Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

To What Extent Can the Big Five and Learning Styles Predict
Academic Achievement
Yaman Köseoğlu
Lecturer; Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Bahçeşehir University, İstanbul, Turkey

Abstract
Personality traits and learning styles play defining roles in shaping academic achievement. 202 university
students completed the Big Five personality traits questionnaire and the Inventory of Learning Processes Scale
and self-reported their grade point averages. Conscientiousness and agreeableness, two of the Big Five
personality traits, related positively with all four learning styles, namely synthesis-analysis, methodical study,
fact retention and elaborative processing. On the other hand, neuroticism was found to have a negative
relationship with all four learning styles. Furthermore, both extraversion and openness appeared to have positive
relationships with elaborative processing. The results of the Big Five personality traits explained 17% of the
variance in grade point average and learning style added 5% , indicating that both contribute to academic
performance. Further, the relationship between openness and GPA was mediated by synthesis-analysis and
elaborative processing, both reflective learning styles. These findings suggest that when students process
information thoroughly and meticulously and combine such an approach with intellectual curiosity, their
academic performance will be enhanced. The impacts of these findings on teaching techniques and curriculum
design are also deliberated.
Keywords: Learning styles, reflective, synthesis-analysis, Big Five, conscientiousness, openness, academic
achievement,

1. Introduction
The way of processing, encoding, recalling, organizing and applying the knowledge assimilated changes from
student to student in universities. There are conscientious learners and there are less conscientious ones who
prefer to process information superficially; two categories indicating the presence of both the preferred learning
styles and the depth of information processing. Can personality be the key to explain such individual differences ?
Can learning styles and strategies be the link between academic performance and the personality? This paper
attempts to elucidate such questions by exploring the relationships between academic performance, learning
styles and personality traits among university students.

1.1. Learning styles

The style of learning is an entity that depicts information processing, by means of which the world is perceived
through intelligences such as language, logical-mathematical analysis, spatial representation, musical thinking,
the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, an understanding of other individuals, and an
understanding of ourselves. On the other hand, individuals differ in the strength of these intelligences - the so-
called profile of intelligences -and in the ways in which such multiple intelligences are invoked and combined to
carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems and progress in various domains (Snyder, 2000). Depending on
the particular combination of these strengths, individuals develop their own learning styles and these learning
styles , coupled with intelligence, lead to academic achievement. Because learning styles has been the focus of
such a vast number of research, there exists a variety of definitions, theoretical positions, models, interpretations
and measures of constructs with the common premise being the differences in the ways individuals learn
(Coffield et al., 2004). Among the existing models of learning styles (Cassidy, 2004), the one preferred for this
study is the one by Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramanaiah (1997). It opens with a conceptual framework of effective
information processing and proceeds to identify learning strategies that may enhance studying and academic
performance as it is developed around the belief that it is the quality of thinking during learning which affects the
learning outcome and it regards memory as a consequence of conscientious thinking and depth of processing
(Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Furthermore, in this model, learners are not necessarily classified into mutually
exclusive categories. It is suggested that some students may assume agentic/shallow processing with, for
example, the performance goal of doing well on a test while others may adopt reflective/deep processing with
the mastery goal of deep understanding and long-term retention. The students naturally are aware of how they
process information from the lectures they attend, the material they read or the discussions they undertake. Thus,
if students are encouraged to reflect more deeply about the information, they are more likely to encode the
information more thoroughly and thereby remember it longer.
The main premises of the four learning styles are as follows. Fact retention indicates processing of
information in such a way that main concepts are memorized with the goal of doing well on tests rather than
assimilating the essence of what is being learned. Methodical study consists of all that are conventionally

43
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

highlighted in most academic environments – being careful and meticulous while delivering all types of projects
on time. Elaborative processing implies adding new information to current reserves of knowledge and enriching
the personal experiences of the student through implementation. Synthesis-analysis learning style denotes
processing knowledge, categorizing and organizing that knowledge into hierarchies.
Differences in the intellectual styles of individuals and their preferences in acquiring knowledge have
been highlighted in literature (Zhang, 2003; Sternberg & Zhang, 2001). Students apparently need to employ
more complex approaches that necessitate and invoke deeper processing as they progress from first year to the
last (Bartling, 1988; Jakubek & Swenson, 1993).

1.2. The Big Five Personality Traits

For investigating the relationship between personality and various academic endeavors, the Big Five framework
designed and developed by Costa and McCrae ( 1992 ) has emerged as a reliable tool used worldwide. Poropat
(2009) , in his study of the Big Five and academic performance, drew attention to the relationship between
personality and individual differences in learning styles. Openness of the Big Five personality traits is delineated
by strong intellectual curiosity and indulgence in novelty and variety. Conscientiousness indicates a person who
is oriented to accomplish, organized and disciplined. Extraversion specifies a high degree of sociability relative
to others, assertiveness and verbosity. Agreeableness refers to being helpful, cooperative, sympathetic towards
others while showing close empathy. Finally, neuroticism measures the degree of emotional stability, anxiety
and ability to manage impulses. Literature emphasizes the links between individual differences in learning styles
and personality and educational goals of students and it is recommended in the literature that instructors take
these factors into consideration in scaling the academic behavior of their students (Miller, 1991).

1.3. Personality and Academic Performance

Personality traits affect academic performance and achievement. For example, the trait of conscientiousness has
continuously emerged as a reliable predictor of academic performance (Conard, 2006; Chamorro-Premuzic &
Furnham, 2003). It has been established that various educational outcomes have been successfully predicted by
relevant combinations of the Big Five personality traits. When used jointly, the traits of conscientiousness and
openness have satisfactorily predicted course performance (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). Agreeableness,
conscientiousness and openness have been found to predict overall academic performance (Poropat, 200;
Farsides & Woodfield, 2003) . It has also been ascertained that openness, extraversion, and conscientiousness
may predict academic achievement, especially when previously accumulated knowledge is applied to real-life
situations (Lievens, Ones, & Dilchert, 2009). Contrary to these, emotional instability or neuroticism has been
found to influence academic performance negatively (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). There are other
traits such as perseverance or grit that may also be employed for predicting academic performance (Duckworth,
Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). These studies verify the significance of personality traits. However, over
and above the personality traits, other individual factors such as learning styles should be explored.

1.4. Learning Styles and Personality

Research reveals the presence of intriguing links between personality traits and learning styles. Considering, for
example, the depth of processing, it has been established that deep-processing students are more likely to employ
suitable study methods, draw conclusions effectively and are self-regulated when compared to the students who
prefer to process in a shallow fashion (Gadzella, Ginther, Masten, & Gutrie, 1997). Furnham (1992) and Zhang
(2003) have both maintained that deep-processing students are more likely to be conscientious, intellectually
curious and extraverted. Geisler-Brenstein, Schmeck, & Hetherington (1996) emphasize that such students are
also emotionally stable. Zhang (2003) also suggests that if a student favors intuitive processing and a structured
learning environment, then that student may be susceptible to anxiety and worry. Furnham (1992) asserts that
students who prefer a vigorous and pragmatic approach generally turn out to be extraverted. Hence, it can be
surmised that learning styles and personality traits are inextricably linked.

1.5. Learning Styles and Academic Performance

Thinking, processing information and accruing knowledge are processes that differ from student to student
(Schmeck, 1999; Zhang, 2003). Each student comes with his or her preferred style. Agentic styles such as
methodical study and fact retention are conducive to higher grades and therefore are favorites of some. On the
other hand, there are others who utilize reflective styles such as elaborative processing and synthesis-analysis
which may lead to greater understanding and knowledge (Schmeck, Ribich, & Ramanaiah, 1997). According to
some studies, these individual differences in learning styles may be employed for predicting the performance of
the students (Lockhart & Schmeck, 1984). In general, some learning strategies have been found to be more
effective for academic performance and achievement. Among these are elaborative processing (Hall, Hladyj,
Perry, & Ruthig, 2004), deeper levels of reflection (Jakoubek & Swenson, 1993), synthesis-analysis (Miller,

44
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

Alway, & McKinley, 1987), and active thinking and organized studying (Entwistle & Waterston, 1988).
According to Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien (2007), the deep-processing students may duly benefit from added
values such as being receptive to feed-back. They may also benefit from inadvertent learning through
spontaneous assimilation of material (Schmeck, 1999). As can be surmised, students who are conscientious and
analytical-minded will probably perform better academically.
It has also been implied in the literature that if learning styles are harmonized with teaching methods,
academic performance and achievement may increase (Sternberg & Zhang, 2001). On the other hand, Pashler,
McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork (2008) have carried out a comprehensive study revealing the lack of reliable and
empirical support for adapting teaching styles to students’ learning styles. According to Pashler et al. (2008),
instead of tailoring teaching techniques to specific learning styles, investigating strategies that supplement
learning and memory should be preferred. Numerous viewpoints seem to coalesce on this issue (Komarraju,
Karau, Schmeck, & Avdic, 2011). Enhancing academic achievement by matching learning styles and teaching
methods is not investigated in this current study. Instead, the significance of specific learning styles in enhancing
learning and the role that they play in mediating personality traits and academic performance are explored.

1.6.Academic Performance, Learning Styles and Personality Traits

The personality traits of the students and learning styles have been investigated extensively in the literature. On
the other hand, about the combined effects of these two variables in explaining academic performance and
achievement there seems to be little knowledge. Ferguson, James, & Madeley (2002) suggest that learning styles
and personality traits together may predict performance in medical schools. Furthermore, it has been established
that openness is related to certain learning styles that appear to be positively associated with academic success
(Farsides & Woodfield, 2003). Contrary to these, Busato, Prins, Elshout, and Hamaker (2000) convey diverse
results about the association between personality traits, academic success and learning styles. They reported that
the personality traits of conscientiousness and openness correlated significantly with academic success and
learning styles. On the other hand, according to their findings, there was no significant relationship between
learning styles and academic performance. Thus, there seems to be a scarcity of research and also inconsistency
in describing academic success in terms of individual differences in personality traits and preferred strategies for
learning.

1.7. The Present Research and Hypotheses

Although it has been established in the literature that personality traits and learning styles are both associated
with academic success, the combined effect of personality traits and learning styles on academic performance
appears to be vague. In addition, not much seems to be known about the extent of mediation of learning styles
between personality traits and academic performance. The present research attempts to fill this gap by directly
exploring the relationships between learning styles, personality traits, and academic achievement. It also
investigates the extent to which relationships between personality traits and academic success might be mediated
by learning styles. The following hypotheses are made:
1. The first hypothesis pertains to openness. Students who display a high degree of openness possess a
strong intellectual curiosity and are eager to learn. Strong intellectual curiosity may involve deep
processing. Therefore, it is predicted that openness would be related positively with reflective learning
styles such as elaborative processing and synthesis-analysis. It is also predicted that openness would be
related positively with academic success since the tendency for deeper understanding is likely to
promote academic performance.
2. The second hypothesis concerns conscientiousness. Conscientious students are expected to have strong
work ethics and are expected to employ purposeful and focused learning strategies. As such, they are
likely to be high achievers. Therefore, it is predicted that conscientiousness would be positively related
to the agentic learning styles such as methodical study and fact retention. It is also predicted that
conscientiousness would be positively associated with academic performance as conscientious students
tend to be both self-regulated and achievement oriented.
3. Another hypothesis is related to agreeableness. Agreeable students display cooperative attitudes which
indicate that they are usually cooperative, trusting and helpful and more likely to meet deadlines.
Taking these characteristics into account, it may be predicted that agreeableness would be positively
associated with all four learning styles. Another prediction may be that this personality trait and
academic success would be positively related.
4. The fourth hypothesis is about neuroticism which refers to individuals who experience anxiety, self-
doubt and negative emotions. Such individuals are likely to abandon the learning process and may give
up easily if they face difficulties. Therefore it may be predicted that neuroticism would be negatively
related with all four learning styles as well as with academic success.
5. The next hypothesis incorporates the two reflective learning styles and academic success. As these two

45
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

reflective learning styles, namely synthesis- analysis and elaborative processing, allow for deeper
understanding, it may be predicted that they would be positively associated with academic success.
6. As mentioned above, since openness and reflective learning styles may be conducive to acquiring more
knowledge, it may be predicted that openness and reflective learning styles are both positively
associated with academic success. Furthermore, their combined effect should also be investigated. For
students who prefer reflective learning styles, the trait of openness may be beneficial to learning.
Therefore, the extent to which the relationship between academic success and openness is mediated by
synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing is also examined.
7. No predictions are offered about extraversion as this trait depends highly on context.

2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The participants consisted of 202 undergraduate university students enrolled in various departments of a non-
profit, private university in İstanbul, Turkey. The ages of the students varied between 18 to 20. Since the
language of instruction is English , the scales used were in English as well . The native language of the students
was Turkish and English was their second language with levels ranging from intermediate to advanced.
The breakdown according to departments and gender is given in table 1.
Table 1. Breakdown of participants according to gender and department
Department Arts & Sci. Bus. Adm. Commun. Engineer. Architect. Law total
Gender M F M F M F M F M F M F
Number 21 17 18 13 10 18 26 24 17 15 9 14
Sum (M+F) 38 31 28 50 32 23 202
% 18.8 15.3 13.8 24.8 15.8 11.5 100
86% of the students were first-year, 9 % were second and 5% third-year students.

2.1. The Instruments – Questionnaires and interviews

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed.
2.1.1. The Big Five Personality Traits questionnaire :
The five major domains of personality , openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism were assessed by the NEO-FFI, a 60-item scale with well-established reliability
and validity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The Cronbach’s α values for internal consistency were: openness 0.74,
conscientiousness 0.82, extraversion 0.78, agreeableness 0.76, neuroticism 0.82.
2.1.2. The Inventory of Learning Processes scale (ILP) :
The Inventory of Learning Processes of Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramanaiah ( 1997) is a widely-used 62-item scale
that entails two types of learning styles: reflective and agentic. Reflective learning styles consists of synthesis-
analysis (18 items) and elaborative processing (14 items). Agentic learning styles comprises methodical study
(23 items ) and fact retention (7 items). A number of studies provided reliable evidence about internal
consistency and construct validity in addition to factor analysis results presenting robust structural validity
(Schmeck, Ribich, & Ramanaiah, 1997; Schmeck & Ribich, 1978) . In the current study, the Cronbach alphas
were 0.84 for synthesis-analysis, 0.77 for elaborative processing, 0.75 for fact retention and 0.84 for methodical
study. The correlation analysis between the two reflective learning styles yielded 0.66 and between the two
agentic learning styles, 0.54. Correlations across the two types varied from 0.39 to 0.52.

2.2. Procedure
The 202 students filled in the demographic data, completed the Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and the
Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP), and self-reported their current GPAs. The ILP and the NEO-FFI were
used for the quantitative part of this study. The procedure was administered in the spring term of 2014 during
class-time and the students were asked to respond individually. They were given to understand that their answers
were going to remain confidential. Ethical standards to protect the rights of the participants were observed
throughout the study.
For the qualitative analysis, a number of students were recruited to participate in individual interviews
for obtaining more detailed responses across a range of questions posed in the surveys. A total of 36 students
offered their perspectives during the interviews and focus group sessions.

3. Results
3.1. Correlation
Correlation analyses revealed a number of significant relationships consistent with the predictions which are
displayed in table 2 below. Consistent with the first hypothesis, openness was found to be positively related with
synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing, the two reflective learning styles. As expected, neuroticism was

46
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

negatively related with all four learning styles. Agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively associated
with all four learning styles. Extraversion turned out to be positively related with fact-retention and elaborative
processing. Three of the five personality traits (openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness) and all four
learning styles correlated positively with academic success.
Table 2. Correlations between the Big Five personality traits, learning styles and GPA
The Big Five Learning Styles Subscales GPA
personality traits Elaborative Synthesis Analysis Methodical Fact
Processing Study Retention
Openness 0.44 0.39 0.12 0.09 0.23
Conscientiousness 0.32 0.29 0.63 0.37 0.39
Extraversion 0.21 0.17 0.08 0.18 0.09
Agreeableness 0.28 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.32
Neuroticism -0.17 -0.38 -0.19 -0.27 -0.03
GPA 0.24 0.26 0.34 0.25
p<0.05

3.2. Regression
The first issue considered was the extent to which the Big Five personality traits predicted the four learning
styles. It was found that
• 36 % of the variance in synthesis-analysis was explained by conscientiousness, openness and
neuroticism , F(5,194)=29.48, p< 0.05;
• 26 % of the variance in elaborative processing was explained by openness and conscientiousness,
F(5,194)=19.08, p< 0.05;
• 40 % of the variance in methodical study was explained by openness and conscientiousness,
F(5,194)=29.72, p< 0.05;
• 16 % of the variance in fact retention was explained by conscientiousness, F(5,194)=12.07, p< 0.05.
The relevant findings are given in table 3.
Table 3. Multiple regression with the Big Five and the four learning style
Dependent variable Independent variable Beta R2 Adjusted R 2
Synthesis –analysis Neuroticism -0.38
Openness 0.44
Conscientiousness 0.24
0.36 0.34
Elaborative processing openness 0.39
Conscientiousness 0.28
0.26 0.24
Methodical study openness 0.18
conscientiousness 0.72
0.40 0.38
Fact retention conscientiousness 0.26
0.16 0.14
p<0.05
The second analysis pertained to determining which of the specific Big Five personality traits and
learning styles explained variations in academic success , as measured by GPA. Two runs were made, the first
one involving the Big Five personality traits and the second the learning styles. The Big Five traits without
extraversion explained 15 % of the variance in GPA. In other words, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness and
conscientiousness provided the relevant input, F(5,146)=10.67, p< 0.05. Learning styles explained 14 % of the
variance in GPA, F(5,148)=8.77, p< 0.05, with synthesis-analysis and methodical study emerging as significant
predictors. The results are displayed in tables 4 and 5.

47
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

Table 4. Multiple regression with the Big Five on GPA.

Dependent variable Independent variable Beta R2 Adjusted R 2
GPA Openness 0.25
Conscientiousness 0.46
Extraversion 0.05
Agreeableness 0.19
Neuroticism 0.27
0.19 0.17
p<0.05

Table 5. Multiple regression with the four learning styles on GPA.

Dependent variable Independent variable Beta R2 Adjusted R 2
GPA Elaborative processing 0.07
Synthesis-analysis 0.29
Methodical study 0.31
Fact retention 0.04
0.14 0.11
p<0.05
Thirdly, a hierarchical regression analysis was carried out in order to determine whether learning styles
explained further variation in addition to what already has been depicted by the Big Five personality traits.
Firstly, four of the five personality traits that emerged as the most significant were selected and entered. Then,
the most significant two of the four significant learning styles were chosen and entered. Personality traits
explained 17 % of the variance in GPA with conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism as significant
variables and learning styles an additional 5%, with synthesis-analysis as the only significant variable .
Personality traits and learning styles together explained 22 % of the variance in GPA, F(6, 144) 11.82, p< 0.05.
The results are tabulated in table 6.
Table 6. Hierarchical multiple regression
Dependent variable Independent variable Beta R2 Adjusted R 2
GPA Step 1 Conscientiousness 0.32
Neuroticism 0.28
Agreeableness 0.22
Openness 0.08
0.17
Step 2 Synthesis-analysis 0.19
Methodical study 0.12
0.05
0.22 0.17
p<0.05

3.3. Mediation
In order to obtain a better understanding of the relationship between the personality traits and the learning styles,
the extent to which learning styles mediated the relationship between personality traits and GPA was explored
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). The findings demonstrated that the two reflective learning styles, namely the synthesis-
analysis and the elaborative processing, partially mediated the relationship between openness and GPA.
Specifically, when elaborative processing was considered, the relationship between openness and GPA was
reduced significantly from 0.16 to 0.10, with Sobel’s test = 3.23, p< 0.05. Similarly, when synthesis-analysis
was included, the relationship between openness and GPA was reduced from 0.15 to 0.08 , with Sobel’s test =
2.87, p< 0.05.

48
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

4. Discussion
The results obtained seem to ascertain a number of intriguing links between the Big Five personality traits,
learning styles and academic success and also demonstrate that reflective learning styles can partially mediate
the relationship between openness and academic success. In other words, the findings generate a number of
interpretations of the dynamic relationship between personality and learning styles and also identify some
potential practical implications. Furthermore, the results emphasize the joint influence of personality and
learning styles on academic success.
In the first place, the findings on personality traits reveal several clues both for students and educators.
The most notable among these is related to conscientiousness. The results verified the key importance of
conscientiousness for learning and academic success. This personality trait was not only significantly and
positively related to all four learning styles, but also presented the strongest link with GPA. None of the other
independent variables showed such a striking association. Thus, learning strategies seems to be facilitated by
conscientiousness and it appears to be an especially useful trait for achieving high levels of academic
performance. Low levels of performance are probably the consequences of carelessness and not studying
methodically. Furthermore, both agreeableness and openness were found to be positively related to GPA which
implied that students might benefit from being not only conscientious but also cooperative and cognitively
inquisitive. Educators who are aware of the crucial role of personality traits as predictors of academic
performance may design course assignments to promote such traits. For fostering conscientiousness, students
may be asked to submit their assignments in small parts, rather than in large projects. For agreeableness,
cooperative behaviors may be rewarded. For openness, concepts may be linked to current events in order to
attract students’ imaginations.
Moreover, the results obtained denote that all four learning styles were associated with academic
success. Such a correlation is not unexpected as it is consistent with the concept that these styles represent
different approaches to information processing and that all have some value for learning (Schmeck et al., 1977).
Furthermore, findings from the regression analyses corroborate the notion that reflective styles lead to a deeper
or more thoughtful learning (Schmeck, 1999). Specifically, synthesis-analysis was found to be the only learning
style explaining significant variation in GPA over and above the Big Five. It should also be remembered that
both synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing techniques mediated the positive relationship between
openness and GPA partially. In other words, educators who uphold synthesis-analysis and elaborative methods
by explaining a concept or theory by giving real-life examples, by referring to relevant current events, by
demonstrating the material using hierarchical concepts, by organizing information around themes meaningful to
students may create greater student interest and success.
Furthermore, considering the relationship between personality traits and learning styles, it was
predicted that students who were conscientious and open-to-new-experiences might resort to any one of the four
learning styles. This insinuates that organized, meticulous, determined and intellectually-curious students are
more likely to exploit any or all four learning styles in order to amplify their learning. Such students are likely to
be very thorough, and are keen to build on and relate to previous knowledge and to study systematically.
Therefore, in all likelihood, they would excel in exams. On the other hand, the relationships between neuroticism
and all four learning styles were found to be negative, indicating that students who worried and were anxious
would probably not be interested in the learning process and fail to organize and categorize what they are
learning into meaningful units.
Lastly, although it has been maintained that deep processing of information is one of the key

49
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

approaches in many university courses and that the trait of openness-to new-experiences is the key to such an
end, this study revealed that reflective learning styles, namely synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing, play
a critical role in achieving academic success via openness. One of the findings of this study was that the
relationship between openness to new experiences and academic achievement was partially mediated by both
elaborative processing and synthesis-analysis. This implies that the intellectually curious students actively
process information by arranging what they have learnt systematically into significant categories and by making
meaningful connections to real-life situations. In other words, the tendency for the trait of openness to enhance
GPA is due , at least in part, to such an approach. It can be advocated that students who are intellectually curious
and open to new experiences and theories be cognizant of their personal preferences for specific learning styles
and by time, develop a more reflective style. Perhaps they could consciously try to relate the information learned
in one course to other courses, classify information acquired in categories that make sense to them, and link
whatever they learn to their personal goals.
Although this study provides valuable insights into dual impact of personality traits and learning styles
on academic achievements, it comes with certain limitations. Firstly, although prior research has found GPA
obtained from school records to be positively and strongly correlated with self-reported GPA (Noftle & Robins,
2007) , future research could require participants’ permission to obtain grades from university records instead of
relying on self-reported GPSs. Secondly, future researchers could also include other indicators of academic
performance such as attendance, persistence and time taken to complete a full semester. Thirdly, the fact that this
study is conducted in a single institution hinders generalization. The fourth constraint is the lack of earlier
research in this country which might have been used for comparison among universities. The medium of
instruction is a further drawback. As the medium of instruction is English, results obtained can only be used to
infer about students of the universities that provide education in English. And the final limiting factor is the fact
that all the participants are of the first year – inclusion of upper classes may make a difference.
In conclusion, this study established the presence of a number of connections between personality,
learning styles and academic achievement. It also showed how learning styles might mediate the relationship
between personality traits and academic performance. Future research could advance the comprehension of the
complex nature of academic achievement by exploring other facets of individual differences such as self-efficacy.
Such research could also consider environmental factors such as socioeconomic status as predictors of academic
performance.

References
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations . Journal of personality and social psychology, 51,
1173-1182.
Bartling, C. (1988). Longitudinal changes in the study habits of successful college students . Educational and
psychological measurement, 48, 527-535.
Busato, V., Prins, F., Elshout, J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). A closer look at the inventory of learning styles (ILS) .
Pedagogische Studien, 77, 11-20.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: an overview of theories, models, and measures . Educational psychology: an
international journal of experimental educational psychology ,24(4), 419-444.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality traits and academic examination performance .
Europeam journal of personality, 17, 237-250.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a
systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Center
Conard, M. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: how personality and behavior predict academic performance .
Journal of research in personality , 40, 339-346.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO PI-R: professional manual:Revis ed NEO PI-R and NEO FFI. Florida:
Psychological Assessment Resources,Inc. .
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processsing: a framework for memory research. Journal of verbal
learning and verbal behavior , 11, 671-684.
Duckworth, A., Peterson, C., Matthews, M., & Kelly, D. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for long term
goals . Journal of personality and social psychology, 92, 1087-1101.
Entwistle, N., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students.
British journal of educational psychology, 58, 258-265.
Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: the roles of
personality, intelligence and application . Personality and individual differences , 40, 1225-1243.
Ferguson, E., James, D., & Madeley, L. (2002). Factors associated with success in medical school, systematic
review of the literature. British medical journal, 324, 952-957.
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: a study of three instruments. Personality and individual

50
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.30, 2016

differences , 13, 429-438.

Gadzella, B., Ginther, D., Masten, W., & Gutrie, D. (1997). Predicitng students as deep and shallow processors
of information. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 875-881.
Geisler-Brenstein, E., Schmeck, R., & Hetherington, J. (1996). An individual difference perspective on student
diversity. Higher education, 31, 73-96.
Hall, N., Hladyj, S., Perry, R., & Ruthig, J. (2004). The role of attributional retrainting and eloborative learning
in college students' academic development. Journal of social psychology, 144, 591-612.
Jakoubek, J., & Swenson, R. (1993). Differences in use learning strategies and relation to grades among
undergraduate students. Psychological reports , 73, 787-793.
Komarraju, M., Karau, S., Schmeck, R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The big five personality traits,learning styles, and
academic achievement. Personality and individual differences, 51, 472-477.
Lievens, F., Ones, D., & Dilchert, S. (2009). Personality scale validities increase throughout medical school .
Journal of applied psychology, 94, 1514-1534.
Lockhart, D., & Schmeck, R. (1984). Learning styles and classroom evaluation methods: different strokes for
different folks . College student journal, 17, 94-100.
Miller, A. (1991). Personality types, learning styles, and educational goals . Educational psychology, 11, 217-
238.
Miller, C., Alway, M., & McKinley, D. (1987). Effects of Learning styles and strategies on academic success.
Journal of college student personnel, 28, 399-404.
Noftle, E., & Robins, R. (2007). Personality predictorsof academic outcomes: Big Five correlates of GPA and
SAT scores. Journal of personality and and social psychology, 11, 116-130.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles, concepts and evidence. Journal of
the association of the psychological science , 9(3), 105-119.
Paunonen, S., & Ashton, M. (2001). Big Five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of research in
personality, 57, 401-421.
Payne, S., Youngcourt, S., & Beaubien, J. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal-orientation
nomological net . Journal of applied psychology, 92, 128-150.
Poropat, A. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model od personality anad academic performance .
psychological bulletin , 322-338.
Schmeck, R. (1999). Thoughtful learners: students who engage in deep and elaborative information processing.
In R. Riding, & S. Rayner (Ed.), International perspectives on individual differences . Stamford: Ablex
Publishing .
Schmeck, R., & Ribich, F. (1978). Construct validation of the inventory of learning process. Applied
psychological measurement, 2, 551-562.
Schmeck, R., Ribich, F., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assessing
individual differences in learning processing. Applied psychologica measurement, 1, 413-431.
Snyder, R. (2000). The relationship between learning styles and multiple intelligences and academic
achievement of high school students. High school journal, 83, 11-20.
Sternberg, R., & Zhang, L. (2001). Perspectives in thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches. Personality and individual differences, 34,
1431-1446.

51