Active learning in higher education is not the same experience for all students. The studies in this paper examine the relationship of personality traits to student responses to an active learning pedagogy, Reacting to the Past. We predicted relationships between specific personality traits and outcomes related to student efficacy, perceived learning, and engagement. Study 1: 135 students from a university in the United States completed the Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Honesty/Humility scales of the HEXACO and measures of self-efficacy, enjoyment, engagement, and perceived learning. Extraversion was associated with all outcomes, and Openness was related to academic self-efficacy and reported enjoyment. Study 2: 211 students from three institutions in the United States completed the Big Five Inventory and the same outcome measures. Extraversion and Conscientiousness were related to all outcomes, Openness was associated with self-efficacy, perceived learning, and engagement. The results of the studies presented here suggest that all students do not respond similarly to the active learning experience and that their personalities play a role in their learning and engagement with such pedagogies. Instructors should consider student individual differences when designing active learning experiences. Above all, support should be given to introverted students, so that they engage and more fully benefit from active learning activities, and strategies should be developed to engage and facilitate the learning of less conscientious students.
AguillonS. M.SiegmundG.PetipasR. H.DrakeA. G.CotnerS.BallenC. J. (2020). Gender differences in student participation in an active learning classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19, ar12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048
2.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
3.
BallenC. J.WiemanC.SalehiS.SearleJ. B.ZamudioK. R. (2017). Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344
4.
BaroniF.LazzariM. (2022). Universal design for learning at university: Technologies, blended learning and teaching methods. In GarofoloI.BenciniG.ArenghiA. (Eds.), Transforming our world through universal design for human development (pp. 541–548). IOS Press Ebooks. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/SHTI220885.
5.
BarzilaiS.BlauI. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, 70, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.003
6.
BeckersonW. C.AndersonJ. O.PerpichJ. D.Yoder-HimesD. (2020). An introvert’s perspective: Analyzing the impact of active learning on multiple levels of class social personalities in an upper level biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(3), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst20_049_03_47
7.
BidjeranoT.DaiD. Y. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001
8.
BledsoeR.MaynardL.RichardsonD. (2018). The crowded streets of Paris: Using Reacting to the Past games in less than ideal situations. In WatsonC. E.HagoodT. C. (Eds.), Playing to learn with Reacting to the Past: Research on high impact, active learning practices (pp. 41–73). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61747-3
9.
BledsoeR.RichardsonD. (2022). Impact of Reacting to the Past and effect of role on student attributes and academic outcomes. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 33(3), 361–373. https://isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE4070.pdf
10.
BrownA. O.WatsonK. A.LiuJ.OrabiI. I.RencisJ. J.ChenC.AkashehF.WoodJ. J.JacksonK. S.HackettR. K.SargentE. R.DunlapB.WejmarC. A.CrawfordR. H.JensenD. D. (2014, June15–18). Assessment of active learning modules: An update in research findings [Conference session]. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana (pp. 1–31). https://peer.asee.org/assessment-of-active-learning-modules-an-update-on-research-findings
11.
BusatoV. V.PrinsF. J.ElshoutJ. J.HamakerC. (1998). The relation between learning styles, the Big Five personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00112-3
12.
BusatoV. V.PrinsF. J.ElshoutJ. J.HamakerC. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(6), 1057–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00253-6
CaspiA.ChajutE.SaportaK.Beyth-MaromR. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003
15.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.FurnhamA. (2003a). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0
16.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.FurnhamA. (2003b). Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.473
17.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.FurnhamA.DissouG.HeavenP. (2005). Personality and preference for academic assessment: A study with Australian university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(4), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.02.002
18.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.FurnhamA.LewisM. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(3), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.001
19.
CiorbeaI.PasaricaF. (2013). The study of the relationship between personality and academic performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 400–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.319
20.
CohenM.BuzinskiS. G.Armstrong-CarterE.ClarkJ.BuckB.ReumanL. (2019). Think, pair, freeze: The association between social anxiety and student discomfort in the active learning environment. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 5(4), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000147
21.
ConardM. A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(3), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.10.003
22.
CsíkszentmihályiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
23.
DeslauriersL.McCartyL.MillerK.CallaghanK.KestinG. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
DžuburA.LisicaD.AbdulahovićD.EjubovićM. (2020). Impact of social and psychological factors on academic achievement of university students. Medicinski Glasnik, 17(1), 234–238. https://doi.org/10.17392/1080-20
26.
EddyS. L.BrownellS. E.ThummaphanP.LanM.WenderothM. P. (2015). Caution, student experience may vary: Social identities impact a student’s experience in peer discussions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-05-0108
27.
EmersonT.EnglishL.McGoldrickK. (2016). Cooperative learning and personality types. International Review of Economics Education, 21, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2015.12.003.
28.
FarsidesT.WoodfieldR. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: The roles of personality, intelligence, and application. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1225–1243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00111-3
29.
FelderR. M.FelderG. N.DietzE. J. (2002). The effects of personality type on engineering student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00667.x
30.
FlanaganK. M.AddyH. (2019). Introverts are not disadvantaged in group-based active learning classrooms. Bioscene, 45, 33–41. https://www.acube.org/bioscene/2019_1.pdf
31.
FurnhamA.MedhurstS. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour: A study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00026-3
32.
GreenR. L.MilacciF.RichardsJ. (2019). Breaking the silence: A phenomenological study of introverted undergraduate students’ experiences in an active learning English classroom. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 14(1), 12–24.
33.
HaakD. C.HilleRisLambersJ.PitreE.FreemanS. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213–1216. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820
34.
HagoodT. C.WatsonC. E.WilliamsB. M. (2018). Reacting to the Past: An introduction to its scholarly foundation. In WatsonC. E.HagoodT. C. (Eds.), Playing to learn with reacting to the past: Research on high impact, active learning practices (pp. 1–16). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61747-3
35.
HandelsmanM. M.BriggsW. L.SullivanN.TowlerA. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184–192. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
36.
HigbeeM. (2008). How Reacting to the Past games ‘made me want to come to class and learn’: An assessment of the Reacting pedagogy at EMU, 2007–2008. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at EMU, 2(1), 41–75. https://commons.emich.edu/sotl/vol2/iss1/4
37.
HonickeT.BroadbentJ. (2016). The relation of academic self-efficacy to university student academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002
38.
JensenM. (2015). Personality traits, learning and academic achievements. Journal of Education and Learning, 4(4), 91–118. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v4n4p91
39.
JohnO. P.NaumannL. P.SotoC. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). The Guilford Press.
40.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). The Guilford Press.
41.
KimJ.LeeA.RyuH. (2013). Personality and its effects on learning performance: Design guidelines for an adaptive e-learning system based on a user model. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 43(5), 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2013.03.001
42.
LammK. W.SheikhE.CarterH. S.LammA. J. (2017). Predicting undergraduate leadership student goal orientation using personality traits. Journal of Leadership Education, 16, 8–33. https://doi.org/10.12806/V16/I1/R2
43.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.016
44.
LeiH.CuiY.ZhouW. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
45.
LudolphP. (2023). Measuring critical thinking in Reacting to the Past. Teaching History: A Journal of Methods, 48(1) 91-105. https://doi.org/10.33043/TH.48.1.91-105
46.
MansoorS.MansoorT. (2018). Correlation of personality and learning styles of students with their academic performance. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal, 68(4), 963–968. https://pafmj.org/index.php/PAFMJ/article/view/53
MurphyL.EduljeeN. B.CroteauK.ParkmanS. (2020). Relationship between personality type and preferred teaching methods for undergraduate college students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i1.690
49.
NoftleE. E.RobinsR. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116
50.
NorooziO.AlqassabM.Taghizadeh KermanN.BanihashemS. K.PanaderoE. (2024). Does perception mean learning? Insights from an online peer feedback setting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2345669
PawlowskaD. K.WestermanJ. W.BergmanS. M.HuelsmanT. J. (2014). Student personality, classroom environment, and student outcomes: A person–environment fit analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.005
53.
PoropatA. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
54.
RichardsonM.AbrahamC.BondR. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
55.
RogersS.GronsethS. L. (2021). Applying UDL to online active learning: Instructional designer perceptions. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.59668/223.3748
56.
RosanderP.BäckströmM.StenbergG. (2011). Personality traits and general intelligence as predictors of academic performance: A structural equation modelling approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 590–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.004
57.
RuchW.BruntschR.WagnerL. (2017). The role of character traits in economic games. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.007
58.
SchultC. A.LindinskyA.ZwickerL. F.DunnE. E. (2018). Strengthening students’ self-efficacy through Reacting to the Past. In WatsonC. E.HagoodT. C. (Eds.), Playing to learn with Reacting to the Past: Research on high impact, active learning practices (pp. 75–89). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61747-3
59.
SitzmannT.ElyK.BrownK. G.BauerK. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.9.2.zqr169
StroessnerS. J.BeckermanL. S.WhittakerA. (2009). All the world’s a stage? Consequences of a role-playing pedagogy on psychological factors and writing and rhetorical skill in college undergraduates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015055
62.
TheobaldE. J.HillM. J.TranE.AgrawalS.ArroyoE. N.BehlingS.ChambweN.CintronD. L.CooperJ. D.DunsterG.GrummerJ. A.HennesseyK.HsiaoJ.IranonN.JonesL.JordtH.KellerM.LaceyM. E.LittlefieldC. E.. . . FreemanS. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 117(12), 6476-6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
WebbE. (1915). Character and intelligence: An attempt at an exact study of character. Cambridge University Press.
65.
WeidenfeldM. C.FernandezK. E. (2017). Does Reacting to the Past increase student engagement? An empirical evaluation of the use of historical simulations in teaching political theory. Journal of Political Science Education, 13(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016.1175948
66.
WojdakK.SmithM. K.OrndorfH.RamirezM. L. (2024). Evaluating universal design for learning and active learning strategies in biology open educational resources (OERs). Teaching & Learning Inquiry 12. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.12.20
67.
ZhaoK.FergusonE.SmillieL. D. (2017). Individual differences in good manners rather than compassion predict fair allocations of wealth in the dictator game. Journal of Personality, 85(2), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12237
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
