رابطه بین سبک های یادگیری، پنج صفت شخصیتی و انگیزه موفقیت در تحصیلات عالی

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 different 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 five 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 confirmed 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.

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 and Prins et al., 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 Saljö, 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, reflective 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, Vermunt, 1996 and Vermunt, 1998describes 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 different 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 difficulties 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 find 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 different sample of university students, Busato et al. (1995)and Schouwenburg (1996)replicated the findings of Vermunt (1992)with remarkable exactness. 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 five 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 five universal traits (e.g. Elshout and Akkerman, 1973 and Elshout and Akkerman, 1975; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; Hofstee and de Raad, 1991; Costa and McCrae, 1992 and Costa and McCrae, 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 five factor approach (e.g. Eysenck, 1991 and Eysenck, 1992; Zuckerman, 1992; Block, 1995). These five 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 “reflector”. For the CST, Furnham reported that the more active cognitive style correlated positively with extraversion, while extraversion correlated negatively with the more reflective 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 five 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 five 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 relation between learning style, achievement motivation and fear of failure. So, as a first 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 reflector (LSQ) and the more reflective 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 five 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.