 2003 found that conscientious and open individuals preferred a deep learning style emphasizing mastery, whereas neurotic students preferred a surface learning style. Agreeableness was negatively associated with an achieving style emphasizing high grades. Regarding thinking styles, Openness was positively associated with thinking styles emphasizing being open-minded and perceptive, whereas Neuroticism was strongly associated with thinking styles emphasizing structured environments. Additional research also highlight the importance of matching preferred learning strategies with complementary teaching techniques (e.g., De Raad & Shouwenburg, 1996; Riding & Wigley, 1997; Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 2001). Personality and motivation. Some studies have examined personality variables that may be related to aspects of academic motivation—such as achievement motivation, performance goals, and test anxiety—and related these variables to academic performance. For example, Heaven (1989) reported that achievement motivation was positively correlated with extraversion, and negatively correlated with impulsiveness and psychoticism among high school students. Busato, Prins, Elshout, and Hamaker (1999) reported that conscientious and extraverted students were more achievement oriented and preferred meaning, reproduction, and application directed learning styles. In contrast, students high on Neuroticism and fear of failure had low achievement motivation, exhibited an undirected learning style, and had difficulty in identifying and processing what material was important. Focusing on adaptive and maladaptive behaviors of students in performance settings, Dweck and Leggett (1988) found that students who viewed intelligence as a fixed entity adopted performance-related goals and gave up when faced with obstacles, whereas students who viewed intelligence as malleable adopted learning goals and persisted in the face of difficulties. Kanfer, Ackerman, and Heggestad (1996) found that need for achievement was positively correlated with a composite measure of motivation, and test anxiety was positively correlated with Neuroticism. Finally, in examining test anxiety as a trait in relation to performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, Elliot and McGregor (1999) found students adopting performance-avoidance goals were more likely to perform poorly on exams and that worry mediated this relationship. 1.3. The current study Although prior research has provided valuable information on relationships between various personality traits and selected aspects of academic motivation, such as performance goals and learning styles, very little research has examined the relationship between the Big Five traits and multiple academic motives. The current study was designed to address this need by directly assessing the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and academic motivation. To allow us to measure multiple aspects of academic motivation, we used the Academic Motivations Inventory (AMI, Doyle & Moen, 1978; Moen & Doyle, 1977), which includes 16 subscales assessing a wide variety of academic motivations. We based our predictions on the logic that students would be most motivated by academic environments that provide a good fit with their personality traits. This logic is consistent with prior research and theory on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985), individual differences in learning styles (e.g., Biggs, 1993), implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), and multiple types of intelligence (Gardner, 1983). Our specific hypotheses regarding each Big Five dimension and academic motivation were based both on an analysis of how the characteristics already known to reflect these dimensions (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992) would logically relate to matching educational domains or preferences, as well as on prior research on personality and other aspects of motivation. Using this approach, we developed the following specific hypotheses. First, given that Neuroticism is characterized by emotional distress and poor impulse control, we expected students high in Neuroticism to have difficulty in coping with academic challenges and dealing with setbacks (cf. Elliot & McGregor, 1999). Thus, we predicted that Neuroticism would be positively related with the AMI motives of debilitating anxiety, withdrawing, disliking school, and discouraged about school. Second, extraverted individuals are warm, socially-oriented, and assertive. Similarly, agreeable individuals tend to be trusting and cooperative, and may be receptive to collaborative learning (De Raad & Shouwenburg, 1996). Therefore, we predicted that Extraversion and Agreeableness would both be positively related with approval and affiliating motives. Because assertiveness is an element of Extraversion (Costa & McCrae, 1992), we also predicted that Extraversion would be related with influencing motives. Third, given that individuals high in Openness seek novel experiences, are intellectually curious, and may be more receptive to novel educational experiences (Lounsbury et al., 2003), we predicted that Openness would be positively related with thinking and desire for self-improvement. Finally, conscientious individuals are generally organized, disciplined, and hard working, and have been found to achieve greater academic success (Busato et al., 2000). Hence, we predicted that Conscientiousness would be positively related with persisting, achieving, and desire for self-improvement. Conscientiousness may also be positively related with demanding or facilitating anxiety motives. Neither our relative fit logic nor the prior literature provides the basis for clear predictions regarding economic or grades orientation motives.