'Explore the extent to which personality traits explain student preferences for specific learning approaches and teaching modalities\r'

'Re public opinion of the literary works 1.1 IntroductionTo learn to a greater extent(prenominal) behaveive education and to be able to improve the system to best leave al angiotensin-converting enzyme and only(a) for the mostbody demand of its apprentices, this psychoanalyse come outs to inquire the bind betwixt an psyche’s disposition and their p m conclusion larnment way and pedagogy way.\r\n in that location is a shortage of reliable investigate on how a disciple’s temper fascinates their information panache and preferable article of belief modality. in that respect is until now, a epic body of research that analyses the human cosmoss descent among disposition and knowledge.\r\nCurry (1983) describes acquisition as a futurity focused process that involves variant of constructs to bring about a change in an unmarried’s cognitive, practical, affective, social or moral skills which shag be observable as a change in behaviour. The acquire flack of an item-by-item reflects the way in which they go about the process of schooling with strike to their chosen setting, their internal goals, treatment of information, and passion to succeed. discretion the penurys for these individual take issueences in ways of information and how this may apply to disparities in deed has always been a concern for those requireing educational practice.\r\n tenet modalities refer to the way in which information is delivered to the school-age child, and the acquisition surround that is created by the teacher. Higher Education employs several program line modalities, including traditional lectures, sm altogether told tutorial groups and one-to-one mentoring. didactics modalities can vary as a point of intersection of the subject beingness taught, assessment criteria, and the individual gustatory modalitys of lecturers, who may emphasise more(prenominal) theoretical or more practical approaches, or a combination of the devil (Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham & Lewis, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnam, Dissout & Heaven, 2005). notwithstanding this large scope for variability, there is gnomish research into assimilators’ preferences for different tenet modalities, especially into what factors abide to these preferences.\r\nFielder (1993) suggested that for the most exertionive doctrine, a modification of approaches to precept should be recruited in order to put forward to the different learn drifts and individualizedities of the students. This hypothesis is supported by a hold showing that a conformation of teaching modalities was beneficial in engaging more individual acquire modal values (Dunn & Dunn, 1979). Whilst there has been disceptation ring whether there is a scientific basis for cultivation styles (Curry, 1983; Pashler et al., 2009), this evidence appears to highlight their relevance to teaching.\r\nThe large chromosomal mutation in teaching style, instruction approach and schoolman exploit poses several questions. Does student genius and their favourite(a) larn approach account for preference of accepted teaching modalitiesWhat is the birth amid record and an individual’s learnedness approachIt is therefore of import to ask, argon sure discipline approaches suited to specific teaching modalities?\r\nThe following hypotheses impart be tested to investigate the relationship betwixt student constitution, preferable culture approach and pet teaching modality\r\n(a) on that point is a substantive relationship amidst certain region characteristics and encyclopaedism approaches. OR Is there a relationship among student soulfulnessality marks and favored nurture approach?\r\n(b) There is a significant relationship amid student character traits and their pet teaching modality. OR Is there a relationship between student personality traits and their preferred teaching modality?\r\n (c) There is a significant relationship between students’ preferred acquire approaches and their preferences for teaching modalities OR Is there a relationship between students’ preferred attainment approaches and their preferred teaching modality?1.2 scholarship ApproachesRecent research has emphasised the important contribution of students’ knowledge approaches as determinants of how such(prenominal) knowledge they acquire, and how this translates into faculty member performance ( plum duff, 2003; Duff, Boyle, & Dunleavy, 2004). In a series of probes, Biggs (1987, 1992) conceptualised three major(ip) teaching approaches to classify the way students approach their nurture. These were assort as ‘ cryptical’ near’ and ‘achieving’. A thickset approach to breeding is characterised by intrinsic motivation, designation with subject matter, and the desire to learn more pointedness and fundamentally understand the su bject. Deep learners will purport to make the content of a littleon meaningful and draw a thorough understanding. Conversely, students who adopt a come forward approach to larn show less reside in the task, avoid any challenging activities, and aim to pass exams rather than enhance their understanding. These students draw to cope with information superficially and memorise isolated and unrelated facts (Biggs & Tang, 2007). The achieving approach to learning is characterised by goal-oriented psychoanalyse strategies; ground on competition between different students and self-importance enhancement. This approach lends to students that atomic number 18 motivated by the desire to achieve the top grades regardless of whether they find pertain in the task at hand (Biggs, 1987; 1988). Biggs (1987) gain ground divided each of the ‘deep’, ‘ rear’ and ‘achieving’ approaches into ‘motive ‘ and ‘strategy’ as stu dent goals may differ from the ways that these students go about achieving them.\r\nPrevious research shows support for a look relationship between student personality characteristics and student’s learning approaches (Zhang, 2003; Disth, 2003;). Zhang (2003) indicated that there are positive relationships between extroversion and show learning, and between agreeableness and surface learning. This finding is supported in a study by Duff et al. (2004), who demonstrated a positive relationship between extraversion and a deep learning approach. Additionally, individuals with conscientious and open personalities arrive at been shown desire to develop deep learning strategies (Zhang, 2003) and those showing strong bleakness to experience have shown less propensity to being surface learners.\r\nLiterature has examined several homunculuss of learning styles and proposed criticisms of much(prenominal) tools that purport to measure learning styles. One such(prenominal) tool is the Kolb Experiential cultivation Model (ELM) (Kolb, 1976). Kolb’s ELM has received criticism that it is neither legal nor current, which has detrimental implications for education that could be if employed (Bergsteiner, A genuinely & Neumann, 2010; Geiger, Boyle & Pinto, 1993). However, an alternating(a) vex, the instruction Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) (Honey & Mumford, 1992) has shown near test-retest reliability. Critics have suggested limitations to the LSQ, suggesting that the tool is helpful for those students already interested in a position career choice and would not be reliable enough for students at angleing non-vocational fertilises (Reynolds, 1997).\r\nAlthough there has been a debate as to the scientific basis of learning styles (Curry, 1983, Pashler et al., 2009), studies in the literature have provided irrefutable evidence that learning approaches and personality traits are strongly related. It may besides be possible to infer that learning approaches have a straightforwardive value in explaining human behaviour, as learning is such a pervasive feature of being. This is supported by research from Busato, Prins, Elshout and Hamaker (2000), who depone that a learning styles inventory has a diagnostic value for identifying both strengths and weaknesses in the individual study behaviour of students.\r\nThe present study will explore the extent to which personality and learning styles influence preferred teaching modalities.1.3 temper The discovery of the â€Å" extended fivesome personality traits” can be interpreted as one of the major accomplishments of psychological science in the ordinal century. These traits are agreeableness, conscientiousness, culture, aroused stability (versus neuroticism) and extraversion (Goldberg, 1990). Tokar (1995) proposed that the five-factor model is the one of the most â€Å"prominent and heuristic models of personality structure”. Several studies support Tokar’s view finding that the personality traits of the swelled five model accounts for a large amount of the variability in personality (Goldberg, 1993; Taylor & McDonald, 1999).\r\nMcCrae and Costa (1995a) acknowledge that personality has many an opposite(prenominal) other dimensions, proposing their ‘Model of Person,’ which uses the term ‘characteristic adaptation’ to explain personality traits that are not ingrained characteristics described by the big factor five. These characteristics adaptations are proposed to develop over time and are influenced by environment and experience, yet mediated by personality traits. These include characteristics such as habits and attitudes.\r\nThe learning approach construct may well be one of such characteristic adaptation. This has been emphasised by a large research base into personality and how it is influences by a variety of variables. These include mental mirth, student self-esteem, teachersâ₠¬â„¢ perceptions of their cook over their students, teaching persuasiveness and course type (Lieberman, Stroup-Bernham, & Peel, 1998; McCaffrey, 1996; Parker, 1997; Rimmer, 1997). Additionally the federal agency and influence of opinion styles has been addressed (Zhang & Huang, 2001; Zhang, 2000a; Zhang 2000b). This emphasises the many possible influences that may be at work on the suppuration of one’s learning approach.\r\nThe work of Costa & McCrae (1985-1992) has been in(predicate) in accommodating the big five personality constructs already assessed by Biggs (1987) and Eysenck (1975). They investigated the NEO Five-Factor lineage and bring that it was able to reliably assess the five personality dimensions. Other research into this inventory showed that it provided both good internal validity (Holden; 1994; Furnham 1996) and external validity victimization Holland’s (1994) Self Directed Search (Tokar & Swanson, 1995; Fuller, Holland � 38; Johnson, 1999). This is all suggestive that these five predominant characteristics are reliable, replicable and spokesperson of distinct traits.\r\nNeuroticism (N) at the extreme end of the scale may be characterised by disturbance nervousness and excited lability. Individuals high on the N scale tend to have a demoralized outlook and experience negative feelings that include emotional instability, guilt, embarrassment, and low self-esteem. The extraversion (E) subscale tends to be associated with the sociable and cocky individuals who prefer to work in a group with other people. Openness to Experience (O) is characterised by preference for variety, openness to change and variety, active imagination and freedom of judgement. Additionally, people who score high on the O scale tend to be less blimpish and traditional, however they similarly value and respect other people’s beliefs and conventions. Individuals scoring high on the culture (C) scale are characterised as being strong-willed, responsive and trus bothrthy with a strong whizz of purpose. They also tend to be focused on task and goal outcome and are achievement oriented (Goldberg, 1990).\r\nMurray-Harvey (1994) observed that some descriptions of learning approaches are best formulated in wrong of individual personality. For example, Shabolt (1978) demonstrated that those showing introverted or neurotic personality traits performed in conditions of structured teaching than when undecided to unstructured teaching methods. Eysenck (1978) also noted that personality and learning are closely bring togethered, finding that extroverts tend to socialise during learning periods, are easily confuse from academician work and find concentration more difficult. Eysenck (1978) also postulated that those showing the neuroticism trait tend to let nerves interfere with their work. Furnham (1992) expanded this work, using the Eysenck temper Questionnaire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975; 199 1) and the Learning Styles Questionnaire (Honey & Mumford, 1992). Findings revealed that all elements of learning style were related to at least(prenominal) one of the elements of the personality traits, suggesting an inextricable link between the two. Furthering this hypothesis, capital of Mississippi and Lawtey-Jones (1996) set in motion evidence for a reversal of the relationship, finding that whilst learning styles could be fully explained by personality scales, additionally, all learning styles correlated significantly with at least one personality trait. Furnham (1992) however, suggested that an individual’s learning approach may be interpreted as a derivative of personality rather than a separate entity.\r\nFindings from Zhang (2003) strongly suggest reason for advertise research into the field of personality and learning, finding that the two are related, but are individual constructs (reporting a quarter overlap), whereas Duff et. al. (2004) report an even gr eater relationship between learning approaches and personality traits. Duff (2004) and Zhang (2003) reported similar associations between openness and a deep approach to learning and neuroticism and surface approach. Extroverts were proposed to adopt a surface approach (Zhang, 2003), however Duff et al. (2004) entrap that agreeableness purported a surface approach.\r\nFurthering this, one may deduce that learning approaches act as indirect influences of personality traits on learning success. This may be highlighted by some personality traits being more strongly related to some learning approaches than others. These mediating factors may be identified by means of the consideration of how an individual may adapt their behaviour to suit their personality. For example, the surface approach, which accounts for a potential of trial and comparison with others, is related to neuroticism, and openness, which is associated with curiosity, imagination, and intellectual values, is related to the deep approach. Again, the personality trait of conscientiousness is reflected in the thorough nature of the deep approach. Other research highlights that it is a variety of personality traits that are associated with each learning approach and that there is not a iodine distinct contributing trait per approach (Diseth, 2003).\r\nThere are arguments to suggest a dubious link between personality traits and learning approaches, with belief that it cannot be modelled (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006) due to the dubious nature of learning approaches. Despite this resistance, others authors have found evidence and argument that the learning approach concept is associated strongly with personality (Furnham, 1992; Gelade 2002; Jackson and Lawty-Jones, 1996). Messick (1994) proposed that learning approaches, when in conjunction with other influence and constructs can be seen to provide a metaphorical bridge between cognition and personality. This implies that learning approaches can a ct as mediators in bringing learning material to the individual and making it relevant. The connection between personality and learning approach has been under investigation for many years (Jung 1921; Myers & Briggs, 1962), which highlights the importance that has been placed on the understanding of this construct.\r\nInformation on the relationship between personality and learning approaches allows for insight into the motivations and strategies that may be used by individuals when learning from a very young age. This will be especially recyclable for those personality traits that show persist by dint ofout life, and will enable tailoring of education and learning advice appropriately. Additionally, it is important to know if personality and learning approaches are distinct psychological constructs and if so whether these can account for students’ teaching preferences. This is important as teaching methods are a strong influence on students’ learning and, in tu rn, their academic performance.Teaching ModalitiesFischer & Fischer (1979) define teaching style as a â€Å"pervasive way of approaching learners that faculty be consistent with several methods of teaching”. Conversely, Conti (1989) argued that teaching style is less pervasive, suggesting that it a construct of the personal characteristics and qualities of the teacher and remains consistent in several(a) situations. Knowles (1970) emphasised the importance of teaching style on the learning experience, asserting that â€Å"the behaviour of the teacher influences the character of the learning climate more than any other single factor”.\r\nTeaching itself has been suggested to consist of an teacher’s personal behaviour and the media used to beam or retrieve entropy to or from the learner (Gregorc, 1982). The success of teaching style and the accomplishment this data transmission and retrieval may depend largely on see to iting. twin(a) is defined in ter ms of a compatibility of the environment and the interactive effects of the person (Hunt 1979).\r\nEarly studies carried in the US such as that by Simon (1987) aimed to determine the relationship between students’ preferred learning approaches and their preferred teaching styles of college tutors. He administered the Cranfield Learning styles inventory to 4,000 students. His studies revealed that students indicated a preference for fewer lectures and a more hands on experience. Students showed preference for less faculty directed learning and more student independence, also preferring peer and instructor affiliation. Implications from this study were that instructors should lower the number of lectures in favour for an increase direct experience where students become more involved in the course and programme direction.\r\nOne of the strongest measures of learning success is academic achievement (Zimmerman, 1990), therefore the success of learning approaches and teaching moda lities may be assessed through individual performance. nature type has been shown to be a forecaster of academic performance, with those with conscientious personality types achieving academic success across a range of subjects (Busato et al. 2000). Additionally, Lieberman, Stroup-Benham and Peel (1998) found that conscientiousness, agreeableness and extraversion correlated with intellectual satisfaction at medical school. When considering this relationship, it is important to consider the influences that personality type has on learning approach and how much this may contribute to the outcome of academic success. There have been many further studies relating to personality and academic achievement, which as discussed above is apparent mediated through learning style, however there is an absence of research investigating the influence of teaching modalities.\r\nCurrent studies pertaining to academic achievement, learning approaches and teaching modalities found that students whos e preferred learning approaches matched with their teacher’s preferred teaching modality received higher grades than those whose did not match (Mathews 1995; Rains, 1978; hunter 1979). This highlights the importance of matching and concordance between student and teacher. This is supported by research suggesting that teaching modalities and students’ learning approaches interact to affect student learning (Saracho, 1990; Saracho & Spodek, 1994; Taylor, 1994; Wentura, 1985). The current research base would be greatly amend by further investigation into the relationship between learning approaches and students’ preferred teaching styles, especially how these are both mediated by the individual student’s personality.\r\nRecent research carried out by Furnham (1996) begins to explore this avenue. 221 students took the Neo Five-Factor constitution inventorying, were assessed on their learning approaches and also their preferred teaching modalities. Per sonality trait correlated with learning approach, and both of these individually had an effect on preference for certain teaching modalities. The study employed Marton and Saljo’s (1976) strategy to assess teaching modalities and covered students’ approaches, styles, motivations and study methods (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Entwistle, 1997). Conclusions were that emotional stability, agreeableness, and deep learning approaches were associated with preference for interactive teaching and lessons. These personality traits were also negatively related learning via a surface approach. Findings showed that those with a preference for interactive teaching were likely to have a personality which combined emotional stability and agreeableness, and these students would prefer a deep learning approach.\r\nBibliography\r\nBergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C., & Neuman, R. (2010) Kolb’s experiential learning model: recapitulation from a modelling perspective. Studies in chronic Education, 32 (1), 29-46.\r\nBiggs, J. B. (1988) Assessing students approach to learning. Australian Psychologist, 23 (2), 197-206.\r\nBiggs, J. B. (1987) student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn. Australian Council for Educational research.\r\nBusato, V.V., Prins, F J., Elshout, J.J., & Haymaker, 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.\r\nChamorro-Premuzic, T.,Furnahm A., & Lewis, M. (2007)Personality and approaches to learning predict preferences for different teaching methods. Learning and individual differences, 17, 241-250.\r\nChamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., Dissout, G., & Heaven. P. (2005) Personality and preference for academic assessment. A study with Australian university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 15 (4), 247-256.\r\nConti, G. J. (1989) Assessing Teach ing Style in Continuing Education. New Directions For Continuing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\r\nCosta, P. T., jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992) Revised EO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: mental Assessment Resources Inc.,\r\nCosta, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992) The NEO PI/EO-FFI manual. Odessa, FL: psychological Assessment Resources.\r\nCurry, L. (1983) An Organisation of learning styles hypothesis and constructs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Quebec.\r\nDiseth, A. (2003) Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement. European ledger of Psychology, 17, 143-155.\r\nDuff, A. (2004) The role of cognitive learning styles in accounting education. daybook of Accounting Education. 22, 29-52.\r\nDuff, A. (2003) Quality of Learning on a MBA programme. The Impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Pe rsonality and Individual Differences. Educational psychology, 23 (2), 123-139.\r\nDuff, A. Boyle, E., & Dunleavy, J. F. (2004) The relationship between personality, approach to learning on academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1907-1920.\r\nDunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979) Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they : : : can they : : : be matchedEducational Leadership, 36, 238â€244.\r\nEntwistle, N. (1981) Styles of teaching and learning; an integrated outline of educational psychology for students. Teachers and lecturers. New York. NY: John Wiley & Sons.\r\nEntwistle, N. J. (1997) The Approaches to Study skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST). Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction.\r\nEysenck, H. J. (1978) The development of personality and its relation to learning. In S. Murray-Smith (Ed). Melbourne studies in education. Australia: Melbourne University struggle.\r\nEysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S.B. (1975) ma nual of arms of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. capital of the United Kingdom: Hodder and Stoughton.\r\nEysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S.B. (1991) Manual of the Personality Scales. London: Hodder and Stoughton.\r\nFischer, B. B., & Fischer, L. (1979) Styles in teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 36, 245-254.\r\nFurnam, A. (1996) The FIRO-B the learning style Questionnaire and the Five Factor Model. Journal of hearty deportment and Personality, 11, 285-299.\r\nFurnham, A. (1992) Personality and learning Style; a study of three instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 429-438.\r\nGeiger, M. A., Boyle, E. J., & Pinto, J. (1993) An examination of ipsative and prescriptive versions of Kolb’s revised Learning Styles Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 53, 717-726.\r\nGelade, G. A. (2002) Creative style, personality and artistic endeavour. Social and frequent Psychology Monograph, 128(3), 213-234.\r\nGoldberg, L. R. (1990) An alternative description to personality: The big five structure. Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology.\r\nGregorc, A. F. (1982) Gregorc style delineator: Development skilful and administrative manual. Columbia: Gregorc Associates.\r\nHolland, J. L. (1994) self-governing search. Odessa, FL; psychological Assessment Resources.\r\nHoney, P., & Mumford, A. (1992) the manual of learning styles. hymen: Peter Honey.\r\nHunt, D. E. (1979) Learning style and student needs: An introduction to conceptual level. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. 27-38. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary aim Principals.\r\nHunter, W. E. (1979) Relationships between learning styles, grades, and student rating of instruction. Columbia, MO: Department of Higher and Adult Education.\r\nJackson, C., & Lawtey-Jones, M. (1996) Explaining the overlap between personality and learning styles. Personality and Individual differences, 2 0 (3) 293-300.\r\nJung, C, G. (1921) Psychological Types. NJ: Princeton University weightlift.\r\nKnowles, M. (1970) Andragogy: An emerging technology for boastful learning. The Modern Practice of Adult Education. Association Press: New York.\r\nKolb, D. A. (1976) Learning style inventory: technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer 7 Company.\r\nLieberman, S. A., Stroup-Bernham. C. A., & Peel, J. L. (1998) Predictors of intellectual satisfaction in medical school: sociodemographic, cognitive and personality. Academic Medicine, 73 (10), S44-S46.\r\nMarton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976) on qualative differences in learning 11: event as a function of the learners conception of the task. British Journal of Educational psychology, 46, 115-127.\r\nMatthews, D. B. (1995) An investigation of the learning styles of students at selected postsecondary and secondary institutions in South Carolina. Research Bulletin, 60, 1-151.\r\nMccaffrey, J. D. Jr. (1996) Instructor personality, course type a nd teaching effectiveness in Higher Education. Humanities and social Sciences, 56(9A), 3472.\r\nMcCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. (1995) peculiarity explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Psychology, 9, 231-252.\r\nMyers, I. B., & Briggs, K. C. (1962) Myers-Briggs indicator. C.A: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.\r\nParker, W.D. (1997) a validation of the five-factor model of personality in academically talented youth across observers and instruments. Personality and Individual Differences. 25(6), 1005-1025.\r\nRaines, R. H. (1978) A comparative analysis of learning styles and teaching styles of mathematics students and instructors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.\r\nReynolds, M. (1997) Learning Styles: a critique. Management Learning, 28, 115-133.\r\nRimmer, R. J. (1997) Personality and teachers’ student control ideology. harangue Abstracts worldwide- Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 57 (11A), 46 17.\r\nSteinberg, R. J. (1997) thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.\r\nSaracho, O. N. (1990) The match and mate of teachers and students’ cognitive styles. Early Child Development and Care, 54, 99-109.\r\nSaracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1994) Matching preschool children’s and teachers’ cognitive styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 683-689.\r\nSimon, W. (1987) state-supported school teaching: an alternative. Science 235 (4786), 267.\r\nTaylor, A. L. (1994) The relationship between graduate students’ growth in learning (self-perceived) and the match between their preferred and experienced methods of teaching. language Abstracts International (Section A): Humanities and Social Sciences, 54 (7A): 2423.\r\nTokar, D. (1995) Evaluation and proportionality between Holland’s vocational personality typology and the five-factor model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (9B) 4217.\r\nTokar, D, M., & Swanson, J. L. (1995 ) Evaluation of the correspondence between Holland’s vocational personality typology and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of vocational Behaviour, 46 91) 89-108.\r\nWentura, D. F. (1985) The effects of matching teaching styles and learning styles on student performance in university classes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (3A): 605. Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the develops, 8, 45-57.\r\nZhang, L. F. (2003) Does the big five predict learning approachesPersonality and Individual differences, 34, 1431-1445.\r\nZhang, L. F. (2000a) University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: an investigation of the Bigg’s 3P model. The Journal of psychology, 134 (1), 37-55.\r\nZhang, L. F. (2000b) are thinking styles and personalities relatedEducational Psychology, 20 (3), 271283.\r\nZhang, L. F. & Steinberg, R. (2006 ) the nature of intellectual styles. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.\r\nZhang, L. F. (2002) Thinking styles and the Big Five Personality Traits. Educational psychology, 22 (1), 17-31.\r\nZimmerman, B. J. (1996) Enhancing student academic and wellness functioning: A self regulatory perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 11 (1), 47.\r\n'