Interactive Relationships Between Measured Personality and Teaching Strategy Variables

Abstract

Summary. Reviews of recent aptitude‐treatment interaction research indicate a low level of consistency of results even when considered within a particular age level. It is suggested that an aspect of the problem may be the lack of comparability among the variables commonly employed. Two experiments are described where comparable teaching strategies were employed to teach students of similar ages material from two different subject areas. Comparable disordinal interactions between measured extroversion and teaching strategy were demonstrated across the two experiments where the criterion measure was a test of problem‐solving but not where it was a test of recall.

Do individual differences in children’s curiosity relate to their inquiry-based learning?

“…This result is in line with Arnone et al's (1994) results, but contrasts with the results from aptitude-treatment interaction studies showing that reducing uncertainty selectively benefits introvert and high anxious learners and learners with less prior knowledge (e.g. Cronbach & Snow, 1977 as cited in Kirschner et al, 2006;Leith, 1974as cited in Eysenck, 1996Rowell & Renner, 1975;Shadbolt, 1978;Trown & Leith, 1975;Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999). The absence of an interaction effect between curiosity and structure of the environment might in the present study be explained by curiosity mainly being associated with the inquiry-learning outcomes (knowledge acquisition), while the structure manipulation affected the inquiry-learning process (quantity and quality of exploration).…”

Thinking styles and the five‐factor model of personality

“…For instance, Shadbolt (1978) found that students who were high on neuroticism performed better with structured teaching methods than they did with unstructured teaching methods. Furnham, Jackson and Miller (1999) found signi®cant relationships between the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1964) and the Learning Styles Questionnaire of Honey and Mumford (1982).…”

The Relationship between Iranian EFL Teachers’ Behavior and Academic Achievement of High School Students

“…It was found that extroverts benefit more from informal, unstructured teaching methods, while introverts learn better in a structured learning environment with traditional teaching approach. When extroverts were taught by the method they preferred, they were higher in achievement than introverts, again which was evident even a month later (Leith, 1974 andShadbolt, 1978). Until recently our educational system has been highly structured and formal therefore the reported academic superiority of introverts may be due to the fact that our educational system in geared to the needs of introverts rather than extroverts, who require a different teaching strategy, one which stresses individuality, personal interaction, flexibility and spontaneity in teaching.…”