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
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)
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)
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.
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.