- Email: [email protected]
Do personality traits make a difference in teaching styles among Chinese high school teachers?
Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Do personality traits make a difference in teaching styles among Chinese high school teachers? Li-fang Zhang
*
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong Received 25 April 2006; received in revised form 12 January 2007 Available online 12 March 2007
Abstract This research pioneered the investigation of the predictive power of personality traits for teachers’ teaching styles. Participants were 157 teachers from two senior-high schools in the People’s Republic of China. Results indicated that teachers’ personality traits as measured by Costa and McCrae (1992) NEO Five-Factor Inventory significantly contributed to teachers’ teaching styles as assessed by the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (Grigorenko and Sternberg, 1993) over and above their gender, educational level, and perceptions of the quality of the students they were teaching. Practical implications of this finding are proposed for school teachers and administrators. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Personality traits; Teacher characteristics; Teaching styles
1. Introduction Intellectual styles, an all-encompassing term for such constructs as cognitive styles, learning styles, and thinking styles, are generally defined as people’s preferred ways of processing information and dealing with tasks (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). As an individual-difference variable among teachers, intellectual styles have also been widely examined. *
Tel./fax: +852 2859 2522. E-mail address: [email protected]
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.009
670
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
The investigation of teachers’ intellectual styles was motivated by the belief that student learning outcome could be improved by matching teaching styles with learning styles (or vice versa). Consequently, from the very beginning, research involving teachers has not been focused on teachers’ intellectual styles as they relate to teachers’ characteristics, but rather, on the impact of teachers’ styles or of teacher–student style match/mismatch upon student learning outcome (e.g., Riding & Douglas, 1993), classroom instruction (e.g., Mahlios, 1981), and students’ reactions to specific learning activities (e.g., Conwell, Helgeson, & Wachowiak, 1987). Several studies (e.g., Borg & Riding, 1993; Lawrence, 1997) have considered the basic teacher characteristics (e.g., gender, subject area taught, grade level taught, and length of teaching experience) that possibly make a difference in teachers’ intellectual styles. However, these studies cannot answer the question of what affect teachers’ intellectual styles as they are manifested in the teaching context, that is, teaching styles. The reason is that the style measures used in these studies are designed to assess people’s intellectual styles in general contexts, but not to investigate teachers’ intellectual styles in specific teaching contexts. A careful reading into the literature on intellectual styles revealed that only two of the many intellectual style models have been examined in the teaching context: Sternberg’s (1988, 1997) theory of thinking styles and Trigwell, Prosser, and Taylor’s (1994) theory of teaching approaches. Because the present study is grounded in the former theory, relevant research based on the former is introduced. Some teacher characteristics relevant to teachers’ teaching styles based on Sternberg’s theory have been investigated in the United States and in Hong Kong. For example, among American school teachers, Sternberg and Grigorenko (1995) found that older teachers were more conservative in their teaching styles than were younger teachers. Science teachers tended to be more conservative than did humanities teachers. In Hong Kong, Zhang and her colleagues (e.g., Zhang & Sachs, 1997; Zhang & Sternberg, 2002) identified that less experienced teachers tended to report more frequently the use of creative teaching styles than did teachers with more teaching experience. Furthermore, teachers who perceived their work environments more positively were more creative in their teaching styles than were teachers who perceived their work environments less positively. No doubt, the above research has provided certain clues to the influence of teacher characteristics on teaching styles. Yet, all variables investigated to date are overt teacher characteristics (e.g., age, gender, and educational level) that have no theoretical basis. Does a more covert psychological variable such as the construct of personality trait have significant impact on teachers’ teaching styles? Some scholars (e.g., Furnham, 1996) argued that style is a sub-set of personality and needs not be measured independently, unless when style is of interest in its own right. This study attempts to provide insights into the relations of personality traits as defined by Costa and McCrae’s (1985, 1992) Big Five personality factors to teaching styles as defined in Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government. 1.1. Costa and McCrae’s model of Big Five personality traits and its research Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are known as the Big Five personality traits in psychology. The five-factor personality traits model (FFM) resulted from several decades of factor analytic research focusing on trait personality
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
671
(see Antonioni, 1998). The FFM has aroused the interest of many personality psychologists. The work of Costa and McCrae (1985, 1992) is one of the most noteworthy. The authors described the five personality traits as follows: Neuroticism is the opposite of emotional stability. People high on neuroticism tend to experience such negative feelings as embarrassment, pessimism, and low self-esteem. People high on extraversion tend to be sociable and assertive. Openness to experience is characterized by such attributes as open-mindedness, active imagination, and independence of judgment. People high on agreeableness tend to be tolerant, trusting, and easily moved. Finally, people high on conscientiousness tend to distinguish themselves for their trustworthiness and for their sense of purposefulness and of responsibility. The NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI, Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992) measures the five personality traits. According to Taylor and MacDonald (1999), the NEO-PI has not only demonstrated good psychometric properties, but also been successful in accommodating constructs that are already measured by existing tests of personality traits (e.g., the Myers–Briggs type indicator, Briggs & Myers, 1988). Furthermore, the NEO-PI also has been proved to be associated with the Eysenck personality inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964), one of the most well-established assessment tools for studying personality. A brief version of the NEO-PI is the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which also has been successful in reliably measuring the five personality dimensions (e.g., Saucier, 1998). 1.2. Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government and its research Sternberg (1988, 1997) contended that just as there are different ways of governing a society, there are different ways that people use their abilities. These preferred ways of using one’s abilities are construed as ‘‘thinking styles’’. According to Sternberg, there are 13 thinking styles that can be organized into five dimensions: functions, forms, levels, scopes, and leanings. Based on empirical data, Zhang and Sternberg (2005) have reconceptualized the 13 styles into three types. Type I and Type II styles are relevant to this study, and thus are introduced. Type I thinking styles tend to be more creativity-generating and they denote higher levels of cognitive complexity, including the legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global, and liberal styles. Type II thinking styles suggest a norm-favoring tendency and they denote lower levels of cognitive complexity, including the executive, local, monarchic, and conservative styles. When thinking styles are applied to the teaching context, they are known as teaching styles. See Appendix for the definition of each style. Much empirical evidence supports the validity of the theory (e.g., Kaufman, 2001; Zhang & Sternberg, 2002). The two most frequently used inventories, the Thinking Styles Inventory (Sternberg & Wagner, 1992) and the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (TSTI, Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1993), have been proven to be reliable and valid for measuring the styles proposed in Sternberg’s theory (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). 1.3. The present study As discussed earlier, several studies of teacher characteristics in relation to teaching styles defined in the theory of mental self-government have been conducted. The present study extends the
672
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
previous studies by investigating the possible effects of personality traits on teachers’ teaching styles. Furthermore, this investigation delves into the possible incremental validity of personality traits beyond some of the teacher characteristics examined in previous studies (e.g., age, gender, educational level, and perceptions of work environments) in predicting teachers’ teaching styles. Based on the definition for each of the five personality traits and that for Type I and Type II teaching styles, the following predictions were made: The openness personality trait would positively contribute to Type I teaching styles, but negatively to Type II teaching styles. By contrast, the neuroticism personality trait would positively contribute to Type II teaching styles, but negatively to Type I teaching styles. Because people with the conscientiousness personality trait tend to be driven and strong-willed, they would try all means to pursue their goals tirelessly, by being both creative and conservative. As such, conscientiousness would positively contribute to both Type I and Type II teaching styles, despite the fact that the styles in the two types are polar opposites. No specific predictions were made on the relationships of agreeableness and extraversion to teaching styles as these relationships were not readily predictable. However, the general prediction was that all personality traits would statistically contribute to teaching styles beyond the teacher characteristics that have been found to be significantly related to teaching styles in previous studies.
2. Method 2.1. Participants Research participants were 157 (75 male and 82 female) teachers from two senior-high schools in Nanjing, the People’s Republic of China. With an average of 35 years, the teachers’ ages ranged from 21 to 59 years. Within this sample, seven teachers held a post-graduate certificate, 130 had a Bachelor’s degree, and the remaining 20 had a Master’s degree. These participants were teaching 14 different subject matters: arts, biology, chemistry, Chinese, English, geography, history, information technology, mathematics, physical education, physics, political science, psychological health, and working techniques. 2.2. Materials On a five-point Likert scale, teachers responded to two questions eliciting their perceptions about their work environments: prospect for career promotion and quality of students taught. Moreover, they took two self-report tests: the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1993) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), both in Chinese. 2.2.1. Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory The Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory is a 49-statement questionnaire in which participants rated themselves on a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting that the statement does not describe them at all, and 7 denoting that the statement describes them extremely well. The inventory assesses seven thinking styles as manifested in teaching (i.e., teaching styles): four Type I styles and three Type II styles. Two sample statements are (a) ‘‘I frequently assign students inde-
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
673
pendent projects’’ (Legislative style); and (b) ‘‘I prefer teaching the same subject and same class level every year’’ (Conservative style). 2.2.2. NEO Five-Factor Inventory Composed of 60 statements, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory is a brief measure of the five personality dimensions. Each of the five dimensions is assessed by 12 statements. For each statement, the participants rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 0 to 4, with verbal anchors of strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. The statements are scored in both directions. 2.3. Procedures Although all participants were recruited through the school principals, the specific procedures in which the data were collected differed for the two schools. In the first school, questionnaires were handed out to 80 volunteer teachers (teaching at all 3 class levels) at the end of a meeting. Completed questionnaires (n = 68, 85%) were collected on the spot. In the second school, volunteer teacher participants teaching the first- and second-year students received the questionnaires from their head teachers (one for each class level), respectively. Completed questionnaires (n = 89, out of 100) were returned to the head teachers over the period of one working week. 2.4. Data analysis Estimates of internal consistency for the scales in the two inventories were obtained with Cronbach’s alpha. Zero-order correlations were calculated between the scales in the two inventories and the teacher characteristic variables: age, gender, educational level (as represented by the highest degree a teacher obtained), subject matters taught (social sciences and humanities versus natural sciences), and the two items concerning teachers’ perceptions of their work environments. Finally, hierarchical multiple-regression procedures were performed, with personality traits being the independent variables, teaching styles being the dependent variables, and the teacher characteristics that were significantly related to any of the scales in the two inventories serving as the control variables.
3. Results 3.1. Internal scale reliability The alpha coefficients for the seven TSTI scales are .80 (legislative), .81 (executive), .68 (judicial), .74 (global), .82 (local), .73 (liberal), and .79 (conservative). These alpha coefficients are similar in magnitude to those reported in existing studies (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995; Zhang, 2001; Zhang & Sternberg, 2002). Like in previous studies, the individual styles within each style type are significantly positively related, whereas the styles from across the two types are negatively related to one another. The test–retest reliability of the inventory, however, is yet to be established.
674
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
The alpha coefficients for the NEO-FFI scales are .75 (neuroticism), .76 (extraversion), .50 (openness), .75 (agreeableness), and .79 (conscientiousness). These coefficients are comparable in magnitude with those obtained in previous studies of Chinese students (Zhang, 2002; Zhang & Huang, 2001). Notice that the alpha coefficient for the openness scale is relatively low, as it was in previous studies of Chinese samples. Such a consistently lower alpha coefficient suggests a need for revising the items in the openness scale. Furthermore, neuroticism is significantly negatively correlated with the remaining four personality traits, while the latter (four traits) are positively related to one another, with some coefficients being statistically significant, and others insignificant. 3.2. Zero-order correlations between TSTI/NEO-FFI scales and teacher characteristics Calculation of the zero-order correlations between the scales from the two inventories and the different teacher characteristics resulted in the following: Females were less global and conservative, but more agreeable than were males. Teachers with higher educational degrees scored significantly higher on two of the Type I styles (legislative and liberal) and on the openness scale, but lower on all three Type II styles. Teachers who expressed more confidence about the quality of their students scored higher on the legislative and liberal styles. The correlation matrix is shown in Table 1. 3.3. Regressions of personality traits on teaching styles, controlling for teacher characteristics Given that teachers’ gender, educational level, and their perceptions of the quality of the students were significantly correlated with particular teaching styles and/or personality traits, the three variables were put under control when hierarchical multiple regressions were performed. Results suggested that six of the seven teaching styles (with the global teaching style being the exception) were statistically predicted by particular personality trait(s) beyond the teachers’ gender, educational level, and their perceptions of the quality of their students (occasionally referred to as the three control variables hereafter). Four of the five personality traits (with neuroticism being the exception) significantly contributed to the prediction of teaching styles beyond the three control variables. These contributions Table 1 Zero-order correlation coefficients: TSTI and NEO-FFI scales with teacher characteristics Inventory
Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory
Scales
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
Global
Local
Liberal
Conservative
N
NEO Five-Factor Inventory E
O
A
C
Age Gender Education P.S.Q. P.P.C.P.
.02 .02 .18* .19* .04
.13 .04 .21* .02 .09
.10 .01 .14 .19 .09
.11 .18* .02 .10 .05
.11 .07 .18* .00 .02
.02 .01 .17* .24** .09
.03 .17* .24** .02 .10
.05 .01 .14 .09 .11
.13 .13 .04 .14 .08
.07 .10 .24** .04 .04
.02 .17* .07 .14 .05
.13 .07 .03 .03 .00
Notes: Coding for gender: male as 1 and female as 2; Education = educational level; P.S.Q. = Perception of quality of students taught; P.P.C.P. = Perception of prospect for career promotion; N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. * p < .05.
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
675
Table 2 Summary of hierarchical multiple regressions of personality traits on teaching styles, controlling for gender, educational level, and perceptions of the quality of students (N = 157) Teaching Style
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
Local
Liberal
Conservative
R2Total R2GþELþPQ R2Personality traits
.15 .06 .09 ** .30C
.15 .06 .09 ** .31O
.25 .14 .11 *** .33O
4.68** 4, 107
.15 .06 .09 ** .24O * .19E 3.80** 5, 106
.20 .09 .11 *** .33C
4.64** 4, 103
.12 .04 .08 ** .34C ** .24A 2.77* 5, 103
6.62*** 4, 106
8.81*** 4, 107
b1 b2 F DfL
Note: L = List wise cases exclusion was used; G + EL + PQ = Gender, Educational Level, and Perceptions of the Quality of students. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
ranged from 8% to 11%. The strongest predictors for teaching styles were the openness and conscientiousness personality traits. As predicted, the openness scale negatively predicted all three Type II teaching styles, while the conscientiousness scale positively predicted three of the four Type I styles. Both the agreeableness scale and the extraversion scale (remember that no specific relationships were anticipated of these two personality traits with particular teaching styles) turned out to be secondary predictors for teaching styles. Agreeableness negatively contributed to the prediction of the judicial teaching style, while extraversion positively contributed to the local teaching style. Detailed results are presented in Table 2. Three sets of the anticipated relationships were not found. These are (a) the positive relationship between the openness scale and Type I styles, (b) the positive relationship between the conscientiousness scale and Type II styles, and (c) the relationship of the neuroticism scale to both Type I and Type II styles.
4. Discussion The primary objective of this study was to investigate if personality traits have incremental validity beyond some of the overt teacher characteristics (i.e., age, gender, and educational level) as well as a less overt variable (perceptions of work environments) in predicting teaching styles. This investigation has resulted in meaningful findings. For example, in general, teachers who had received higher levels of education were significantly more creative in their teaching (Type I styles), but significantly less conservative in their teaching (Type II styles) than were teachers who had reported lower levels of education. There is a plausible explanation of this result. Not only could teachers with more education be more confident in themselves, but also in conducting their educational practices creatively, they have more resources to draw upon. On the contrary, those with less education may be less confident in themselves and may have fewer resources upon
676
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
which they could draw. As a result, what is safe to do for teachers with less education is to teach conservatively. Also for instance, it was found that teachers who perceived their students more positively tended to report that they used Type I teaching styles more often than did teachers who perceived their students less positively. One possible explanation of this result is also obvious. When teachers are more confident in their students, they would naturally teach more creatively because part of this confidence may be translated into the teachers’ belief that students can be more receptive of their creative teaching and that teachers do not need to teach in the same old fashion. By contrast, teachers with less confidence in their students would tend to ‘‘play safe’’ by teaching less creatively, assuming that students may not be quick in responding to creative teaching styles. Furthermore, the study revealed that teachers’ personality traits played a significant role in their teaching styles beyond their gender, educational level, and their perceptions of the quality of their students. Although not all predicted relationships were obtained, those obtained were all in the anticipated directions. These significant predictive relationships are more likely to be true than to have been found by statistical chances. There are at least two reasons for such a claim. First, the statistically significant results were obtained under the condition that some of the most common teacher characteristics affecting teaching styles have been taken into account. Second, the significant relationships found make substantive sense. Consider the following examples. First, the study found a significantly positive relationship between conscientiousness and three of the four Type I styles (legislative, judicial, and liberal). As described earlier, one of the major characteristics of being conscientious is to be purposeful, responsible, and strong-willed. It is not surprising that a teacher with a strong conscientiousness personality trait would use Type I teaching styles. A conscientious teacher would keep striving for increasingly effective teaching. To do so, one would need to try all means and exhaust all resources (a clear indication of being conscientious) in conducting creative teaching, among which, using such creativity-generating teaching styles as the legislative, the judicial, and the liberal styles could be one. Second, the study revealed a significantly negative relationship between the openness scale and all three Type II styles. By definition, an individual high on openness is likely to be open-minded and imaginative, as well as to have a strong preference for variety. These characteristics are directly opposite to those that would be exhibited by a teacher with Type II teaching styles. Further by definition, an individual who scores high on the openness scale also tends to be less conservative and traditional. Thus, it makes logical sense that a teacher with a strong openness personality trait would tend not to use Type II teaching styles. As a final example, a significantly negative relationship was identified between the judicial teaching style and agreeableness. Although this relationship was not conjectured at the outset of this study, it is easily explainable. By definition, a more agreeable individual tends to be more accepting; vice versa, a less agreeable individual tends to be less accepting. Teachers who are less accepting would tend to be more analytical and critical in their teaching (characteristic of the judicial style). Of course, three caveats should be made. First, some of the anticipated findings were not obtained. For example, theoretically, one would imagine that conscientious teachers would take great care prioritizing various tasks in teaching (i.e., more hierarchical). However, it is not clear why such a relationship was not found. Second, some of the findings are hard to explain. For in-
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
677
stance, why would extraversion predict the local style? Such mysteries await further investigations. Finally, it should be noted that none of the above findings discussed should be interpreted as a causal effect of personality traits on the development of teaching styles. Such causality can only be established through experimental and longitudinal data.
5. Limitations, conclusions, and implications Manifestly, a study such as the present one has its limitations that leave its results suggestive, and not definitive. First, the sample was only composed of teachers from two schools in a cosmopolitan area in mainland China. As such, the sample was not representative of the general population of school teachers, and therefore, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the context in which the research was conducted. Second, the results are obtained solely from self-report data. It is widely recognized that self-report data are not always highly consistent with data obtained through behavioral measures. Third, both the absence of evidence for the three sets of anticipated relationships and the lower alpha coefficient for the openness scale suggest a need for further investigations. Despite these limitations, the present study contributes to the growing body of literature on both personality and intellectual styles in two major ways. First, it extended the external validity of the Chinese versions of both the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory. Second and more importantly, for the first time, a set of theory-based teaching styles were tested against the personality trait construct defined in the Big Five model. The study found a meaningful link between teachers’ personality traits and their teaching styles. Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude that the Big Five personality traits continue to be a highly significant predictor for teaching styles after the potential confounding effects of the teacher characteristics examined were controlled. This finding is in tune with Phillips, Carlisle, Hautala, and Larson’s (1985) prediction that an individual’s composite of basic personality traits should contribute to any teacher’s teaching behavior. As a chief manifestation of teaching behaviors, teaching styles were found to be statistically predicted by personality traits in the present study. Yet, given that there is no relevant cross-cultural study using the TSTI, whether or not the present findings can be generalized to other cultures remains to be seen. Again, one would have to answer the ultimate question of ‘‘so what?’’ Given the results of the present study, knowing that personality traits matter in teaching styles, and accepting the view that personality traits are less easily altered (see Phillips et al., 1985), what can one do? The author would argue that at the very least, this finding should be used to raise the awareness of both teachers and administrators at schools. Both school teachers and administrators should realize that many factors, including teachers’ personality traits predispose teachers to using certain teaching styles. For this reason, both teachers and administrators should accept the fact that teachers will have different teaching styles. Moreover, teachers should be conscious of the relationship between personality traits and teaching styles because such a relationship may not only affect their teaching behaviors (e.g., Kagan & Smith, 1988), but also have significant impact on the way students learn (e.g., Blanch, 2001; Lange, 1973). Whereas personality traits are not easily changed, teaching styles have been empirically proved to be modifiable (see Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). Therefore, one of the strategies that
678
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
teachers can take is to systematically alternate their teaching styles. Using a variety of teaching styles should not only increase teachers’ flexibility of thinking and reduce the restrictiveness of habitual thinking, but also expand students’ learning modes. Acknowledgement I would like to thank the support of the Committee on Research and Conference Grants as administered by the University of Hong Kong. Appendix Teaching styles in the theory of mental self-government Style type
Teaching style
Key characteristics
Type I
Legislative
One prefers to teach with creative strategies; one prefers that students choose their own activities One prefers to put in one’s own evaluation while teaching; one prefers to provide students with the opportunities to evaluate and judge the products and/or performance of other people One prefers to place emphasis on the overall picture of an issue and on abstract ideas while teaching or assessing students One prefers to conduct teaching that involves novelty and ambiguity
Judicial
Global Liberal Type II
Executive
Local Conservative
One prefers to teach within clear guidelines and structures; one prefers to see that students implement tasks with established procedures One prefers to place emphasis on tasks that require working with concrete details while teaching or assessing students One prefers to conduct teaching by adhering to the existing rules and procedures
References Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336–355. Blanch, P. E. D. (2001). Teaching styles of faculty and learning styles of their students: Congruent versus incongruent teaching styles with regards to academic disciplines and gender. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(10-A), 3869. Borg, M. G., & Riding, R. J. (1993). Teacher stress and cognitive style. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(2), 271–286. Briggs, K. C., & Myers, I. B. (1988). Myers–Briggs Type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Conwell, C. R., Helgeson, S. L., & Wachowiak, D. G. (1987). The effect of matching and mismatching cognitive style and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(8), 713–722.
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
679
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck personality inventory. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Furnham, A. (1996). The FIRO-B, the learning style questionnaire and the five-factor model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(2), 285–299. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University. Kagan, D. M., & Smith, K. E. (1988). Beliefs and behaviours of kindergarten teachers. Educational Research, 30(1), 26–35. Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Thinking styles in creative writers and journalists. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section B): The Sciences and Engineering, 62(3B), 1069. Lange, C. M. (1973). A study of the effects on learning of matching the cognitive styles of students and instructors in nursing education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(9-A), 4742–4743. Lawrence, M. V. M. (1997). Secondary school teachers and learning style preferences: Action or watching in the classroom. Educational Psychology, 17(1–2), 157–170. Mahlios, M. (1981). Effects of cognitive style on patterns of dyadic classroom interaction. Journal of Experimental Education, 49, 147–157. Phillips, D. A., Carlisle, C. S., Hautala, R., & Larson, R. (1985). Personality traits and teacher–student behaviors in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 408–416. Riding, R. J., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on learning performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297–307. Saucier, G. (1998). Replicable item-cluster subcomponents in the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(2), 263–276. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197–224. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking Styles Inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1995). Styles of thinking in the school. European Journal for High Ability, 6, 201–219. Taylor, A., & MacDonald, D. A. (1999). Religion and the five factor model of personality: An exploratory investigation using a Canadian university sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1243–1259. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84. Zhang, L. F. (2001). Approaches and thinking styles in teaching. Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 547–561. Zhang, L. F. (2002). Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring personality traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 445–458. Zhang, L. F., & Huang, J. F. (2001). Thinking styles and the five-factor model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 465–476. Zhang, L. F., & Sachs, J. (1997). Assessing thinking styles in the theory of mental self-government: A Hong Kong validity study. Psychological Reports, 81, 915–928. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Thinking styles and teacher characteristics. International Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 3–12. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Do personality traits make a difference in teaching styles among Chinese high school teachers? Li-fang Zhang
*
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong Received 25 April 2006; received in revised form 12 January 2007 Available online 12 March 2007
Abstract This research pioneered the investigation of the predictive power of personality traits for teachers’ teaching styles. Participants were 157 teachers from two senior-high schools in the People’s Republic of China. Results indicated that teachers’ personality traits as measured by Costa and McCrae (1992) NEO Five-Factor Inventory significantly contributed to teachers’ teaching styles as assessed by the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (Grigorenko and Sternberg, 1993) over and above their gender, educational level, and perceptions of the quality of the students they were teaching. Practical implications of this finding are proposed for school teachers and administrators. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Personality traits; Teacher characteristics; Teaching styles
1. Introduction Intellectual styles, an all-encompassing term for such constructs as cognitive styles, learning styles, and thinking styles, are generally defined as people’s preferred ways of processing information and dealing with tasks (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). As an individual-difference variable among teachers, intellectual styles have also been widely examined. *
Tel./fax: +852 2859 2522. E-mail address: [email protected]
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.009
670
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
The investigation of teachers’ intellectual styles was motivated by the belief that student learning outcome could be improved by matching teaching styles with learning styles (or vice versa). Consequently, from the very beginning, research involving teachers has not been focused on teachers’ intellectual styles as they relate to teachers’ characteristics, but rather, on the impact of teachers’ styles or of teacher–student style match/mismatch upon student learning outcome (e.g., Riding & Douglas, 1993), classroom instruction (e.g., Mahlios, 1981), and students’ reactions to specific learning activities (e.g., Conwell, Helgeson, & Wachowiak, 1987). Several studies (e.g., Borg & Riding, 1993; Lawrence, 1997) have considered the basic teacher characteristics (e.g., gender, subject area taught, grade level taught, and length of teaching experience) that possibly make a difference in teachers’ intellectual styles. However, these studies cannot answer the question of what affect teachers’ intellectual styles as they are manifested in the teaching context, that is, teaching styles. The reason is that the style measures used in these studies are designed to assess people’s intellectual styles in general contexts, but not to investigate teachers’ intellectual styles in specific teaching contexts. A careful reading into the literature on intellectual styles revealed that only two of the many intellectual style models have been examined in the teaching context: Sternberg’s (1988, 1997) theory of thinking styles and Trigwell, Prosser, and Taylor’s (1994) theory of teaching approaches. Because the present study is grounded in the former theory, relevant research based on the former is introduced. Some teacher characteristics relevant to teachers’ teaching styles based on Sternberg’s theory have been investigated in the United States and in Hong Kong. For example, among American school teachers, Sternberg and Grigorenko (1995) found that older teachers were more conservative in their teaching styles than were younger teachers. Science teachers tended to be more conservative than did humanities teachers. In Hong Kong, Zhang and her colleagues (e.g., Zhang & Sachs, 1997; Zhang & Sternberg, 2002) identified that less experienced teachers tended to report more frequently the use of creative teaching styles than did teachers with more teaching experience. Furthermore, teachers who perceived their work environments more positively were more creative in their teaching styles than were teachers who perceived their work environments less positively. No doubt, the above research has provided certain clues to the influence of teacher characteristics on teaching styles. Yet, all variables investigated to date are overt teacher characteristics (e.g., age, gender, and educational level) that have no theoretical basis. Does a more covert psychological variable such as the construct of personality trait have significant impact on teachers’ teaching styles? Some scholars (e.g., Furnham, 1996) argued that style is a sub-set of personality and needs not be measured independently, unless when style is of interest in its own right. This study attempts to provide insights into the relations of personality traits as defined by Costa and McCrae’s (1985, 1992) Big Five personality factors to teaching styles as defined in Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government. 1.1. Costa and McCrae’s model of Big Five personality traits and its research Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are known as the Big Five personality traits in psychology. The five-factor personality traits model (FFM) resulted from several decades of factor analytic research focusing on trait personality
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
671
(see Antonioni, 1998). The FFM has aroused the interest of many personality psychologists. The work of Costa and McCrae (1985, 1992) is one of the most noteworthy. The authors described the five personality traits as follows: Neuroticism is the opposite of emotional stability. People high on neuroticism tend to experience such negative feelings as embarrassment, pessimism, and low self-esteem. People high on extraversion tend to be sociable and assertive. Openness to experience is characterized by such attributes as open-mindedness, active imagination, and independence of judgment. People high on agreeableness tend to be tolerant, trusting, and easily moved. Finally, people high on conscientiousness tend to distinguish themselves for their trustworthiness and for their sense of purposefulness and of responsibility. The NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI, Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992) measures the five personality traits. According to Taylor and MacDonald (1999), the NEO-PI has not only demonstrated good psychometric properties, but also been successful in accommodating constructs that are already measured by existing tests of personality traits (e.g., the Myers–Briggs type indicator, Briggs & Myers, 1988). Furthermore, the NEO-PI also has been proved to be associated with the Eysenck personality inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964), one of the most well-established assessment tools for studying personality. A brief version of the NEO-PI is the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which also has been successful in reliably measuring the five personality dimensions (e.g., Saucier, 1998). 1.2. Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government and its research Sternberg (1988, 1997) contended that just as there are different ways of governing a society, there are different ways that people use their abilities. These preferred ways of using one’s abilities are construed as ‘‘thinking styles’’. According to Sternberg, there are 13 thinking styles that can be organized into five dimensions: functions, forms, levels, scopes, and leanings. Based on empirical data, Zhang and Sternberg (2005) have reconceptualized the 13 styles into three types. Type I and Type II styles are relevant to this study, and thus are introduced. Type I thinking styles tend to be more creativity-generating and they denote higher levels of cognitive complexity, including the legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global, and liberal styles. Type II thinking styles suggest a norm-favoring tendency and they denote lower levels of cognitive complexity, including the executive, local, monarchic, and conservative styles. When thinking styles are applied to the teaching context, they are known as teaching styles. See Appendix for the definition of each style. Much empirical evidence supports the validity of the theory (e.g., Kaufman, 2001; Zhang & Sternberg, 2002). The two most frequently used inventories, the Thinking Styles Inventory (Sternberg & Wagner, 1992) and the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (TSTI, Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1993), have been proven to be reliable and valid for measuring the styles proposed in Sternberg’s theory (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). 1.3. The present study As discussed earlier, several studies of teacher characteristics in relation to teaching styles defined in the theory of mental self-government have been conducted. The present study extends the
672
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
previous studies by investigating the possible effects of personality traits on teachers’ teaching styles. Furthermore, this investigation delves into the possible incremental validity of personality traits beyond some of the teacher characteristics examined in previous studies (e.g., age, gender, educational level, and perceptions of work environments) in predicting teachers’ teaching styles. Based on the definition for each of the five personality traits and that for Type I and Type II teaching styles, the following predictions were made: The openness personality trait would positively contribute to Type I teaching styles, but negatively to Type II teaching styles. By contrast, the neuroticism personality trait would positively contribute to Type II teaching styles, but negatively to Type I teaching styles. Because people with the conscientiousness personality trait tend to be driven and strong-willed, they would try all means to pursue their goals tirelessly, by being both creative and conservative. As such, conscientiousness would positively contribute to both Type I and Type II teaching styles, despite the fact that the styles in the two types are polar opposites. No specific predictions were made on the relationships of agreeableness and extraversion to teaching styles as these relationships were not readily predictable. However, the general prediction was that all personality traits would statistically contribute to teaching styles beyond the teacher characteristics that have been found to be significantly related to teaching styles in previous studies.
2. Method 2.1. Participants Research participants were 157 (75 male and 82 female) teachers from two senior-high schools in Nanjing, the People’s Republic of China. With an average of 35 years, the teachers’ ages ranged from 21 to 59 years. Within this sample, seven teachers held a post-graduate certificate, 130 had a Bachelor’s degree, and the remaining 20 had a Master’s degree. These participants were teaching 14 different subject matters: arts, biology, chemistry, Chinese, English, geography, history, information technology, mathematics, physical education, physics, political science, psychological health, and working techniques. 2.2. Materials On a five-point Likert scale, teachers responded to two questions eliciting their perceptions about their work environments: prospect for career promotion and quality of students taught. Moreover, they took two self-report tests: the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1993) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), both in Chinese. 2.2.1. Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory The Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory is a 49-statement questionnaire in which participants rated themselves on a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting that the statement does not describe them at all, and 7 denoting that the statement describes them extremely well. The inventory assesses seven thinking styles as manifested in teaching (i.e., teaching styles): four Type I styles and three Type II styles. Two sample statements are (a) ‘‘I frequently assign students inde-
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
673
pendent projects’’ (Legislative style); and (b) ‘‘I prefer teaching the same subject and same class level every year’’ (Conservative style). 2.2.2. NEO Five-Factor Inventory Composed of 60 statements, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory is a brief measure of the five personality dimensions. Each of the five dimensions is assessed by 12 statements. For each statement, the participants rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 0 to 4, with verbal anchors of strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. The statements are scored in both directions. 2.3. Procedures Although all participants were recruited through the school principals, the specific procedures in which the data were collected differed for the two schools. In the first school, questionnaires were handed out to 80 volunteer teachers (teaching at all 3 class levels) at the end of a meeting. Completed questionnaires (n = 68, 85%) were collected on the spot. In the second school, volunteer teacher participants teaching the first- and second-year students received the questionnaires from their head teachers (one for each class level), respectively. Completed questionnaires (n = 89, out of 100) were returned to the head teachers over the period of one working week. 2.4. Data analysis Estimates of internal consistency for the scales in the two inventories were obtained with Cronbach’s alpha. Zero-order correlations were calculated between the scales in the two inventories and the teacher characteristic variables: age, gender, educational level (as represented by the highest degree a teacher obtained), subject matters taught (social sciences and humanities versus natural sciences), and the two items concerning teachers’ perceptions of their work environments. Finally, hierarchical multiple-regression procedures were performed, with personality traits being the independent variables, teaching styles being the dependent variables, and the teacher characteristics that were significantly related to any of the scales in the two inventories serving as the control variables.
3. Results 3.1. Internal scale reliability The alpha coefficients for the seven TSTI scales are .80 (legislative), .81 (executive), .68 (judicial), .74 (global), .82 (local), .73 (liberal), and .79 (conservative). These alpha coefficients are similar in magnitude to those reported in existing studies (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995; Zhang, 2001; Zhang & Sternberg, 2002). Like in previous studies, the individual styles within each style type are significantly positively related, whereas the styles from across the two types are negatively related to one another. The test–retest reliability of the inventory, however, is yet to be established.
674
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
The alpha coefficients for the NEO-FFI scales are .75 (neuroticism), .76 (extraversion), .50 (openness), .75 (agreeableness), and .79 (conscientiousness). These coefficients are comparable in magnitude with those obtained in previous studies of Chinese students (Zhang, 2002; Zhang & Huang, 2001). Notice that the alpha coefficient for the openness scale is relatively low, as it was in previous studies of Chinese samples. Such a consistently lower alpha coefficient suggests a need for revising the items in the openness scale. Furthermore, neuroticism is significantly negatively correlated with the remaining four personality traits, while the latter (four traits) are positively related to one another, with some coefficients being statistically significant, and others insignificant. 3.2. Zero-order correlations between TSTI/NEO-FFI scales and teacher characteristics Calculation of the zero-order correlations between the scales from the two inventories and the different teacher characteristics resulted in the following: Females were less global and conservative, but more agreeable than were males. Teachers with higher educational degrees scored significantly higher on two of the Type I styles (legislative and liberal) and on the openness scale, but lower on all three Type II styles. Teachers who expressed more confidence about the quality of their students scored higher on the legislative and liberal styles. The correlation matrix is shown in Table 1. 3.3. Regressions of personality traits on teaching styles, controlling for teacher characteristics Given that teachers’ gender, educational level, and their perceptions of the quality of the students were significantly correlated with particular teaching styles and/or personality traits, the three variables were put under control when hierarchical multiple regressions were performed. Results suggested that six of the seven teaching styles (with the global teaching style being the exception) were statistically predicted by particular personality trait(s) beyond the teachers’ gender, educational level, and their perceptions of the quality of their students (occasionally referred to as the three control variables hereafter). Four of the five personality traits (with neuroticism being the exception) significantly contributed to the prediction of teaching styles beyond the three control variables. These contributions Table 1 Zero-order correlation coefficients: TSTI and NEO-FFI scales with teacher characteristics Inventory
Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory
Scales
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
Global
Local
Liberal
Conservative
N
NEO Five-Factor Inventory E
O
A
C
Age Gender Education P.S.Q. P.P.C.P.
.02 .02 .18* .19* .04
.13 .04 .21* .02 .09
.10 .01 .14 .19 .09
.11 .18* .02 .10 .05
.11 .07 .18* .00 .02
.02 .01 .17* .24** .09
.03 .17* .24** .02 .10
.05 .01 .14 .09 .11
.13 .13 .04 .14 .08
.07 .10 .24** .04 .04
.02 .17* .07 .14 .05
.13 .07 .03 .03 .00
Notes: Coding for gender: male as 1 and female as 2; Education = educational level; P.S.Q. = Perception of quality of students taught; P.P.C.P. = Perception of prospect for career promotion; N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. * p < .05.
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
675
Table 2 Summary of hierarchical multiple regressions of personality traits on teaching styles, controlling for gender, educational level, and perceptions of the quality of students (N = 157) Teaching Style
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
Local
Liberal
Conservative
R2Total R2GþELþPQ R2Personality traits
.15 .06 .09 ** .30C
.15 .06 .09 ** .31O
.25 .14 .11 *** .33O
4.68** 4, 107
.15 .06 .09 ** .24O * .19E 3.80** 5, 106
.20 .09 .11 *** .33C
4.64** 4, 103
.12 .04 .08 ** .34C ** .24A 2.77* 5, 103
6.62*** 4, 106
8.81*** 4, 107
b1 b2 F DfL
Note: L = List wise cases exclusion was used; G + EL + PQ = Gender, Educational Level, and Perceptions of the Quality of students. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
ranged from 8% to 11%. The strongest predictors for teaching styles were the openness and conscientiousness personality traits. As predicted, the openness scale negatively predicted all three Type II teaching styles, while the conscientiousness scale positively predicted three of the four Type I styles. Both the agreeableness scale and the extraversion scale (remember that no specific relationships were anticipated of these two personality traits with particular teaching styles) turned out to be secondary predictors for teaching styles. Agreeableness negatively contributed to the prediction of the judicial teaching style, while extraversion positively contributed to the local teaching style. Detailed results are presented in Table 2. Three sets of the anticipated relationships were not found. These are (a) the positive relationship between the openness scale and Type I styles, (b) the positive relationship between the conscientiousness scale and Type II styles, and (c) the relationship of the neuroticism scale to both Type I and Type II styles.
4. Discussion The primary objective of this study was to investigate if personality traits have incremental validity beyond some of the overt teacher characteristics (i.e., age, gender, and educational level) as well as a less overt variable (perceptions of work environments) in predicting teaching styles. This investigation has resulted in meaningful findings. For example, in general, teachers who had received higher levels of education were significantly more creative in their teaching (Type I styles), but significantly less conservative in their teaching (Type II styles) than were teachers who had reported lower levels of education. There is a plausible explanation of this result. Not only could teachers with more education be more confident in themselves, but also in conducting their educational practices creatively, they have more resources to draw upon. On the contrary, those with less education may be less confident in themselves and may have fewer resources upon
676
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
which they could draw. As a result, what is safe to do for teachers with less education is to teach conservatively. Also for instance, it was found that teachers who perceived their students more positively tended to report that they used Type I teaching styles more often than did teachers who perceived their students less positively. One possible explanation of this result is also obvious. When teachers are more confident in their students, they would naturally teach more creatively because part of this confidence may be translated into the teachers’ belief that students can be more receptive of their creative teaching and that teachers do not need to teach in the same old fashion. By contrast, teachers with less confidence in their students would tend to ‘‘play safe’’ by teaching less creatively, assuming that students may not be quick in responding to creative teaching styles. Furthermore, the study revealed that teachers’ personality traits played a significant role in their teaching styles beyond their gender, educational level, and their perceptions of the quality of their students. Although not all predicted relationships were obtained, those obtained were all in the anticipated directions. These significant predictive relationships are more likely to be true than to have been found by statistical chances. There are at least two reasons for such a claim. First, the statistically significant results were obtained under the condition that some of the most common teacher characteristics affecting teaching styles have been taken into account. Second, the significant relationships found make substantive sense. Consider the following examples. First, the study found a significantly positive relationship between conscientiousness and three of the four Type I styles (legislative, judicial, and liberal). As described earlier, one of the major characteristics of being conscientious is to be purposeful, responsible, and strong-willed. It is not surprising that a teacher with a strong conscientiousness personality trait would use Type I teaching styles. A conscientious teacher would keep striving for increasingly effective teaching. To do so, one would need to try all means and exhaust all resources (a clear indication of being conscientious) in conducting creative teaching, among which, using such creativity-generating teaching styles as the legislative, the judicial, and the liberal styles could be one. Second, the study revealed a significantly negative relationship between the openness scale and all three Type II styles. By definition, an individual high on openness is likely to be open-minded and imaginative, as well as to have a strong preference for variety. These characteristics are directly opposite to those that would be exhibited by a teacher with Type II teaching styles. Further by definition, an individual who scores high on the openness scale also tends to be less conservative and traditional. Thus, it makes logical sense that a teacher with a strong openness personality trait would tend not to use Type II teaching styles. As a final example, a significantly negative relationship was identified between the judicial teaching style and agreeableness. Although this relationship was not conjectured at the outset of this study, it is easily explainable. By definition, a more agreeable individual tends to be more accepting; vice versa, a less agreeable individual tends to be less accepting. Teachers who are less accepting would tend to be more analytical and critical in their teaching (characteristic of the judicial style). Of course, three caveats should be made. First, some of the anticipated findings were not obtained. For example, theoretically, one would imagine that conscientious teachers would take great care prioritizing various tasks in teaching (i.e., more hierarchical). However, it is not clear why such a relationship was not found. Second, some of the findings are hard to explain. For in-
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
677
stance, why would extraversion predict the local style? Such mysteries await further investigations. Finally, it should be noted that none of the above findings discussed should be interpreted as a causal effect of personality traits on the development of teaching styles. Such causality can only be established through experimental and longitudinal data.
5. Limitations, conclusions, and implications Manifestly, a study such as the present one has its limitations that leave its results suggestive, and not definitive. First, the sample was only composed of teachers from two schools in a cosmopolitan area in mainland China. As such, the sample was not representative of the general population of school teachers, and therefore, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the context in which the research was conducted. Second, the results are obtained solely from self-report data. It is widely recognized that self-report data are not always highly consistent with data obtained through behavioral measures. Third, both the absence of evidence for the three sets of anticipated relationships and the lower alpha coefficient for the openness scale suggest a need for further investigations. Despite these limitations, the present study contributes to the growing body of literature on both personality and intellectual styles in two major ways. First, it extended the external validity of the Chinese versions of both the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory. Second and more importantly, for the first time, a set of theory-based teaching styles were tested against the personality trait construct defined in the Big Five model. The study found a meaningful link between teachers’ personality traits and their teaching styles. Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude that the Big Five personality traits continue to be a highly significant predictor for teaching styles after the potential confounding effects of the teacher characteristics examined were controlled. This finding is in tune with Phillips, Carlisle, Hautala, and Larson’s (1985) prediction that an individual’s composite of basic personality traits should contribute to any teacher’s teaching behavior. As a chief manifestation of teaching behaviors, teaching styles were found to be statistically predicted by personality traits in the present study. Yet, given that there is no relevant cross-cultural study using the TSTI, whether or not the present findings can be generalized to other cultures remains to be seen. Again, one would have to answer the ultimate question of ‘‘so what?’’ Given the results of the present study, knowing that personality traits matter in teaching styles, and accepting the view that personality traits are less easily altered (see Phillips et al., 1985), what can one do? The author would argue that at the very least, this finding should be used to raise the awareness of both teachers and administrators at schools. Both school teachers and administrators should realize that many factors, including teachers’ personality traits predispose teachers to using certain teaching styles. For this reason, both teachers and administrators should accept the fact that teachers will have different teaching styles. Moreover, teachers should be conscious of the relationship between personality traits and teaching styles because such a relationship may not only affect their teaching behaviors (e.g., Kagan & Smith, 1988), but also have significant impact on the way students learn (e.g., Blanch, 2001; Lange, 1973). Whereas personality traits are not easily changed, teaching styles have been empirically proved to be modifiable (see Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). Therefore, one of the strategies that
678
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
teachers can take is to systematically alternate their teaching styles. Using a variety of teaching styles should not only increase teachers’ flexibility of thinking and reduce the restrictiveness of habitual thinking, but also expand students’ learning modes. Acknowledgement I would like to thank the support of the Committee on Research and Conference Grants as administered by the University of Hong Kong. Appendix Teaching styles in the theory of mental self-government Style type
Teaching style
Key characteristics
Type I
Legislative
One prefers to teach with creative strategies; one prefers that students choose their own activities One prefers to put in one’s own evaluation while teaching; one prefers to provide students with the opportunities to evaluate and judge the products and/or performance of other people One prefers to place emphasis on the overall picture of an issue and on abstract ideas while teaching or assessing students One prefers to conduct teaching that involves novelty and ambiguity
Judicial
Global Liberal Type II
Executive
Local Conservative
One prefers to teach within clear guidelines and structures; one prefers to see that students implement tasks with established procedures One prefers to place emphasis on tasks that require working with concrete details while teaching or assessing students One prefers to conduct teaching by adhering to the existing rules and procedures
References Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336–355. Blanch, P. E. D. (2001). Teaching styles of faculty and learning styles of their students: Congruent versus incongruent teaching styles with regards to academic disciplines and gender. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(10-A), 3869. Borg, M. G., & Riding, R. J. (1993). Teacher stress and cognitive style. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(2), 271–286. Briggs, K. C., & Myers, I. B. (1988). Myers–Briggs Type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Conwell, C. R., Helgeson, S. L., & Wachowiak, D. G. (1987). The effect of matching and mismatching cognitive style and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(8), 713–722.
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 669–679
679
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI-R: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck personality inventory. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Furnham, A. (1996). The FIRO-B, the learning style questionnaire and the five-factor model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(2), 285–299. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University. Kagan, D. M., & Smith, K. E. (1988). Beliefs and behaviours of kindergarten teachers. Educational Research, 30(1), 26–35. Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Thinking styles in creative writers and journalists. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section B): The Sciences and Engineering, 62(3B), 1069. Lange, C. M. (1973). A study of the effects on learning of matching the cognitive styles of students and instructors in nursing education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(9-A), 4742–4743. Lawrence, M. V. M. (1997). Secondary school teachers and learning style preferences: Action or watching in the classroom. Educational Psychology, 17(1–2), 157–170. Mahlios, M. (1981). Effects of cognitive style on patterns of dyadic classroom interaction. Journal of Experimental Education, 49, 147–157. Phillips, D. A., Carlisle, C. S., Hautala, R., & Larson, R. (1985). Personality traits and teacher–student behaviors in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 408–416. Riding, R. J., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on learning performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297–307. Saucier, G. (1998). Replicable item-cluster subcomponents in the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(2), 263–276. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197–224. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking Styles Inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1995). Styles of thinking in the school. European Journal for High Ability, 6, 201–219. Taylor, A., & MacDonald, D. A. (1999). Religion and the five factor model of personality: An exploratory investigation using a Canadian university sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1243–1259. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84. Zhang, L. F. (2001). Approaches and thinking styles in teaching. Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 547–561. Zhang, L. F. (2002). Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring personality traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 445–458. Zhang, L. F., & Huang, J. F. (2001). Thinking styles and the five-factor model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 465–476. Zhang, L. F., & Sachs, J. (1997). Assessing thinking styles in the theory of mental self-government: A Hong Kong validity study. Psychological Reports, 81, 915–928. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Thinking styles and teacher characteristics. International Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 3–12. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.