The relation between learning styles, the Big Five

personality traits and achievement motivation in higher

education

Vittorio V. Busato

a,

*, Frans J. Prins

b

, Jan J. Elshout

a

, Christiaan Hamaker

a

a

University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Psychonomics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

b

University of Leiden, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Leiden, The Netherlands

Received 22 January 1998

Abstract

In his dissertation, Vermunt [Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in

het hoger onderwijs. (Learning styles and guidance of learning processes in higher education). Amsterdam/

Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger] postulated four di€erent learning styles: a meaning directed, a reproduction

directed, an application directed and an undirected style. Aim of this project is to investigate the relation

between these learning styles, the big ®ve personality traits and achievement motivation. Subjects were

about 900 university students. Extraversion correlated positively with the meaning directed, reproduction

directed and application directed learning style. Conscientiousness was associated positively with the

meaning, reproduction and application directed learning style, and negatively with the undirected

learning style. Openness to experience correlated positively with the meaning and application directed

learning style, and negatively with the undirected learning style. Besides, it was found that neuroticism

correlated positively with the undirected learning style and negatively with the meaning and

reproduction directed learning style. Agreeableness was associated positively with the reproduction and

application directed learning style. Positive correlations were found for achievement motivation with the

meaning, reproduction and the application directed learning style, and a negative one with the

undirected learning style. Regression analyses con®rmed these patterns. Although there was some

systematic overlap for the four learning styles with personality variables and achievement motivation,

the conclusion is that it certainly makes sense to measure these three groups of variables separately in

educational settings. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning style; Learning strategies; Personality; The Big Five personality traits; Achievement motivation;

Higher education

Personality and Individual Differences 26 (1999) 129±140

S0191-8869/98/$19.00 # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0191-8869(98)00112-3

PERGAMON

* Corresponding author. Tel.: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; e-mail: [e-mail]

1. Introduction

In 1992 the Dutch psychologist Jan Vermunt published a dissertation study about the ways

university students learn, that received a lot of attention in the Dutch educational community

(e.g. Schouwenburg and Groenewoud, 1995; Kaldeway et al., 1996; Prins et al., 1996, 1998;

Kallenberg and van den Brink, 1997; Busato et al., 1998).

Vermunt considers the way a student learns as a learning style. In literature, learning styles

are very often considered as a kind of general strategy, for example characterized as surface-

level or deep-level processing (Marton and SaljoÈ, 1976), a holistic vs a serialistic style (Pask,

1976), deep processing, elaborative processing, fact retention and methodical study (Schmeck,

1983). But learning styles are also described as types of learning like, for example, concrete

experience, re¯ective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation,

resulting in four learning styles: divergers, accommodators, convergers and assimilators (Kolb,

1984), as orientations like achieving, meaning, reproducing and nonacademic (Entwistle, 1988),

or as approaches to learning like surface, deep and achieving (Biggs, 1993). (See Riding and

Cheema (1991), Rayner and Riding (1997) and Sadler-Smith (1997) for more thorough

reviews.)

Elaborating on these theories, Vermunt (1992, 1996, 1998) describes the concept of a

learning style as consisting of four aspects: processing strategies, regulation strategies, mental

models of learning and learning orientations. Processing strategies are thinking activities

students use to process information in order to obtain certain learning results like, for example,

knowing the most important points in the study material. (Metacognitive) regulation strategies

are activities students use to monitor, to plan and to control the processing strategies and their

own learning processes. Mental models of learning are conceptions and misconceptions students

have about learning processes. Learning orientations are personal aims, intentions, expectations,

doubts, etcetera, students may experience during their educational career.

Vermunt (1992) distinguishes four di€erent learning styles: an undirected, a reproduction

directed, an application directed and a meaning directed learning style. Students characterized

by an undirected learning style have, for example, problems to process the material for study,

experience diculties with the amount of study material and with discriminating what is

important and what is not. Students with a reproduction directed learning style are

characterized by study behaviour directed mainly at reproducing what is learnt at

examinations, in order to pass these successfully. Students with an application directed learning

style try to employ what they learn to actual, real-world settings. Finally, students with a

meaning directed learning style wish to ®nd out what is meant exactly in their study material,

interrelate what they have learned and try in a critical sense to develop their own view.

To measure these learning styles, Vermunt (1992) developed the inventory of learning styles

(ILS), a diagnostic instrument intended to measure aspects of study method, study motives and

mental models about studying in higher education (see for the English version Vermunt

(1994)). With this questionnaire, it is possible to express each of the four styles in a single

score. Students, therefore, show characteristics of each style but, as Vermunt assumes, one style

dominates. With a di€erent sample of university students, Busato et al. (1995) and

Schouwenburg (1996) replicated the ®ndings of Vermunt (1992) with remarkable exactness.

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

130

Not very much is known yet about the relation between learning styles, personality and

achievement motivation (Miller, 1991; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996; Ackerman and

Heggestad, 1997). For the ILS, no published studies exist which deal explicitly with the relation

between learning style and personality, or with the relation between learning style and

achievement motivation. In this study we investigate the relations of the four learning styles, as

measured by the ILS, with the big ®ve personality traits and achievement motivation.

For a relatively young science like psychology, there is nowadays a more or less unique

consensus about the description of personality based on ®ve universal traits (e.g. Elshout and

Akkerman, 1973, 1975; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; Hofstee and de Raad, 1991; Costa and

McCrae, 1992, 1995; Furnham, 1996a; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996), although there are,

of course, also theorists who have doubts on the validity of this so called ®ve factor approach

(e.g. Eysenck, 1991, 1992; Zuckerman, 1992; Block, 1995). These ®ve personality factors are

usually named extraversion, agreeableness (also referred to as sociability), conscientiousness,

neuroticism and openness to Experience (also referred to as intellect or culture).

A few studies exist which deal explicitly with the relation between learning style and

personality. Furnham (1992), for example, investigated the relation between three learning style

instruments, the Honey and Mumford learning style questionnaire (LSQ), the Whetten and

Cameron cognitive style instrument (CST), the Kolb learning style inventory (LSI) and the

personality traits extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and lie (dissimulation), measured by

the Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ). For the LSQ, Furnham found positive

correlations between extraversion and the learning styles ``activist'' and ``pragmatist''.

Extraversion correlated negatively with the learning style ``re¯ector''. For the CST, Furnham

reported that the more active cognitive style correlated positively with extraversion, while

extraversion correlated negatively with the more re¯ective cognitive style. For the LSI,

Furnham found a positive correlation between extraversion and the learning styles ``converger''

and ``accomodator''. Neuroticism correlated negatively with the learning styles ``assimilator''

and ``accomodator''. Psychoticism correlated positively with the learning style ``diverger''. (For

a description of the above terms, we refer to Furnham (1992).) Jackson and Lawty-Jones

(1996) replicated the correlations reported by Furnham (1992), suggesting the same substantial

overlap between personality and learning style. Jackson and Lawty-Jones agree with Furnham

there is no need to measure both personality and learning style. In another investigation,

Furnham (1996b) studied the relation between the big ®ve inventory NEO-PI, developed by

Costa and McCrae, and the learning style questionnaire. He reported modest correlations

between these instruments, similar though overall lower than the correlations between the

Eysenck personality questionnaire and the LSQ (Furnham, 1992), suggesting less overlap

between these two measures. The activist learning style correlated with agreeableness,

conscientiousness and extraversion. Neuroticism did not correlate systematically with any of

the learning styles. So, considering these publications, some overlap might also be expected for

the ILS and the big ®ve personality factors.

It is well known that achievement motivation and the related concepts positive or negative

fear of failure are important variables in learning and education (e.g. Atkinson and Feather,

1964; Dweck, 1984; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996). As far as

we are aware, though, no studies are published to date which systematically examine the

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

131

relation between learning style, achievement motivation and fear of failure. So, as a ®rst

attempt and for explorative purposes, we will study this relation for the ILS.

The aim of this project is as follows. In a correlational design we want to investigate the

relation between learning style, personality and achievement motivation. Considering the

similarities in description between the meaning-directed learning style and the re¯ector (LSQ)

and the more re¯ective cognitive style (CST), one might expect this learning style to correlate

negatively with extraversion. For the application-directed learning style, considering the

similarities with the pragmatist (LSQ), the more active cognitive style (CST) and the converger

and assimilator (both LSI), one might expect a positive relation with extraversion (see again

Furnham, 1992). According to de Raad and Schouwenburg (1996), the big ®ve factors

extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience are educationally relevant. So, we

will analyse how these factors relate to the four learning styles as proposed by Vermunt (1992).

Exploratively, we expect a negative relation between the undirected learning style and

conscientiousness and a positive one with neuroticism. Also exploratively, we expect fear of

failure negative to correlate positively with the undirected learning style and fear of failure

positive to correlate negatively with this learning style. We expect achievement motivation and

fear of failure positive to correlate with the meaning directed learning style.

2. Method

2.1. Sample

Participants were ®rst-year psychology students at the University of Amsterdam. These

students participated obligatorily in the so-called ``test-week'', which is held every year for

freshmen psychology students at this university. During this ``test-week'', a great variety of

psychological tests are administered, including the tests measuring the variables under

consideration. For this research project, data on learning styles were available from psychology

students who started their study in 1993, in 1994 and in 1995. The data of 1994 and 1995 were

gathered in the respective ``test-week'', the data of 1993 were gathered in the Busato et al.

(1995) study. Altogether, from 1072 students' data on learning styles were known. Data on the

big ®ve personality factors and achievement motivation were available from psychology

students who started their study in 1992, 1993, 1994 and in 1995, all gathered in the respective

``test-weeks''. Altogether, data on personality and achievement motivation of 1701 students

were known.

2.2. Learning style

The learning styles were measured by the ILS (Vermunt, 1994). This questionnaire consists

of 20 subscales, containing 120 statements, measuring di€erent aspects of processing strategies,

regulation strategies, mental models of learning and learning orientations. Of each statement, a

student has to indicate on a ®ve point scale to what extent the statement is descriptive of his or

her study behaviour. Depending on the formulation of the item, answers can range from 1 ``I

do this seldom or never'' to 5 ``I do this almost always'', or from 1 ``disagree entirely'' to 5

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

132

``agree entirely''. An example of a processing strategy statement, belonging to the subscale

``relating and structuring'' is: ``I try to combine the subjects that are dealt with separately in a

course into one whole''. An example of a regulation strategy statement, belonging to the

subscale ``self-regulation of learning processes and results'' is: ``to test my learning progress, I

try to answer questions about the subject matter which I make up myself''. An example of a

learning orientations statement, belonging to the scale ``certi®cate directed'' is: ``the main goal I

pursue in my studies is to pass exams''. An example of a mental models of learning statement,

belonging to the scale ``stimulating education'' is: ``the teacher should motivate and encourage

me''. Vermunt (1992) reported good internal consistencies for the di€erent scales of the ILS,

with alpha coecients varying in between 0.68 and 0.93.

Principal components analyses of the twenty subscales of the ILS by Vermunt (1992) and by

Busato et al. (1995) resulted in identical factor structures, with four factors. These factors

correspond to Vermunt's four learning styles. Fig. 1 lists the ILS-subscales loading on each of

the four learning style factors, as well as the subscales which are not speci®c for one learning

style.

2.3. Personality

The ``vijf persoonlijkheids-factoren test, 5PFT'', developed by Elshout and Akkerman (1975),

is the ®rst published personality questionnaire ever, speci®cally designed to measure the

personality factors now known as the big ®ve, that were ®rst discovered by Tupes and Christal

(1992). Within the Dutch psychological community, it has been in successful use ever since (see

for example Evers et al., 1992). The 5PFT consists of 70 items, 14 for each of the factors

extraversion, sociability (or agreeableness), conscientiousness, neuroticism and culture (or

openness to experience). Each item consists of a short description, e.g. ``cultured, reads a lot

and has widely reaching intellectual interests''. The subject has to indicate on a seven-point

scale how well this description ®ts him or her. It's a reliable instrument, with alpha coecients

found in the ``test-week'' usually above 0.80.

2.4. Achievement motivation

The ``prestatie±motivatie±test, PMT'', developed by Hermans (1976), measures achievement

motivation, fear of failure positive and fear of failure negative. The items contributing to the

positive score refer to feelings of thrill when challenged, while the items referring to the

negative score deal with habitual feelings of worry, unpleasant tension and lack of con®dence

about future performance. These two scores correlate negatively, so they can be regarded as

di€erent measures for the same construct. The PMT is just like the 5PFT (Elshout and

Akkerman, 1975) one of the standard and most often used psychological tests in the

Netherlands (see again Evers et al., 1992). The PMT consists of 89 items, 47 for achievement

motivation, 26 for fear of failure negative and 16 for fear of failure positive. On a dichotomous

scale, the subject has to indicate how well the description ®ts him or her (e.g. ``most people feel

tension when taking an intelligence-test. I think this tension will rather improve/worsen my

performance on such a test''). It's a reliable instrument, with alpha coecients found in the

``test-week'' usually above 0.80.

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

133

3. Results

In Table 1, the relevant statistics are given for the scores on learning styles, the big ®ve

personality factors and the achievement motivation variables.

Table 2 shows modest correlations between learning styles and the big ®ve personality

factors, as well as modest correlations between learning styles and the achievement motivation

variables.

The meaning directed learning style correlated low but positively with extraversion, while

we predicted a negative relation. This learning style also correlated positively with

conscientiousness and surprisingly high with openness to experience. A negative relation was

found between the meaning directed learning style and neuroticism. The meaning directed

Fig. 1. The ILS-subscales loading on Vermunts four learning styles and the subscales not speci®c for one learning

style.

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

134

learning style indeed correlated with achievement motivation and negatively with fear of failure

negative. However, no positive relation was found with fear of failure positive.

Higher scores on the reproduction-directed learning style were associated with higher

scores on extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and achievement motivation. The

reproduction learning style correlated negatively with neuroticism.

The undirected learning style correlated, as expected, positively with neuroticism and fear of

failure negative and negatively with conscientiousness. Also negative relations with openness to

experience, fear of failure positive and achievement motivation were found.

The application-directed learning style correlated, as predicted, with extraversion. Higher

scores on this learning style were also associated with higher scores on conscientiousness,

agreeableness, openness to experience and achievement motivation.

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, minimum, maximum, alpha coecients and sample sizes

Variables

M

S.D.

Min

Max

a

N

Meaning directed

111.06

19.43

36

180

0.91

1010

Reproduction directed

45.92

8.79

16

80

0.78

1051

Undirected

69.66

15.06

27

135

0.88

1025

Application directed

40.18

6.02

11

55

0.76

1051

Extraversion

62.67

11.1

14

98

0.84

1701

Agreeableness

69.08

9.43

14

98

0.85

1701

Conscientiousness

58.54

10.2

14

98

0.80

1701

Neuroticism

48.17

12.25

14

98

0.89

1701

Openness to experience

64.92

10.32

14

98

0.85

1701

Achievement motivation

16.52

6.83

0

47

0.83

1697

Fear of failure negative

11.28

5.37

0

26

0.88

1682

Fear of failure positive

10.05

4.1

0

16

0.89

1671

Deviant sample sizes because of missing values.

Table 2

Correlations between learning styles, personality traits and achievement motivation

Variables

Meaning directed

Reproduction directed

Undirected

Application directed

Extraversion

0.08* (N = 870)

0.13*** (N = 909)

0.03 (N = 886)

0.16*** (N = 910)

Agreeableness

0.01 (N = 870)

0.21*** (N = 909)

0.06 (N = 886)

0.18*** (N = 910)

Conscientiousness

0.07* (N = 870)

0.23*** (N = 909)

ÿ0.09** (N = 886)

0.15*** (N = 910)

Neuroticism

ÿ0.10** (N = 870)

ÿ0.11** (N = 909)

0.21*** (N = 886) ÿ0.02 (N = 910)

Openness to experience

0.35*** (N = 870) ÿ0.06 (N = 909)

ÿ0.17*** (N = 886)

0.09** (N = 910)

Fear of failure negative

ÿ0.11** (N = 869)

0.03 (N = 908)

0.17*** (N = 887)

0.06 (N = 908)

Fear of failure positive

0.05 (N = 869)

0.01 (N = 908)

ÿ0.10** (N = 886)

0.01 (N = 909)

Achievement motivation

0.20*** (N = 874)

0.21*** (N = 914)

ÿ0.11** (N = 891)

0.15*** (N = 914)

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Deviant sample sizes because of missing values.

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

135

Also stepwise regression analyses have been carried out for each learning style separately,

with the big ®ve personality traits and the achievement motivation variables as predictors. The

results are displayed in Table 3.

Students with a meaning directed learning style may be characterized as also having more

openness to experience and more achievement motivation. Students with a reproduction

directed learning style may be characterized as also having more agreeableness, achievement

motivation and conscientiousness and less openness to experience. Students with an undirected

learning style may be characterized as also having more neuroticism, extraversion,

agreeableness and fear of failure and less openness to experience and achievement motivation.

Students with an application-directed learning style, ®nally, may be characterised as also

having more agreeableness, extraversion, achievement motivation, fear of failure negative and

openness to experience. However, the amount of explained variance in learning style based on

the predictors is rather small.

4. Discussion

The aim of this project was to investigate the relation between learning style, personality and

achievement motivation. According to de Raad and Schouwenburg (1996), especially the big

®ve factors extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience are educationally

relevant. The correlations found in this project might be seen as a con®rmation of this notion.

Extraversion correlated positively with the meaning directed, the reproduction directed and the

application directed learning style. Conscientiousness was associated positively with the

meaning directed, reproduction directed and application directed learning style, and negatively

with the undirected learning style. Openness to experience correlated positively with the

Table 3

Beta-weights of the big ®ve personality traits, achievement motivation, fear of failure positive and fear of failure

negative as predictors of the four learning styles

Variables

Meaning directed

Reproduction directed

Undirected

Application directed

Extraversion

0.11**

0.10**

Agreeableness

0.16***

0.09*

0.14***

Conscientiousness

0.11**

Neuroticism

0.18***

Openness to experience

0.33***

ÿ0.09**

ÿ0.12***

0.08**

Achievement motivation

0.15***

0.15***

ÿ0.11**

0.10**

Fear of failure negative

0.09*

0.10**

Fear of failure positive

R

0.38

0.31

0.31

0.26

R

2

0.15

0.10

0.09

0.07

F

73.11

23.58

15.08

13.36

df

(2,854)

(4,889)

(6,867)

(5,889)

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

136

meaning directed and the application directed learning style and negatively with the undirected

learning style. Besides, it was found that neuroticism correlated positively with the undirected

learning style and negatively with the meaning directed and reproduction directed learning

style. Agreeableness was associated positively with the reproduction directed and application

directed learning style.

The magnitude of these correlations correspond to those between learning style and the big

®ve personality traits reported by Furnham (1996b). However, Furnham (1992) and Jackson

and Lawty-Jones (1996) reported considerable higher correlations between personality (as

measured by the Eysenck personality questionnaire) and learning style, and suggested there was

no explicit need to measure both. According to Furnham (1996b, p. 296), ``if well-established

and theoretically sound personality variables related closely and coherently to learning style or

interpersonal behaviour (accounting for between 10 and 25% of the variance), some may argue

that it may simply be more valuable to measure only the former. Parsimony both of theory

and measurement would require fewer, rather than more, overlapping measurement

instruments''. Although there is also some systematic overlap for the ILS with personality

variables, this is however not so large that it would make no sense to measure only personality.

The same might be concluded for learning style and the achievement motivation variables. Low

positive correlations were found for achievement motivation with the meaning directed,

reproduction directed and the application directed learning style, and a negative one with the

undirected learning style. Fear of failure negative was associated negatively with the meaning

directed learning style and positively with the undirected learning style. Fear of failure positive

was associated negatively with the undirected learning style. Further inspection of the content

of the three questionnaires does not reveal a striking semantic overlap. So, the ILS seems to

have a surplus value in educational settings, although there still remains a lot of variance to be

explained.

The highest, as well as unpredicted, correlation was between the meaning directed learning

style and openness to experience. According to McCrae and Costa (1997) openness to

experience may be characterized in terms of the structure of consciousness. Open individuals

have access to more thoughts, feelings, impulses in awareness and are able to maintain many

of these simultaneously. ``Openness involves motivation, needs for variety, cognition, sentience

and understanding'' (McCrae and Costa, 1997, p. 839). Considered in this way, the positive

association between the meaning directed learning style and achievement motivation is very

understandable. Apparently, the meaning directed learning style shares some important

characteristics with openness to experience and achievement motivation.

The results of this research might have some diagnostic implications for students

characterized by an undirected learning style, because a clearer picture of these students is

beginning to emerge. Earlier research showed these students to be the most ``academically at

risk'', i.e. this learning style was found to be a negative predictor for academic success (Busato

et al., 1995; Schouwenburg, 1996; Busato et al., 1998). Prins et al. 1998 suggested that students

with this learning style experience many feelings of uncertainty about their own learning

processes. Apparently, these students are also characterized by more neuroticism and a

negative fear of failure, as well as less conscientiousness and openness to experience and less

positive fear of failure and achievement motivation. According to Ackerman and Heggestad

(1997), it seems reasonable to propose that development of personality-interest-intelligence

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

137

traits proceeds along mutually causal lines. ``That is, abilities, interests, and personality develop

in tandem, such that ability level and personality dispositions determine the probability of

success in a particular task domain, and interests determine the motivation to attempt the task.

Thus, subsequent to successful attempts at task performance, interest in the task domain may

increase. Conversely, unsuccessful attempts at task performance may result in a decrement in

interest for that domain'' (Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997, p. 239). The development of the

undirected learning style is perhaps fostered in a comparable way. Unsuccessful studying may

result in more neurotic feelings and an increasing sense of failure, which results in a less

conscientious working method, less openness for studying and less achievement motivation in

general. It might be a challenging task for counsellors to develop training programmes to

change that pattern, although it is known that personality is rather stable in time (e.g. Costa

and McCrae, 1986) and that it is not easy to obtain long lasting e€ects with students who are

at academic risk (e.g. Kulik et al., 1983; Kaldeway and Korthagen, 1994; Purdie and Hattie,

1995; Busato and Prins, 1997).

Geisler-Brenstein et al. (1996, p. 89) wrote: ``Yet, we feel that it is possible to create a

taxonomy of person characteristics at a higher level of abstraction which does contribute to an

understanding of learner motivations and behaviours''. The present research, like the work of

Furnham (1992, 1996b) and Jackson and Lawty-Jones (1996), can be seen as a contribution to

such a further understanding. It will be interesting now to develop a structural model, as a

next contribution, in which academic success at the end of the ®rst study-year is predicted by

learning style, the big ®ve personality factors, intellectual ability and achievement motivation

(Busato et al., in preparation). For example, Minnaert and Janssen (1992) developed such a

model, in which study success and progress in higher education was predicted by cognitive and

motivational variables. Their model, which imitated, by means of a content valid study-skill

test, the study situation of a ®rst year student in miniature, explained ®fty-one percent of the

variance. It will be interesting to test our proposed model in an ecologically valid situation.

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological

Bulletin, 121(2), 219±245.

Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N. T. (Eds.) (1964). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley.

Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure?A theoretical review and clari®cation. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3±19.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the ®ve-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187±215.

Busato, V. V., & Prins, F. J. (1997). Leerstijlverandering door de studievaardigheidscursus Begeleid Studeren `93; de inventaris

leerstijlen diagnostisch gebruikt (Change in learning style by the studyskill course ``Guided Studying `93''). In A. J. Kallenberg &

W. A. van den Brink (Eds.) Succesvol studeren (pp. 36±48). Proceedings Landelijke Dag Studievaardigheden. Rotterdam:

Copynomie.

Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Hamaker, C., & Visser, K. H. (1995). Leerstijlenonderzoek gerepliceerd; de samenhang tussen intelligentie

en leerstijlen. [Research on learning styles replicated; the relation between intelligence and learning styles]. Tijdschrift voor

Onderwijsresearch, 20(4), 332±340.

Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. 1998. Learning styles: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study in higher

education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 427±441.

Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (in preparation). Learning style, personality, achievement motivation,

intellectual ability and academic success in higher education: a structural model.

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

138

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its implications for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review,

6, 407±423.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways ®ve factors are basic. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13, 861±865.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid grounds in the wetlands of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 216±220.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the ®ve-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417±440.

Dweck, C. S. (1984). Motivational processes a€ecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040±1048.

Elshout, J. J., & Akkerman, A. E. (1973). Een Nederlandse test voor vijf persoonlijkheidsfactoren, de 5PFT (A Dutch test for ®ve

personality traits, the 5PFT). In P. J. D. Drenth, P. J. Willems & Ch. J. de Wol€, Arbeids- en organisatiepsychologie (p. 49±65).

Deventer: Kluwer.

Elshout, J. J., & Akkerman, A. E. (1975). Vijf persoonlijkheids-faktoren test 5PFT. Nijmegen: Berkhout Nijmegen.

Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students' approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning

styles (pp. 21±51). New York: Plenum Press.

Evers, A., van Vliet-Mulder, J. C., & ter Laak, J. (1992). Documentatie van tests en testresearch in Nederland (Documentation of tests

and research on tests in The Netherlands). Assen: Van Grocum and Comp.

Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Di€erences,

12, 773±790.

Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways ®ve factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13, 667±673.

Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: a study of three instruments. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13(4), 429±438.

Furnham, A. (1996a). The big ®ve vs the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI ®ve

factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 21(2), 303±307.

Furnham, A. (1996b). The FIRO-B, the learning style questionnaire and the ®ve-factor model. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 11(2), 285±299.

Geisler-Brenstein, E., Schmeck, R. R., & Hetherington, J. (1996). An individual di€erence perspective on student diversity. Higher

Education, 31, 73±96.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ``description of personality'': the big-®ve factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 1216±1229.

Hermans, H. (1976). PMT prestatie motivatie test, handleiding. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Hofstee, W. K. B., & de Raad, B. (1991). Persoonlijkheidsstructuur: de AB5C-taxonomie van Nederlandse eigenschapstermen.

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 46, 262±274.

Jackson, C., & Lawty-Jones, M. (1996). Explaining the overlap between personality and learning style. Personality and Individual

Di€erences, 20(3), 293±300.

Kaldeway, J., Haenen, J., Wils, S., & Westho€, G. (1996). Leren leren in didactisch perspectief (Learning to learn in a didactic

perspective). Proceedings Landelijke Dag Studievaardigheden. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof.

Kaldeway, J., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1994). Training in studeren aan het hoger onderwijs: doelen en e€ecten (Training in studying in

higher education: aims and e€ects). Pedagogische StudieÈn, 71, 94±107.

Kallenberg, A. J. and van den Brink, W. A. (1997). Succesvol studeren (Succesful studying). Proceedings Landelijke Dag

Studievaardigheden. Rotterdam: Copynomie.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cli€s, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Shwalb, B. J. (1983). College programs for high-risk and disadvantaged students: a meta-analysis of

®ndings. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 397±414.

Marton, F., & SaljoÈ, R. (1976). On qualitative di€erences in learning. I. Outcomes and processes. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 46, 4±11.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson & S. R.

Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825±847). San Diego: Academic Press.

Miller, A. (1991). Personality types, learning styles and educational goals. Educational Psychology, 11(3,4), 217±238.

Minnaert, A., & Janssen, P. J. (1992). Success and progress in higher education: a structural model of studying. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 62, 184±192.

Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128±148.

Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: theory, research and applications. Englewood Cli€s, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Prins, F. J., Busato, V. V., Hamaker, C., & Visser, K. H. (1996). Een bijdrage tot validatie van het (meta)cognitieve deel van de

inventaris leerstijlen. [A contribution towards validation of the (meta)cognitive part of the inventory of learning styles].

Pedagogische StudieÈn, 73(2), 108±122.

Prins, F. J., Busato, V. V., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. 1998. Een nieuwe bijdrage tot validatie van het (meta)cognitieve deel van de

inventaris leerstijlen. [A new contribution towards validation of the (meta)cognitive part of the inventory of learning styles].

Pedagogische StudieÈn, 75, 73±93.

Purdie, N. M., & Hattie, J. A. (1995). The e€ect of motivation training on approaches to learning and self-concept. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 65, 227±235.

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

139

de Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: a review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303±

336.

Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards a categorisation of cognitive styles and learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 5±27.

Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 193±215.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). ``Learning style'': frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 51±63.

Schmeck, R. R. (1983). Learning styles of college students. In R. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual di€erences in cognition, 1

(pp. 233±279). New York: Academic Press.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Een onderzoek naar leerstijlen. (An investigation into learning styles). Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch,

2, 151±161.

Schouwenburg, H. C., & Groenewoud, J. T. (Eds.) (1995), Studievaardigheid en leerstijlen (Study skill and learning styles.) Proceedings

Landelijke Dag Studievaardigheden. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225±251

(Original work published in 1961).

Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs. (Learning styles and guidance of learning

processes in higher education). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1994). Inventory of learning styles in higher education; scoring key for the inventory of learning styles in higher

education. Tilburg: Tilburg University, Department of Educational Psychology.

Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and a€ective aspects of learning styles and strategies: a phenomenographic analysis.

Higher Education, 31, 25±50.

Vermunt, J. D. 1998. The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149±171.

Zuckerman, M. (1992). What is a basic factor and which factors are basic?. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13, 675±681.

V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

140