A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIP AMONG TRAITS OF PERSONALITY AND LEARNING STYLES PREFERENCES OF STUDENTS AT HIGHER EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/xktyhz84Keywords:
Personality Traits,, Learning style,, Higher EducationAbstract
The present study was designed to identify the relationship among traits of personality and learning styles’ preferences of students at Higher Education. All students of Higher Education of government sector Universities in Province Punjab were the population of the study. The random sampling technique was used to select 1000 students from the target population. Two standardized instruments were administered to measure the traits of personality and learning styles of the participants. The personality traits were measured by (NEO-BFI) inventory by (Costa & McCrae, 2010) having 44-items and learning styles were measured by (LSI) inventory by (Kolb & Kolb 2005) consisting 10 factors. The data were analyzed by applying Pearson correlation coefficient to investigate the relationship between styles of learning and their personality traits while the prediction study was conducted through regression analysis. The results of the study showed that converging style of learning is a significant predictor of Neuroticism, whereas the assimilating style of learning is significant predictor of Extraversion and Conscientiousness. The accommodating style of learning is also significant predictor of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. There was found a significant relationship between agreeableness (trait of personality) and styles of learning (assimilating, accommodating and diverging). The study holds implications for accommodating students with different traits of personality and styles of learning in the classroom.
Downloads
References
1. Al-Dujaily, A., Kim, J., &Ryu, H. (2013). Am I extravert or introvert? Considering the personality effect toward e-learning system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3).
2. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1- 26.
3. Bond, S. R. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: a guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese economic journal, 1(2), 141-162.
4. Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., &Lauver, K. J. . (2002). The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of personality, 70(3), 311-344.
5. Brown, J., & Duguid, P. . (2000). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. In Knowledge and communities, 2(1), 99-121.
6. Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., &Hamaker, C. . (1998). The relation between learning styles, the Big Five personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education. . Personality and individual differences, 26(1), 129-140.
7. Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate's desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor‐rated performance. Personnel psychology, 53(1), 67-88.
8. Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. . (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of personality assessment, 64(1), 21-50.
9. Gravetter, F. J., &Wallnau, L. B. . (2010). Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences Quantitative Methods in Psychology). boston: cengage learning.
10. Hendriks, A. J., Hofstee, W. K., & De Raad, B. (1999). The five-factor personality inventory Personality and individual differences, 27(2), 307-325.
11. Kolb, A. Y. B. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory-version 3.1 2005 technical specifications (Vol. 72). boston: MA: Hay Resource Direct.
12. Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. . Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,, 34(5), 491.
13. Mir, R. R., Zaman-Allah, M., Sreenivasulu, N., Trethowan, R., &Varshney, R. K. . (2012). Integrated genomics, physiology and breeding approaches for improving drought tolerance in crops. Theoretical and
Applied Genetics, 125(4), 625-645.
14. O’Connor, M. C., &Paunonen, S. V. . (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and individual differences, 43(5), 971-990.
15. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. . (2002). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics and language teaching. Harlow,UK: Longman.
16. Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational psychology review, 20(4), 463-467.
17. Suliman, W. A. (2006). Critical thinking and learning styles of students in conventional and accelerated programmes. International nursing review, 53(1), 73-79.
18. Tahriri, A., Divsar, H., &Ashouri, F. . (2015). The relationship between EFL learners' personality types and their cognitive learning styles. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(2), 21-32.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
