You are on page 1of 18

Journal of Behavioural Sciences, Vol.

21, Number 1, 2011


Personality Traits and Learning Styles among Students of
Mathematics, Architecture, and Fine Arts

Rabia Zonash and Irum Naqvi*
National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad,
Pakistan

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
persons life (Pervin & J ohn, 1997).







* 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
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND LEARNING STYLES 93
Understanding learning styles and personality preferences can assist
student to succeed academically (J ones, 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 NEO-
PI-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 J ungs personality
theory and portrayal to identify learning dimensions Hanson and Silver
(1991) analyzed four learning styles: Sensing-Feeling (SF), Sensing-
Thinking (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
94 ZONASH AND IRUM
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
students 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 &
J ohn, 1997).
Briggs and Myers (1985) reported positive relationship between
personality traits and preferred learning. It has been found that
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND LEARNING STYLES 95
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; J acobs, 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.

96 ZONASH AND IRUM
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
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N =135)

Demographic Variables f %
Gender
Boys 67 49.6
Girls 68 50.4
Department
Mathematics (Total) 65 48.1
Boys(Islamic University) 35 54.0
Girls (Quaid-e-Azam University) 30 46.0
Architecture (Total) 30 22.2
Boys(COMSAT University) 17 57.0
Girls (National College of Arts) 14 47.0
Fine Arts (Total) 40 30.0
Boys (National College of Arts) 15 37.5
Girls (Post Graduate College for Women) 25 83.3

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 TRAITS AND LEARNING STYLES 97
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 Self-
expressive 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
98 ZONASH AND IRUM
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 t-test were computed. The
results of the present investigation are as follows:

Table 2
Correlation between the Subscales of Extraversion, Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness and Learning Styles

Scales Mastery Interpersonal Understanding Self-expressive
Neuroticism - .15** -3.2** -.16* -.09
Extroversion .73**
Openness .84***
Agreeableness .67**
Conscientiou-sness .74**

**p <.01, ***p <.001

PERSONALITY TRAITS AND LEARNING STYLES 99
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 self-
expressive 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 self-
expressive learners were not understand-able by the students. As the
NE0-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 self-
expressive 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.


100 ZONASH AND IRUM
Table 3
ANOVA showing Means, Standard Deviations, and Differences of
Personality Traits among Students of Mathematics, Architecture and
Fine arts on Subscale of NEO-PI-R and LPI

Mathematic
(n =65)
Architecture
(n =30)
Fine arts
(n =40)

Scales M SD M SD M SD F p
Neuo 146.06 9.11 139.86 10.95 142.40 8.90 4.82 .00
Extr 158.12 8.41 156.63 12.51 161.05 8.40 2.11 .03
Opnes 163.56 9.56 160.83 11.59 162.85 10.85 3.23 .02
Agree 158.75 10.23 158.40 8.85 158.70 9.86 2.13 .04
Consc 162.75 10.02 159.20 10.00 162.07 11.16 2.78 .01
Maste 37.83 11.86 46.06 17.80 45.80 22.23 3.88 .02
Inter 38.84 10.01 35.36 5.56 36.48 7.62 1.95 .03
Under 35.58 3.62 32.63 10.52 32.91 12.55 1.98 .01
self 31.72 8.66 29.93 10.61 29.12 14.01 1.76 .04

Between groups df =2; within group df =133; group total df =135
Note: neuo = neuroticism; Extr = Extroversion; opnes = openness; agree=
agreeableness; consc =consciousness; maste =mastery learners; inter =interpersonal
learners; under; understanding learners; self =self- expressive learners

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 Cohens 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,



PERSONALITY TRAITS AND LEARNING STYLES 101
Table 4
Gender Differences on Subscale of NEO-PI-R and LPI among Students of
Mathematics, Architecture, and Fine arts (N =135)



Boys
(n =67)
Girls
(n =68)




95%CI
Cohens
d
Variables M SD M SD t p LL UL
Neuro 153.58 9.53 163.67 10.05 1.75 .05 3.37 3.49 1.04
Extr 161.05 8.04 156.63 12.15 1.79 .01 1.16 5.24 0.43
Opnes 157.64 9.78 159.68 9.04 1.25
.09 4.47 5.43 0.22
Agree 163.56 9.56 160.83 11.59 1.21 .08 2.90 3.83 0.26
Consc 161.25 11.04 164.02 9.53 1.67 .01 2.89 4.20 0.27
Maste 43.58 19.30 38.51 14.41 2.42 .00 1.31 12.8 0.31
Inter 37.58 9.28 36.39 7.88 2.12 .01 2.74 3.11 0.41
Under 32.04 16.26 35.76 7.40 2.2 7
.02 6.96 7.74 0.30
Self 28.77 12.24 32.30 9.14 1.90 .05 5.20 6.14 0.34

Note: Cl = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Limit; UL = Upper Limit; neuo = neuroticism; Extr =
Extroversion; opnes =openness; agree=agreeableness; consc =consciousness; maste =mastery learners; inter
=interpersonal learners; under; understanding learners; self =self- expressive learners

openness, agreeableness and consciousness. Further the Cohens 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 self-
expressive 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
102 ZONASH AND IRUM
their is positive significant relationship between agreeableness and
interpersonal learners (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
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND LEARNING STYLES 103
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.






104 ZONASH AND IRUM
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
Aflonzo, Z., & Long, V. (2005). Graphing calculators and learning styles
in rural and non-rural high schools. Working Paper Series, 23, 6-
37.
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/1270/1/
984.html
Arthur, N. (2007). Styles of Learning and Teaching. Chichester: J ohn
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, 355429.
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, 63-
95.
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.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND LEARNING STYLES 105
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 NEO-
Personality Inventory (Unpublished M.Phil dissertation). National
Institute of psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Cohen, J . (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2
nd
Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher
Retrieved from: http://downl
oadkemanx.blogspot.com/2010/06/cohen-statistical-power-
analysis.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), 437456.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J . (2005). Application, reliability and validity
of the Index of learning styles. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 21(1), 103112.
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 matemtico no ensino superior:
Concepes e estratgias de aprendizagem dos alunos
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte. Retrieved from:
http://www.google.com.pk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q
106 ZONASH AND IRUM
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), 6069.
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), 211-221.
Hanson, J . R., & Silver, H. F. (1978). The Hanson-Silver learning
preference inventory. Woodbridge, New J ersey: The Thoughtful
Education Press.
Hanson, J . R., & Silver, H. F. (1991). The Learning styles and strategies.
Princeton junction, New J ersey: 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.
J acobs, V. (2003). Teaching Core Curriculum and Psychological Content
through the Arts and Education. Ontario, Canada. Boss Inc.
J ones, 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, Im creative but not in
mathematics! Self reported creativity in diverse domains.
Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22, 143155.
King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J . (1996). Creativity and the
five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189
203.
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., & J ohn, O. P. (1997). Personality Theory (7
th
Ed.). New
York: J ohn 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.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND LEARNING STYLES 107
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(70), 1-4.
Sousa, D. (2006). How the arts develop the young brain. The School
Administrator, 63(11), 26-31.
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 mixed-
ability 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 high-
level 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), 1171-
1187.
Zhang, L. F. (2006). Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring
personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 33,
445458.
108 ZONASH AND IRUM
Ziegert, A. L. (2000). The role of personality temperament and student
learning in education. Educational Journal, 56(5), 32-55.


Article received: 28
th
J une, 2010
Revised submission received: 23
rd
April, 2011

Copyright of Journal of Behavioural Sciences is the property of University of the Punjab, Department of
Applied Psychology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

You might also like