The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.020Get rights and content

Abstract

This study considers the relationship between students' approaches to learning, as measured by a short-form of Entwistle and Tait's (1995) Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI), the Big Five personality factors, as measured by Cattell's 16PFi, and the background variables of age, gender and prior educational achievement and academic performance. Subjects were 146 social science undergraduate students at a university in Scotland. Structural equation modelling identifies the Big Five personality factor scores account for between 22.7% and 43.6% of the variance across scores on the three approach to learning dimensions. Four of the Big Five personality factors and the three approach to learning dimensions were found to be poor predictors of academic performance. A linear regression analysis with academic performance as the dependent variable and age, prior educational attainment and conscientiousness as independent variables, accounted for 24.1% of the variance in performance. Our investigation suggests approach to learning is a subset of personality. However, we conclude it makes sense to measure these two groups of variables separately in educational settings.

Introduction

Work considering ways in which students approach learning has been of interest to educational researchers for over 30 years. The seminal work of Marton and Saljo (1976) identified student learning could be categorised into two general strategies: deep processing and surface processing. Applying these concepts, researchers in various locations, have extended Marton and Saljo's efforts to develop models and inventories which purport to measure students' approaches to learning (SAL). Although subtle differences exist between these models, they all recognise three fundamental approaches to learning. These `defining' approaches to learning are labelled as deep approach, surface approach and strategic approach. An individual adopting a deep approach is said to look for meaning in the matter being studied and relates those ideas to other experiences and ideas with a critical approach. A surface approach reflects a reliance on rote-learning and memorization in isolation to other ideas. A third defining approach, labelled a strategic approach, is associated with an emphasis on organisation, study skills, and a desire to achieve the highest grades.

Traditional predictive models of academic performance focus on the importance of variables such as intelligence and motivation. Personality is often included as a predictor alongside these variables (see Furnham, 1995 for a review). However, educational psychologists from the SAL school see learning as contextually-based and `bottom-up' and criticise traditional theoretical models, as being `top-down' and `acontextual'. SAL researchers claim their instruments are based on a theoretical rationale grounded in how students actually go about learning tasks in educational settings, for example, classrooms and lecture halls (Watkins, 1998). Ramsden (1992) suggests students' learning outcomes are directly influenced by their orientation to learning. An individual's orientation to learning is likely to be influenced by their prior educational experiences. Their approach to learning is a function of both their learning orientation and their perceptions of the task requirements. Learning task perceptions are in turn influenced by the context of learning (curriculum, teaching processes and assessment methods).

A deep approach is likely to be encouraged where: the learning task is perceived to be relevant to students' interests (Fransson, 1977); the instructor is supportive and demonstrates interest and enthusiasm (Ramsden, 1979); and students are provided with the opportunity to manage their own learning (Ramsden & Entwistle, 1981). By contrast, a surface approach is more likely to occur when assessment methods reward reproducing information (Dart & Clarke, 1991); excessive anxiety (Fransson, 1977); or a heavy workload (Ramsden, 1992). A strategic approach is characterized by a highly organised approach to study and high achievement motivation (Watkins, 1982).

A number of instruments have been developed to measure students' approaches to learning, including: Biggs' (1987) Study Processes Questionnaire, developed in Australia; Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramaniah (1977) creation of the Inventory of Learning Processes in the United States; in the Netherlands, Vermunt's (1994) Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS); and in the UK, the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) (Entwistle, Hanley, & Hounsell, 1979).

Since its development in the 1970s, the ASI (Entwistle et al., 1979) has been one of the most widely used questionnaires considering student learning in higher education (HE) settings in the UK. Reflecting relatively recent changes in higher education (e.g. mass higher education, significantly reduced per capita funding, reduction in student grants and the imposition of fees), the ASI was revised several times during the mid-1990s to create the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI), measuring three constructs of deep approach, surface approach and strategic approach. A 30-item short-form version of the RASI has been shown to yield scores with satisfactory psychometric properties (Duff, 1997, Duff, 1999, Duff, 2002, Duff, 2003) and takes around 10–15 minutes to administer.

The idea that the way an individual learns is related to their personality in not new. For example, Messick (1984, p. 61) suggests an individual's learning style can be thought of as a “characteristic self-consistency in information processing that develop in congenial ways around underlying personality trends”. Recent empirical work has found support for the hypothesis that an individual's learning orientation is related to their personality (Busato et al., 1999, Busato et al., 2000). These findings suggest SAL research may be complemented by considering the role an individual's personality may play in the learning process. Other research using other descriptions of learning orientation (style) such as Kolb's experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984) measured using Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), indicate learning style is simply a subset of personality (Jackson & Lawty-Jones, 1996) or a learnt component of personality (Furnham, Jackson, & Miller, 1999).

SAL researchers however have paid more attention to the role demographic variables such as the age and gender of an individual might play in determining their approach to learning. In part, this could be attributed to changes in the nature of higher education (HE) in the UK. HE in the UK has undergone a process of rapid expansion in the past 10 years to create a more heterogeneous student population, with many older students now pursuing tertiary education. Consequently, age has become an important variable for SAL researchers to consider. Those studies considering the relationship between age and approach to learning have consistently shown age is positively related to scores on deep approach and negatively correlated with surface approach scores (Duff, 1999; Richardson, 1995; Richardson, Morgan, & Woodley, 1999; Sadler-Smith, 1996; Sadler-Smith & Tsang, 1998).

The findings concerning gender differences in approaches to learning are less clear. Wilson, Smart, and Watson (1996) reviewed work using either the ASI or the SPQ. Investigations utilising the SPQ “offer a far from definitive picture on gender difference” (Wilson et al., 1996, p. 60). By comparison, research using versions of the RASI identifies males scoring higher on Deep Approach and females scoring higher on surface approach (Duff, 1999, Duff, 2002; Sadler-Smith, 1996; Sadler-Smith & Tsang, 1998).

We propose therefore to modify Ramsden's (1992) contextual model of student learning by including age, gender and personality, in addition to prior educational experience, as variables which influence an individual's learning orientation (see Fig. 1).

Despite the vigorous research activity in the fields of personality and individual differences and students' approaches to learning, work considering the relation personality may play in determining an individual's approach to learning is still in its infancy. A general consensus exists within the personality and individual differences literature that personality is best described by a five-factor model (e.g. Costa and McCrae, 1992, Costa and McCrae, 1995; De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; Furnham, 1996, but see Block (1995) for a more critical perspective). The so-called Big Five factors are usually labelled extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness.

Two studies conducted in the Netherlands (Busato et al., 1999, Busato et al., 2000) have investigated the relationship between approach to learning measured by Vermunt's (1994) ILS and personality, using the 5PFT (Elshout & Akkerman, 1975), which measures the Big Five personality factors. The results of these investigations are relatively consistent, with the Meaning Directed dimension positively correlated with openness to experience (r=0.35 and 0.36 respectively). Reproduction oriented is positively related to both agreeableness (r=0.21 and 0.21 respectively) and conscientiousness (r=0.23 and 0.21 respectively). Undirected is positively associated with neuroticism (r=0.21 and 0.19 respectively).

Vermunt's model of student learning corresponds approximately with Entwistle and his colleagues' notions of approaches to learning. Although no published empirical work has compared Vermunt's ILS and the RASI, meaning directed concept is similar to the deep approach dimension, and the undirected and reproduction directed dimensions correspond to descriptions of a surface approach. However, the conceptual relationship of Vermunt's application directed scale to the RASI is less obvious. Likewise, the strategic approach dimension of the RASI does not appear to be captured by the ILS, with Busato et al., 1999, Busato et al., 2000 separately administering a test of achievement motivation which is conceptually related to strategic approach.

It has been proposed that the three Big Five factors of extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience are relevant in an educational setting (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996). Based on the empirical findings of Busato et al., 1999, Busato et al., 2000 and the review of De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996) we have developed the following expectations. Deep approach will be positively related to both the openness to experience and extraversion dimensions, reflecting the association of intellect and openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and the need for those adopting a deep approach to collaborate, consult and discuss with others, being facets of extraversion (Entwistle, Tait, & McCune, 2000). Surface approach is expected to be positively related to neuroticism reflecting the surface learners `fear of failure' motivation displayed by pessimism and anxiety about academic outcomes (Entwistle et al., 2000). We anticipate a strategic approach will be positively related to conscientiousness as a consequence of strategic learners' desire for organised studying, time management and their monitoring of their own effectiveness (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Tait & Entwistle, 1996; 16PFi Manual, 2000). Costa and McCrae (1992) also suggest scores on the conscientiousness scale provide a useful supplement to ability measures as predictors of academic performance and success in later life.

This paper has three specific aims. First, to assess the empirical relationship between the Five Factor model of personality and the three `defining' approaches to learning. Second, to assess the fit of a hypothesised model which includes the Big Five factors, the three defining approaches to learning dimensions, and the demographic variables of age, gender and prior academic attainment. Third, using linear regression analysis, to establish the ability of approaches to learning, the Big Five factor model, and age, gender and prior academic attainment to predict academic performance.

Section snippets

Participants

The participants were social science undergraduate students at the University of Paisley, a medium-sized university in Scotland. The RASI and 16PFi were administered during classtime in one session taking approximately one hour in April 2001. Participation was entirely voluntary and participants received written feedback using a computer-generated package of their personality profile as an incentive to take part in the study. After `listwise' analysis in the statistical package SPSS, subjects

Internal consistency reliability

Alpha coefficients for scores on the three RASI dimensions ranged from 0.73 (surface approach) to 0.82 (strategic approach), and from 0.78 (openness to experience) to 0.90 (neuroticism) for Big Five factor scores (see Table 1). The alpha coefficients calculated are indicative of satisfactory to excellent internal consistency reliability (Nunnally, 1978).

Correlation between all variables

Table 2 reports the correlations between personality factors, approaches to learning, age, prior academic achievement and academic performance.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between personality, approach to learning, and academic performance. Consistent with our expectations, based on our interpretation of previous research (Busato et al., 1999, Busato et al., 2000; De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996), deep approach was positively associated with extraversion and openness to experience. Surface approach was positively related to neuroticism and agreeableness. Strategic approach correlated positively with

Conclusion

In conclusion, this investigation reports that an individual's learning orientation, and therefore their approach to learning, is partially determined by their personality. We encourage the development of further research examining the relationship between personality and other approach to learning inventories, in other cultural contexts. It might also be interesting to examine the predictive validity of the model by examining performance in different types of assessments, rather than the use

References (47)

  • B.C. Dart et al.

    Helping students become better learners: a case study in teacher education

    Higher Education

    (1991)
  • B. De Raad et al.

    Personality traits in learning and education

    European Journal of Personality

    (1996)
  • J.M. Digman et al.

    Factors in the natural language of personality: RE-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies

    Multivariate Behavioural Research

    (1981)
  • A. Duff

    A note on the reliability and validity of a 30-item version of Entwistle and Tait's revised approaches to studying inventory

    British Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1997)
  • A. Duff

    Access policy and approaches to learning

    Accounting Education: An International Journal

    (1999)
  • Duff, A. (2001). Approaches to learning paradigm: utility in business and management education. Paper presented at the...
  • A. Duff

    Quality of learning on an MBA programme: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance

    Educational Psychology

    (2003)
  • J.J. Elshout et al.

    Vijf Persoonlijkheids-faktoren test 5PFT

    (1975)
  • N.J. Entwistle

    Understanding academic performance at university: a research retrospective

  • N.J. Entwistle et al.

    Identifying distinctive approaches to studying

    Higher Education

    (1979)
  • N.J. Entwistle et al.

    The revised approaches to studying inventory

    (1995)
  • N.J. Entwistle et al.

    Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts

    European Journal of the Psychology of Education

    (2000)
  • A. Fransson

    On qualitative differences in learning: IV. Effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic test anxiety on process and outcome

    British Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1977)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text