Abstract
This study investigated the extent to which learning approaches can be accounted for by personal factors (i.e., demographics, ability, and personality). The participants were 443 students in a university in mainland China. The Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3, and the short form of Raven’s Advanced Progress Matrices were respectively applied to test students’ learning approaches, personality, and ability. The results of correlations and structural equation modeling indicated that male students were more likely to be deep learners than female students; relative to Year-one students, Year-three students were more likely to use the surface learning approach and less likely to use the deep learning approach. Openness to experience and conscientiousness had strong positive effects on the deep learning approach. Neuroticism had positive effect, whereas conscientiousness had negative effect on the surface learning approach. Approximately 44 % of the variance in the deep learning approach and approximately 18 % of the variance in the surface learning approach could be explained by the three personal factors. Personality was the strongest predictor of learning approaches, whereas ability was the weakest predictor. The implications of the results were discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arthur, W, Jr, & Day, D. V. (1994). Development of a short form for the raven advanced progressive matrices test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 394–403.
Bean, R. A., & Northrup, J. (2009). Parental psychological control, psychological autonomy, and acceptance as predictors of self-esteem in Latino adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 30(11), 1486–1504.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style of approach? In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Mainly openness: The relationship between the big five personality traits and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 524–529.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 241–250.
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: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T, Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The NEO inventories. In R. P. Archer & S. R. Smith (Eds.), Personality assessment. New York: Routledge.
Diseth, A. (2002). The relationship between intelligence, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2), 219–230.
Duff, A. (2002). Approaches to learning: Factor invariance across gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 997–1010.
Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1907–1920.
Furnham, A. (2011). Personality and approaches to learning. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 588–607). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, big five personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 769–782.
Kember, D., Biggs, J. B., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the learning process questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261–280.
Ludtke, O., Trautwein, U., Nagy, G., & Koller, O. (2004). A validation of the NEO-FFI in a sample of young adults: Effects of the response format, factorial validity, and relations with indicators of academic achievement. Diagnostica, 50(3), 134–144.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T, Jr. (2007). Brief version of the NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(3), 116–128.
Papinczak, T., Young, L., Groves, M., & Haynes, M. (2008). Effects of a metacognitive intervention on students’ approaches to learning and self-efficacy in a first year medical course. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(2), 213–232.
Phan, H. P. (2012). A sociocultural perspective of learning: Developing a new theoretical tenet. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, University of Sydney, Sydney.
Phan, H. P., & Deo, B. (2008). ‘Revisiting’ the South Pacific approaches to learning: a confirmatory factor analysis study. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(4), 371–383.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1985). A manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. London: H. K. Lewis.
Rushton, J. P., Skuy, M., & Bons, T. A. (2004). Construct validity of raven’s advanced progressive matrices for African and non-African engineering students in South Africa. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 220–229.
Severiens, S., & Ten Dam, G. (1997). Gender and gender identity differences in learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1–2), 79–93.
Swanberg, A. B., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2010). Personality, approaches to learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 75–88.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of the learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251–266.
von Stumm, S., & Furnham, A. (2012). Learning approaches: Associations with typical intellectual engagement, intelligence and the big five. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 720–723.
Watkins, D. (1998). Assessing approaches to learning: A cross-cultural perspective. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 124–144). Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research.
Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 165–195). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian university students: Investigations of contextual and personological factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(3), 384–393.
Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1985). A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of tertiary students. Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research and Applications, 4(2), 127–141.
Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1986). The approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students: A replication. Higher Education Research and Development, 5(2), 1986.
Xie, Q. (2013a). Gender and age differences in intellectual styles. Research Studies in Education, 11, 240–248.
Xie, Q. (2013b). Intellectual styles: Their malleability, their associations, and their relationships between ability and personality traits (Doctoral Dissertation The University of Hong Kong, 2013).
Xie, Q. (2014). Validating the revised two-factor study process questionnaire among Chinese university students. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 16(2), 4–21.
Xie, Q. (in press-a). Intellectual styles: Their associations and their relationships to ability and personality. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology.
Xie, Q. (in press-b). The predictive power of psychological types for learning approaches among Chinese university students. In R. B. King & A. B. I. Bernardo (Eds.), The psychology of Asian learners: A festschrift in honor of David Watkins. Singapore: Springer Asia.
Zhang, L. F. (2000). University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs’s 3P model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 37–55.
Zhang, L. F. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1431–1446.
Zhang, L. F., & Huang, J. F. (2001). Thinking styles and the five factor model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 465–476.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xie, Q., Zhang, Lf. Demographic Factors, Personality, and Ability as Predictors of Learning Approaches. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 24, 569–577 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0202-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0202-5