رابطه بین ویژگی های شخصیتی پنج عامل بزرگ و روش های یادگیری

In order to examine the relationship between broad personality traits and learning approaches, 852 university students completed the NEO-FFI [Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources] and SPQ [Biggs, J. B. (1987). The Study Process Questionnaire manual. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research], which assess personality and learning approaches, respectively. Seven previous studies were used to generate hypotheses on the relationship between these two measures, but only the positive link between Openness to Experience and Deep learning was supported by both correlational and structural equation modelling tests. Openness was also found to be negatively linked to Surface learning, but other Big Five traits were not saliently associated with learning approaches. Results indicate that the overlap between learning approaches and personality traits is lower than previously suggested. Implications are discussed.

There is a long and acrimonious debate about the relationship between individuals' approaches to learning, i.e., students' preferred learning strategies and motives, and broad personality traits (see Furnham, 2008), particularly since the publication of two of the most emblematic measures of learning approaches (Biggs, 1992) and personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The widespread acceptance of the Five Factor or “Big Five” model of personality (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007 and McCrae and Costa, 1997), which postulates that five major dimensions (i.e., Neuroticism or Emotional Stability, Extraversion/Introversion, Openness or Intellect, Agreeableness or Friendliness and Conscientiousness or Responsibility) are both necessary and sufficient to account for consistent behavioral, emotional and cognitive patterns in non-clinical samples, implies that other preference-based or stylistic constructs, such as learning approaches, may simply reflect broad individual differences in the Big Five (Duff et al., 2004, Furnham, 1992, Furnham, 2008 and Jackson and Lawty-Jones, 1996). On the other hand, there is little consensus on the structure of learning approaches, with different researchers opting for different instruments and taxonomies. For instance, most UK-based research is based on the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) (Backhaus and Liff, 2007, Duff, 1997, Duff et al., 2004, Richardson, 2003 and Sadler-Smith and Tsang, 1998). In continental Europe, Vermunt's Inventory of Learning Styles (ISL) (Loyens et al., 2008, Rozendaal et al., 2005, Vermunt and Verloop, 2000 and Vermunt and Vermetten, 2004) is the dominant measure, though learning “styles” have sometimes been distinguished from “approaches” (Murray-Harvey, 1994). In the Far East (Zhang and Sternberg, 2000 and Zhang and Sternberg, 2001), Bigg's measure, which has also been used with several UK samples, is often employed, particularly in relation to personality traits (see below, method section and Table 1 and Table 2). Table 1. Motives and strategies in approaches to learning and studying. Approach Motive Strategy Surface Surface motive is to meet requirements minimally: a balancing act between failing and working more than is necessary. Surface strategy is to limit target to bare essentials and reproduce them through rote learning. Deep Deep motive is intrinsic interest in what is being learned; to develop competence in particular academic subjects. Deep strategy is to discover meaning by reading widely, inter-relating with previous relevant knowledge, etc. Achieving/Strategic Achieving motive is to enhance ego and self-esteem through competition; to obtain the highest grades, whether or not material is interesting. Achieving/Strategic strategy is to organise one's time and working space; to follow up all suggested readings, schedule time, behave as ‘model student’. Note. Based on Biggs (1987, p. 3). Table options Table 2. Summary of past correlations between Big Five traits and learning approaches. Surface Deep Strategic Neuroticism ++++++++ −−−−− −−/+ Busato et al. (1999) − Zhang (2003) ++ − − Duff et al. (2004) ++ − − Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007) ++ −− Furnham et al. (2007) + + Shokri et al. (2007) + Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2008) Extraversion + +++++ +++++ Busato et al. (1999) + Zhang (2003) + + Duff et al. (2004) + ++ Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007) + + Furnham et al. (2007) + + Shokri et al. (2007) + Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2008) + Openness −−−−−− +++++++++++++ + Busato et al. (1999) ++ Zhang (2003) − ++ + Duff et al. (2004) ++ Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007) −− ++ Furnham et al. (2007) −− ++ Shokri et al. (2007) − ++ Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2008) + Agreeableness −− +++/− +++/−− Busato et al. (1999) + Zhang (2003) − − Duff et al. (2004) − + Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007) − ++ +/− Furnham et al. (2007) Shokri et al. (2007) + Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2008) Conscientiousness +/−− ++++++++ ++++++ Busato et al. (1999) + Zhang (2003) − ++ ++ Duff et al. (2004) + Chamorro-Premuzic et al. (2007) ++ + Furnham et al. (2007) + + ++ Shokri et al. (2007) − ++ Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2008) Note. Learning approach collapse motives and strategy; + positive significant correlation from .1 to .3; ++ from .3 to .5; +++ > .5; ditto for − but negative. Ns: Busato 870; Zhang 420, Duff 146; Furnham 430; Shokri 419; Chamorro-Premuzic (2007), Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham (2008) 221, 158. Duff values based on Duff et al.'s (2004) erratum. In Busato Deep = meaning and Strategic = application directed. Duff measured approaches by RASI ( Duff, 1997) and personality by 16PF ( Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970). Other studies used Costa and McCrae (1992) NEO and Biggs' (1992) SPQ. Table options Although learning approaches are seen as much more contextual than personality traits (Watkins, 1998), in recent years researchers have attempted to assess to what degree measures of learning approaches and personality traits are assessing unrelated, related, similar, or the same constructs, a question that can be justified for several reasons. First and foremost, an examination of the psychometric overlap between these two measures may highlight the conceptual similarities between personality and learning approaches (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2005, Furnham, 2008 and Zhang, 2003); these have a number of practical and theoretical implications as they may help researchers and practitioners to compare the results of different investigations (using personality or learning approaches measures). Second, personality traits have been conceptualized as less malleable than learning approaches (Furnham, 2008, Jackson and Lawty-Jones, 1996 and Pedersen et al., in press), and interventions aimed at influencing students' learning approaches would benefit from knowing to what extent stable dispositions may “compete” with situational factors as determinants of learning approaches. Third, researchers or practitioners wishing to predict various educational outcomes, such as academic performance, vocational interests, or test anxiety, would benefit from knowing to what degree learning approaches and personality traits overlap (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005). For example, if the two set of predictors are only marginally inter-correlated they may explain more unique variance in the outcome variable than if they overlap substantially. To this end, the current study set out to compare a well-known measure of learning approaches, the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ; Biggs, 1987, see Table 1 for a description of each factor), with one of the most widely-used measures of the Big Five personality traits, the Neuroticism–Extraversion–Openness Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). As noted above, the SPQ is just one measure of learning approaches and there are competing taxonomies and instruments, as well as revisions of the SPQ. It has also been noted that the SPQ, as a self-report, assesses students' perceptions or preferred learning approaches but not necessarily the approaches they actually adopt (Veenman, Prins, & Verheij, 2003). However, past research on personality and learning approaches has used Biggs' measure more than other measures of learning approaches.