Personality Traits and Learning Styles among Students
of Mathematics, Architecture, and Fine Arts
Abstract (summary)
Current
research was designed to explore the personality traits and the learning styles among students of mathematic,
architecture, and fine-arts. Personality traits were measured with the help of NEO Personality
Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrea, 1985) and learning styles were measured
through Learning
Preferences Inventory (LPI; Hanson & Silver, 1978). The 135 students from universities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi were
contacted. The findings indicated that there was a positive relationship
between mastery learners and conscientiousness, interpersonal learners and
agreeableness, understanding learners and openness and self-expressive learners
and extroversion. There was a significant negative relationship between
neuroticism and mastery, interpersonal, understanding, and self-expressive
learners. It was found that girls scored higher on interpersonal and
understanding learners as compared to boys. It was found that girl scored high
on neuroticism and openness as compared to boys. It has been found the Learning style has significant
impact among students of
mathematics, architecture and fine arts. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Full Text
Headnote
Current
research was designed to explore the personality traits and the learning styles among students of mathematic,
architecture, and fine-arts. Personality traits were measured with the help of NEO Personality
Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrea, 1985) and learning styles were measured
through Learning
Preferences Inventory (LPI; Hanson & Silver, 1978). The 135 students from universities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi were
contacted. The findings indicated that there was a positive relationship
between mastery learners and conscientiousness, interpersonal learners and
agreeableness, understanding learners and openness and self-expressive learners
and extroversion. There was a significant negative relationship between
neuroticism and mastery, interpersonal, understanding, and self-expressive
learners. It was found that girls scored higher on interpersonal and
understanding learners as compared to boys. It was found that girl scored high
on neuroticism and openness as compared to boys. It has been found the Learning style has significant
impact among students of
mathematics, architecture and fine arts.
Keywords:
personality traits, learning
styles, mathematics,
architecture, fine arts students.
High quality
of education is the primary
focus of attention
throughout the world. Psychologist and educational leaders are increasingly
recognizing that learning
process helps in understanding of
the ways through which an individual learns, and is key to educational
improvement. Personality refers to the complete organization, of cognition, affect, and
behavior that gives direction, and pattern to person's life (Pervin & John,
1997).
Understanding
learning styles and
personality preferences can assist student
to succeed academically (Jones, Reichard & Mokhtari, 2003).
The NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) by Costa and McCrae (1985) is widely used
instrument in studying the personality trait dimensions and extensive studies
have been carried out by using NEOPI-R which have basically used to classify
individual into different personality types (as cited in Zhang, 2005). The Learning Preference Inventory by
Hanson and Silver (1978) it is claim of
Jung's personality theory and portrayal to identify learning dimensions Hanson and Silver (1991)
analyzed four learning styles:
Sensing-Feeling (SF), SensingThinking (ST), Intuitive-Thinking (NT) and
Intuitive-Feeling (NF).
Different
disciplines have different methods or strategies to cater the need and
requirement of students
where every domain has different set of
methods and techniques. Several studies have been carried out on achievement of mathematics students (Sztajn,
2003; Watson, 2001; Tomlinson, 1999) and concluded that to work effectively it
is important to focus on students'
abilities not on their insufficiency.
Exploring
the relationship between the personality traits of neuroticism, extroversion, openness,
agreeableness and consciousness that have been proved common as projected and
investigated by Costa and McCrea (1991) in their big five factor model would
pay a way understanding the personality dimensions that should be there for
ensuring an affective adjustment to social gatherings. Aflonzo and Long (2005)
carried out research on students
and found strong difference between personality differences of mathematics students among
non-rural and rural students
as they found that non-rural students
have major personality qualities of
e.g., Extraverts, intuitive, feelers and perceivers (ENFP) on other hand students of rural area scored
high on personality qualities e.g., Extraverts, sensing, feelers and perceivers
(ESFP).
Stephen
(2009) carried out a study to determine different personality types of fine-arts students. Result indicated that
there is a clear preference for Intuition. Fine arts student had major characteristics of intuition, feeling, and
perception on three of the
variables and tend to be score high on the extroversion. Borg and Stranahan
(2002) and Ziegert (2000) indicated that feeling students have a better overall presentation than
other types. Gullatt (2007) found theoretical implications of achievement of students of fine arts in their
academics.
Allida and
Vyhmeister (2004) found students
of fine arts were more extraverts, sensors, thinkers, and more judgers.
Studies have recognized strong relationship between extroversion and the outer
thinking style and they
found that university students of
fine arts were better in their adjustment in educational setting. Extroversion
also entails sociability and boldness. Extroversion was seen dominant in students of fine arts as compared
to students of mathematics,
and architecture (Borg & Stranahan, 2002). More specifically results
indicated that extrovert students
have better grades than introvert students
(Fitzpatric, 2001; Zhang, 2005).
In relation
to learning styles and
personality difference Vermetten, Lodewijks and Vermunt (2001) identified
significant relationship between consciousness and learning styles. Study by (Busato, Prins, Elshout
& Hamaker, 2000; Vermetten et al., 2001) hasyield familiar result they
found that there is significant relationship between consciousness and
agreeableness with learning styles
among students of fine arts
and architecture students.
Openness to experience is elementary to predict feeling of aesthetics and ideas in students of mathematics as
compared to architecture students
as they were more involve in other activities. Furnham, Premuzic and Batey
(2006) found that every student's
attitude toward their creativity is different from their creative character,
ability, and actions.
Youth
Engagement Services (YES) organization is majorly working on learning styles for their
approach to the education
setting in Pakistan. They found that students
have a chosen learning style
that considered playing an important role among students that in turn help them to be better
learners and excel in their fields. They found positive contribution of learning styles to enhance students' abilities but is
negative related with learning
styles and low achievement in students
(YES Network Pakistan, 2005).
If most
favorable learning is
dependent on learning styles
then knowing students learning
styles and how the personality character are linked to preference of students can identify their
particular potential in particular field in. The purpose of research was to measure the
personality traits and learning
styles among students of
fine arts, architecture and mathematics.
Studies by different researchers have been particularly involved in labeling of the main aspect of personality traits. Trait is
reasonably stable in nature to behave in certain way (Gray, 1999) where as
personality refers to the complete institute, of cognition, affect, and behavior that gives
direction, and pattern to individual life (Pervin & John, 1997).
Briggs and
Myers (1985) reported positive relationship between personality traits and
preferred learning. It has
been found that personality traits including e.g., neuroticism, extroversion,
openness, agreeableness and consciousness have relevance with chosen learning styles (Boylan, 2002;
Furnham, Premuzic, & Batey, 2009; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005). Several
researches have been carried out by different researchers on personality traits
and learning styles of fine
arts students (Berghoff,
Bixler-Borgmann & Parr, 2003; Gullatt, 2007; Jacobs, 2003; Kaufman &
Baer, 2004; Sousa, 2006). There has been increasingly research in the field of mathematics especially in area
of preference in learning method of student in relation to
achievement in mathematics student
(Cooper & Dunne, 2000; Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Frota, 2006; Tomlinson,
1999; Wetzel & Harmeyer, 2009).
In Pakistan
researches focused on measuring personality traits (e.g., Akhtar, 2003;
Chishti, 1997; Fatima, 2003; Naz, 2003; Safdar, 2002; Taj, 2004). Chaudhry
(2004) studied learning styles
in student and their
relation to student
achievement. The researches on learning
style have been of
significant importance in many western countries and a number of universities are now making it
an important part of their
work. This area of research
is almost neglected in Pakistan as the researcher could not find any research
evidence that investigated the learning
styles of adult Pakistani students.
The basic line of present
research is the identification of
the personality traits can lead to preferred learning and thinking styles among students as per the nature of their personality type.
Objectives
The aim of the research was to explore
how personality traits are related with learning styles among students
of Mathematics, Architecture, and Fine Arts. The study was carried out
to achieve the following objectives:
1. To study
different personality traits i.e., neuroticism, extroversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness among students of mathematics, Architecture, and fine
arts.
2. Study
different learning styles
i.e., mastery learners, interpersonal learners, understanding learners, and
self-expressive learners among students
of mathematics, architecture, and fine arts.
3. To study
how personality traits are related with learning styles among students
of mathematics, architecture, and fine arts.
4. To
explore gender differences with reference to personality traits and preferred learning styles among students of mathematics,
architecture, and fine arts.
Method
Sample
In the
present study purposive convenience sampling was employed. The sample consisted
of 135 students (68 girls and 67 boys).
The data was collected from COMSAT University Islamabad, Islamic University
Islamabad, Post Graduate College for Women six-road Rawalpindi, Quaid-i-Azam
University, Islamabad, Rawalpindi Art Council, and National College of Arts (NCA), Rawalpindi. The
age range was 18 to 25 years (M= 3.45, SD = 9.15).
Table 1
represents the distribution of
total sample on the basis of
their gender, and department and universities. Out of total sample 50% were girls and 50% were boy students. Similarly 48.1 percent of sample was from mathematics department, 22.2
percent sample was from architecture department, and 37.5 percent comprised
fine arts students.
Assessment
Measures
NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). The scale was originally developed by Costa
and McCrea (1985) to measures five dimensions of personality. These dimensions are e.g.,
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Five
subscales and 30 facets scale of
the instrument allow for a comprehensive assessment of adult personality. There are two versions of the NEO-PI-R, from S for Self
report and R from Observer rating. In present study form S for Self Report was
used. Scale consists of 240
items. It is 5-point rating scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree. Overall scale allows a comprehensive assessment of adult personality. Each subscale consists of 48 items. The alpha
reliability for each sub scales of
NEO-PI-R in this study were as follows i.e., neuroticism, extraversion,
openness, agreeableness and consciousness that is 0.51, 0.76, 0.74, 0.66, and
0.62.
Learning Preference Inventory (LPI). The second scale used is Learning Preference Inventory
(LPI). The scale was originally developed by Hanson and Silver in 1978 to
identify preferred learning styles.
Hanson and Silver (1978) have identified learning styles as two opposite yet interdependent sets of two functions and have dichotomous
options i.e., two function for Sensing and Intuition, two function for thinking
and feeling. The instrument identifies learning styles by having subject respond to checklist of activities that represent each
of styles. The instrument
contains 36 items. The inventory yield score on four quadrants, Mastery or
Sensor Thinker (ST), Interpersonal or Sensor Feeler (SF), Understanding or
Intuitive Thinker (NT), and Self expressive or Intuitive Learner (NF). All
learners have some sort of
four learning styles, but
most of learners
demonstrated high score range out of
these four learning styles.
The highest scoring learning style
in each participant is referred to as preferred learning style.
In the
scoring procedure the ranking assigned to each choice for level of preference i.e., 1, 2, 3, and
4 were converted into score. For the first ranking a score of 5, the second ranked choice is
assigned as 3, the third ranked choice is assigned a 1 and for the forth
ranking 0 score was assigned. These scores were then tabulated into four learning styles Mastery learners
or Sensing Thinker (ST), Interpersonal Learners or Sensing Feeler (SF),
Understating or Intuition Thinker (NT) and Selfexpressive or Intuition Feeler
(NF). The total score under each column represented the respondent learning style score and highest
score indicating the preferred learning
style. The sum up of
score under the four columns should give a grand total of 225. A total of other then 225 was an indication of error in ranking, and an opportunity to find and
correct the error. The test rest reliability of this study of mastery learners is .38, and for interpersonal learners it
is .89, for understanding learners it is .35, for the self-expressive learners
it is .47.
Procedure
Data was
collected from students of
fine arts, architecture, and mathematics
using NEO-PI-R by Costa and McCrea (1985) which is used to measure personality
traits of students. The students were approached
individually and their consent was taken for the participation in research. The
questionnaires were handed over to them and they were told about the objectives
of the research. The students were instructed about
the questionnaire procedure. After completion, the questionnaire was checked to
see that no item was left incomplete.
To measure
the learning styles of fine
arts, Architecture and Mathematics
study students Learning
Preference Inventory (Hanson & Silver, 1978) was used. After the completion
of NEO-PI-R the
questionnaire were collected back. The Learning Preference Inventory (LPI) was then handed over to the
students and they were
instructed about nature of
research and method to fill up the questionnaire. After the completion of the questionnaire the items
were checked for any missing and omission. Participants were thanked for their
time and cooperation.
Results
The data of the present study was analyzed
using Correlation, Alpha reliability, ANOVA, Independent sample ¿-test were
computed. The results of
the present investigation are as follows:
Result in
table 2 shows that the scale of
Extroversion is positively related with self-expressive learners. The subscale of openness to experience is
positively related with understanding learners. This high correlation shows
that understanding learner will be positively related with openness to
experience. The subscale of
agreeableness and consciousness is positively related with mastery learners.
Table 1 shows that there is a significant negative relationship between
neuroticism and mastery learners, inter-personal learners, understanding, and
selfexpressive learners ranging from.
The non
significant relation among the subscale of neuroticism and self-expressive learners did not hypothesize
the course of correlation.
There may be some cultural construct which were less understood by the students or the language for the
construct of neuroticism
and selfexpressive learners were not understand-able by the students. As the NEO-PI-R manual
(Costa & McCrae, 1985) states, neuroticism refers to general tendency to
practice negative effects neurotic individual are more likely to infer common
situations as frightening. This includes anxiety, angry hostility, depression,
self impulsiveness, consciousness, vulnerability (Costa & McCrae, 1985).
Where as according, to the Manual of
LPI (Hanson & Silver, 1978) students
of self-expressive learning
are those who dare to dream. They approach learning excited to discover ideas, create new solutions to
problems and discuss ethical dilemmas (Hanson & Silver, 1978). Similarly
the qualities of
selfexpressive learners' characters are in contrast to the domain of neuroticism which may have
attributed to non-significant relationship.
Table 3
indicates remarkable difference in mean scores of neuroticism among students of mathematics as compared to architecture students. The mean of score of fine arts on extroversion is higher as compared
with mean of architecture.
The mean score differences on openness of mathematics students is higher as compared to mean scores of architecture students. However no difference
was found in the mean scores of
agreeableness for students of
mathematics, architecture and fine-arts students. Mean scores of consciousness for mathematics students are higher as compared to mean
scores of students of architecture.
Table 3 indicates that there is difference of mean scores for mastery learners among students of mathematics as
compared to students of
fine arts. There is significant difference between the mean score for
interpersonal learners among students
of mathematics and architecture.
The mean
scores for understanding learners are higher among students of mathematics as compared to students of fine arts. Whereas,
mean score for students of
mathematics are comparatively higher than mean score of students of architecture.
Table 4
indicates that mean score of
girls were significantly higher than mean scores of boys on subscale of neuroticism. The mean score of boys was significantly higher
than mean score of girls on
Extroversion. Table 3 indicates that mean score of boys were significantly higher than girls score
on mastery learning. Boys
mean score were significantly higher on interpersonal learning as compared with girls. Mean scores of girls were high on
understanding style as
compared with boys. The result shows that girls scored high on self-expressive style as compared to boys. The
Cohen's value indicates the required sample size and size effect generally
means the degree to which the phenomenon is present in the population (Cohen,
1988). The Cohen value indicates that gender has minor effect on Cohen value of subscales of introversion, extroversion,
openness, agreeableness and consciousness. Further the Cohen's value indicate
that gender have minor effect on value of subscales of
mastery, understanding, self-expressive learners but gender has moderate effect
on subscales of
interpersonal learners.
Discussion
The present
research was aimed to study personality traits (neuroticism, extroversion,
openness, agreeableness, and consciousness) given by Costa and McCrea (1985)
and learning styles of
mastery learners, interpersonal learners, understanding learners and selfexpressive
learners by Hanson and Silver (1978) among students of mathematics, architecture and, fine arts.
There is a
positive relationship between mastery learners and consciousness where as
Furnham (1996) and other researchers have found similar significant positive
relationship between consciousness and mastery learners and these findings are
in accord with some of the
earlier researches by Busato et al. (2000) and another familiar study by
Vermetten et al. (2001). The effect of
agreeableness is constant with interpersonal learning style (Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin,
2008) and their is positive significant relationship between agreeableness and
interpersonal learner's (Table 3).
The results
indicate that the understanding learners are positively related with construct of openness to experiences among students of mathematics,
architecture and fine arts. Similarly, Zhang (2005) found openness is
positively related with the understanding and lawmaking thinking styles among students. Openness is characterized
by such attributes as active mind's eye with understating style these finding have already
been conformed by early researchers (Batey & Furnham, 2006; Bouchard,
Lussier, & Sabourin, 2008; Hanson & Silver, 1991; Silvia, Nusbuam,
Berg, Martin & Connor, 2009).
Extroversion
is general tendency to be assertive, active, warm, and talkative extraverts
enjoy being with people. The domain of
extroversion is positively related with self-expressive learners. Allida and
Vyhmeister, (2004) found that extrovert students have positive relationship between extroversion and
self-expressive learning.
The damaging
effects of neuroticism can
be understood through the work of
Zhang (2005) the result showed that a person with high score on neuroticism
likely to experience emotional unsteadiness, humiliation, and low self-esteem
researchers have found negative relationship between neuroticism and approach of learning styles (Bouchard,
Lussier, & Sabourin, 2008). Similarly, Demirbas and Demirkan (2003)
concluded students of mathematics
are hardly involved in tasks which required much more than practical ability
that improves the development of
neuroticism in mathematics
students as they are more frustrated as compared to architecture students (Table 3).
Differences
between boys and girls were in favors of
boys as they were stated to possess better study attitudes toward education than girls on domain of neuroticism (Isman &
Gundogan, 2006). Study indicated that majority of fine arts students were high on extroversion (Stephen, 2008) as compared
to architecture students.
In present researches it was found that boys are high on extroversion as
compared to girls (Table 4) these findings are in consistent with previous
researches (Chishti, 2002 Ansari, 2003; Akhtar, 2003; Friedel & Rudd,
2006).
Agreeableness
individuals are sympathetic and eager to help others students similarly mathematics are more competitive and want to meet
the need by competing other and now people are more sympathetic to others for
social approval students of
different domains (Chishti, 2002). Mathematics
students who score high on agreeableness to form better relation in
social curriculum. Same pattern was seen in domain of fine arts and architecture (Table 3). Most of students among mathematics, architecture and
fine arts have no significant difference on agreeableness that may determine
the social needs and competitive needs among students (Chishti, 2002).
Most of boys show inhibition in
sharing their intimate information (Ansari, 2003) as compared to girls (Table
4) in Pakistan boys are less open on scale of openness as compared to girls and these results are
inconsistent with some previous researches (Brew, 2002; Ansari, 2003; Severiens
& Dam, 2008).
High score of consciousness on students of fine arts facilitated
understanding, toleration, and even appreciation of one another and they were find to be more
competitive and achievement striving as compared to architecture students (Stephen, 2008). The
findings indicated that architecture students
were oriented toward proposes of
cognition and they were dominant in relating to thinking, feeling, perceiving
and behaving and scoring high on domain of consciousness as compared to students of fine arts (Table 3). These studies are
in accord with previous research by Demirbas and Demirkan (2003).
Limitation of the study was that the ample
was collected only from Rawalpindi and Islamabad cities and due to shortage of time more cities have not been
studied and variation in responses and personality characteristic cannot be
verified and preferences in accord of
surrounding and location cannot be identified which should have obtained if
data was collected from other cities. Although NEO-PI-R Urdu translated version
was available but English version of
measure have been used that could have been problematic for students with whom vocabulary of English could be weak they may
had problem understanding certain statements of the questionnaire. Both questionnaire were quite
lengthy which could enhance factor of
tiredness and could be an adding factor to lack of interest in the students toward questionnaire which increase the
probability that participants did not respond to questions honestly. Due to
current scenario the participants were selected from certain institute and due
to short time the certain intruding factors could not be ignored e.g., security
concerns.
Conclusion
The present
study investigated personality traits i.e. neuroticism, extroversion, openness,
agreeableness and consciousness and learning
styles i.e. mastery, interpersonal, understating and self-expressive
learner in mathematics,
architecture and fine arts students.
Result indicated that both measures were reliable. The result indicated that
the facets of extroversion,
agreeableness, consciousness and openness are positively related to learning styles e.g., mastery,
interpersonal, understating and self-expressive learners.
References
References
Aflonzo, Z.,
& Long, V. (2005). Graphing calculators and learning styles in rural and non-rural high schools.
Working Paper Series, 23, 637.
Akhtar, S.
(2004). Personality traits of
smokers and non-smokers (Unpublished M. Phil dissertation). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam
University, Islamabad.
Allida, E.
M., & Vyhmeister, C. N. (2004). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.
Ansari, K.
(2003). Personality traits as socio economical status as predictor of marital adjustment in working
women (Ph.D dissertation). Retrieved from http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/1270/l/
984.html
Arthur, N.
(2007). Styles of Learning
and Teaching. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons. "
Batey, M.,
& Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical
review of the scattered
literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355^129.
Berghoff,
B., Bixler-Borgmann, C, & Parr, C. (2003). Cycles of inquiry with the arts. Urbana, 17, 1-17.
Borg, M. O.,
& Stranahan, H. A. (2002). Personality type and student performance educational setting. Personality
Psychology, 55, 6395.
Bouchard,
G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (2008). Personality and class adjustment:
utility of the five-factor
model of personality.
Journal of Children and
Family, 61(3), 651-660.
Boylan, H.
R. (2002). What works: Research-based best practices in developmental education. Boone, NC: National
Centre for Developmental Education.
Brew, J.
(2002). Mathematics and
gender special issue. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(3), 88-96.
Busato, V.
V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual
ability, learning style,
personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 1057-1068.
Chaudry, I.
M. (2004). In Investigation of
Student Learning Styles (Unpublished M. phil dissertation). National
Institute of Psychology,
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Chishti, M.
A. (2002). Translation and adaptation of
revised NEOPersonality Inventory (Unpublished M.Phil dissertation). National
Institute of psychology,
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Cohen, J.
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher Retrieved from: http://downl
oadkemanx.blogspot.com/20 1 0/06/cohen-statistical-poweranalysis.html
Cooper, B.,
& Dunne, M. (2000). Assessing children's mathematical knowledge: Social
class, sex and problem solving. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Costa, P.,
& McCrae, R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, Florida:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Demirbas, O.
O., & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Department of Interior Architecture and
Environmental Design, 24(5), 437-456.
Felder, R.
M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Application, reliability and validity of the Index of learning styles. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.
Fitzpatrick,
N. Y. (2001). School satisfaction and personality. Graduate school of psychology: USA.
Friedel, R.
C, & Rudd, D. R. (2006). Creative thinking and learning styles in undergraduate agriculture students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47, 102-111.
Frota, M. C.
R. (2006). O pensar matemático no ensino superior: Concepçoes e estrategias de
aprendizagem dos alunos (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidade
Federal de Minas Gérais, Belo Horizonte. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q
Furnham, A.
(1996). The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the Myers
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Human Relation,
20(2), 303-307.
Furnham, A.,
Premuzic, T.C., & Batey, M. (2009). Intelligence and personality as
predictors of divergent
thinking: The role of
general, fluid and crystallized intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
4(2), 60-69.
Gray, J. A.
(1999). A critique of
Eysenck's theory of
personality (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer- Verlag.
Gullatt, D.
(2007). Research links the arts with student
academic gains. The Educational Forum, 7(3), 211 -22 1 .
Hanson, J.
R., & Silver, H. F. (1978). The Hanson-Silver learning preference inventory. Woodbridge, New
Jersey: The Thoughtful Education
Press.
Hanson, J.
R., & Silver, H. F. (1991). The Learning
styles and strategies. Princeton junction, New Jersey: The thoughtful Education Press.
Isman, K.,
& Gundogan, S. (2006). Epistemologies, conceptions of learning, and study practices in medicine and
psychology. Higher Education,
31(1), 5-24.
Jacobs, V.
(2003). Teaching Core
Curriculum and Psychological Content through the Arts and Education. Ontario, Canada. Boss
Inc.
Jones, C,
Reichard, C, & Mokhtari, K. (2003). Are students ad learning styles discipline specific. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27,
363-375.
Kaufman, J.
C, & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I'm creative but not in mathematics! Self reported creativity in
diverse domains. Empirical Studies of
the Arts, 22, 143-155.
King, L. A.,
Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor
model. Journal of Research
in Personality, 30, 189203.
Naz, R.
(2004). Personality characteristics and psychological stressors of a conversion patient.
Unpublished M. Phil Dissertation, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Pervin, L .
A., & John, O. P. (1997). Personality Theory (7th Ed.). New York: John
Willey & sons.
Safdar, N.
(2002). Relationship between adult attachment styles and big five personality factors (Unpublished
M. Phil dissertation). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Severiens,
S. E., & Dam, T. (2008). Gender and gender identity differences in learning styles. Educational
Psychology, 17, 79-93.
Silvia, J.
P., Nusbuam, C. E., Berg, C, Martin, C, & Connor, A. (2009). Openness to
experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and
interactive effects. Journal of
Research in Personality, 61(10), 1-4.
Sousa, D.
(2006). How the arts develop the young brain. The School Administrator, 63(1
1), 26-3 1 .
Stephen, B.
W. (2009). Relationship between selected personality characteristics of senior art students and their area of art study. Study in Art Education, 14(3), 54-67.
Sztajn, P.
(2003). Adapting reform ideas in different mathematics classrooms: beliefs beyond mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(1), 53-75.
Taj, A.
(2004). Personality traits of
working and non-working women (Unpublished M. Phil dissertation), National
Institute of Psychology,
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Tomlinson,
C. A. (1999). How to differentiate instruction
in mixedability classrooms. Alexandria , VA : ASCD
Vermetten,
Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). Consistency and
variability of learning
strategies in different university courses. Higher Education, 37, 1-21.
Watson, A.
(2001). Low attainers exhibiting higher-order mathematical thinking. Support for
Learning, 16(4), 179-183.
Wetzel, K.
C, & Harmeyer, K. (2009). Success in low-level and highlevel mathematics courses in
undergraduate engineering college as a correlate to individual learning style. Individual
differences, 52(5), 36-45.
YES Network
Pakistan. (2005). Health systems: Improving performance and learning styles in rural area.
Pakistan, World education
report.
Zhang, L.,
& Sternberg R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1-52.
Zhang, L. F.
(2005). Thinking styles and
the big five personality traits revisited. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40 (20), 11711187.
Zhang, L. F.
(2006). Measuring thinking styles
in addition to measuring personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences,
33, 445-458.
Ziegert, A.
L. (2000). The role of
personality temperament and student
learning in education.
Educational Journal, 56(5), 32-55.
Article
received: 28th June, 2010
Revised
submission received: 23rd April, 201 1
AuthorAffiliation
Rabia Zonash
and Irum Naqvi*
National
Institute of Psychology,
Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan
AuthorAffiliation
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ms. Irum Naqvi,
Lecturer, National Institute of
Psychology, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Email:
irumnaqvi2006@gmail.com
Copyright
AsiaNet Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. 2011
Word count: 4732
Copyright
Copyright
AsiaNet Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. 2011
Last updated
2011-07-26
Database
ProQuest
Research Library
