Teaching to Individual Differences in Science and Engineering Librarianship

Adapting Library Instruction to Learning Styles and Personality Characteristics

Jeanine Mary Williamson

• Publisher: Chandos Publishing
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9780081018828
• Topic: Lingue e linguistica
• Subtopic: Scienze dell'informazione e biblioteconomia

Teaching to Individual Differences in Science and Engineering Librarianship: Adapting Library Instruction to Learning Styles and Personality Characteristics applies learning styles and personality characteristics to science and engineering library instruction. After introducing the idea that individuals tend to choose college majors and occupations in alignment with their learning style and personality characteristics, the book presents background on the Kolb Learning Styles model, the 16 PF (Personality Factor) framework, and the Big Five/Narrow Traits personality framework. It then reviews extant knowledge on the learning styles and personality characteristics of scientists, engineers and librarians.

Next, the book considers general approaches to the personalization of instruction to learning styles and personality characteristics, opportunities for such personalization in science and engineering library instruction, and science and engineering librarian attitudes towards, and approaches to, this type of personalization of instruction.

• Best Publication Award - ASEE Engineering Library Division
• Considers teaching and individual differences within science and engineering librarianship
• Offers a balanced and critical account of the adaptation of library instruction to learning styles and personality characteristics
• Cites the dynamic instruction/adaptive teaching literature
• Discusses opportunities and suggestions for incorporating personalization into science and engineering library instruction

Chapter 1

Individual Differences

Abstract

Individual differences vary across people and distinguish them from one another. Learning styles and personality traits are meaningful differences for instruction and learning. Holland's theory of Person-Environment Fit (1997) explains that people tend to select and stay in environments that align with their personality traits. Similarly, learning styles tend to become accentuated in disciplines, leading to greater homogeneity in these groups. College majors and occupations both exhibit a degree of homogeneity with respect to personality traits and learning styles.

Keywords

Individual differences; Personality traits; Learning styles; Person-environment fit; Accentuation

1.1 Definitions of Individual Differences

Definitions of individual differences point out the reality of traits that distinguish individuals. For example, The Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007) defines individual differences in terms of enduring psychological characteristics.

Individual differences are the more-or-less enduring psychological characteristics that distinguish one person from another and thus help to define each person's individuality. Among the most important kinds of individual differences are intelligence, personality traits, and values. The study of individual differences is called differential or trait psychology and is more commonly the concern of personality psychologists than social psychologists. Individual differences are neither a fiction nor a nuisance; they are enduring psychological features that contribute to the shaping of behavior and to each individual's sense of self. Both social and applied psychology can benefit by taking these enduring dispositions into account.

The Sage Glossary of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Sullivan, 2009) has a definition of individual differences that is particularly geared to learning.

How individuals differ in traits such as skills, aptitudes, and abilities to learn and perform. Learners may vary in their personalities, motivations, and attributions for their successes and failures when learning—all of which may affect how and why they learn. Additionally, they differ in their preferences for learning and their willingness to learn. Some traits may be more adaptive, whereas others are stable and less malleable, or resistant to change, especially as an individual matures to adulthood. Examples of stable traits are gender, culture, and race. Even education and age are considered as stable traits. Traits that may be more malleable, or adaptive, could include effort and attributions of success and failure, among others. Individual differences may be considered in making the learning environment educationally appropriate, interesting, and relevant.

A theme that typifies most definitions of individual differences is that individual differences vary across people and thus distinguish individuals from one another. As the second definition demonstrates, individual differences are sometimes malleable. As I discuss later, personality traits are considered less malleable than learning styles. Nevertheless, both are examples of differences that vary across people and distinguish individuals from one another.

It is also important to note that when scoring individual difference variables such as personality traits and learning styles, the scores can be averaged for a group of people. For example, one could calculate the Introversion of a sample of engineers. One might want to do this to ascertain the characteristics of a “typical” engineer, while recognizing that individual engineers will differ in respect to these characteristics.

1.2 Importance of Learning Styles and Personality Characteristics

Learning style instruments² and personality tests used in academic psychology often measure traits along a range. For example, questions about Extraversion on “Big Five” personality instruments³ ask respondents to choose options on a Likert scale to indicate how much they agree with each statement. Then these responses are averaged together to give an overall score for the individual on Extraversion. To determine if the score is high, low, or average, the score is compared against the norms. Norms are the average values for large, diverse groups of people that are the reference group used in developing and validating the personality test.

Because individuals can score anywhere along the range in relation to the norm group, the scales used in learning style instruments and personality tests can distinguish individuals. To qualify as important individual differences; however, personality traits and learning styles must yield meaningful differences. Why might learning styles and personality traits be important individual differences? While answers to this question are developed further in the chapters that follow, I would like to give some concrete examples here.

1.2.1 Learning Styles

Here is an example from my personal experience. I have been fascinated with typologies of human behavior and individual differences since college, and I take “tests” of these characteristics at any chance I get. I took the Kolb Learning Style Instrument (2013) and discovered that my scores fell into the “Analyzing” type. While I realized that I might not always prefer to learn in the ways that this type does, I recognized that this was an approach I typically used.

If Analyzing is your learning style, you are best at taking in a wide range of information and putting it into concise, logical form. You probably are less focused on people and more interested in abstract ideas and concepts.

I also learned that my learning flexibility was low, which meant that I was fairly consistent in the use of the Analyzing learning style. As I reflected on these results, I realized that my instructional style was similar to this learning style: I most preferred to teach about concepts in a lecture format. When I became aware that learning styles vary widely among individuals, I began to change up my instructional style, incorporating more concrete examples, active exercises, and personal engagement. This improved my teaching.

This is but one example of the significance of learning styles as an individual differences variable. Knowing my learning style encouraged me to vary my teaching style, which made it more effective.

1.2.2 Personality Characteristics

Personality traits are also meaningful individual differences variables when it comes to learning and teaching. Most people are aware from their personal experience that individuals' personalities differ from one another; a very obvious difference is Introversion/Extraversion. Some people are more talkative, active, and outward-focused than others, who may be more reflective, quiet, and inward-focused. Introversion/Extraversion is evident in a wide range of behavior, and it is not surprising that it would be important in learning and teaching situations, as well. For example, as a highly introverted person, I found that teaching (a typically outward-focused behavior) can be challenging and energy-draining at times. When I began teaching, I initially enjoyed teaching individuals or small groups much more than classes.

Similarly, one can readily think of examples where students' personality traits would contribute to their learning behavior. For example, a highly Extraverted student might enjoy group work more than a highly introverted student. A student who is highly reactive (low in emotional stability) might experience more anxiety during learning situations than a calmer student who is high in emotional stability.

1.3 Alignment Between Learning Styles, Personality, Degrees, and Careers

Two theories explain how learning styles and personality characteristics tend to be aligned with majors and careers. One is a psychological theory, the Holland theory of Person-Environment Fit (Holland, 1973, 1997), which discusses how personality traits tend to be aligned with career and educational choices. Similarly, Kolb discusses why learning styles tend to be aligned with majors and occupations (while recognizing that this is not always the case).

1.3.1 Holland

Holland's Person-Environment Fit theory continues to be widely cited (about 1200 citations in Web of Science to his 1997 3rd edition of Making Vocational Choices as of March 2016). Adaptations to the general idea of person-environment fit have been proposed (e.g., Walsh, Craik, & Price, 2000), but Holland's theory is still a widely accepted explanation of how people's personalities, vocational choices, and educational specializations tend to be similar.

Holland viewed both personalities and environments (such as occupational environments) as corresponding to six ideal types, Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional.

Each type is the product of a characteristic interaction among a variety of cultural and personal forces including peers, biological heredity, parents, social class, culture, and the physical environment. Out of this experience, a person learns first to prefer some activities as opposed to others. Later these activities become strong interests; such interests lead to a special group of competencies. Finally a person’s interests and competencies create a particular personal disposition that leads him or her to think, perceive, and act in special ways. (1985, p. 2)

This developed disposition, in Holland's view, would lead a person to choose occupations corresponding to his or her personality type. For example, a Social person who is friendly and social would tend to select a Social career such as teaching, social work, or the ministry. Holland's theory also applies to choice of college majors.

While Holland's personality types are not discussed at length in this book, his general idea that a person's personality and environment tend to be similar is important. It aligns with empirical findings that there are differences between people in different college majors in respect to Big Five personality traits, for example. A recent systematic review that analyzed differences among students in various college majors from 12 studies (Vedel, 2016) found, among other things, that science majors tended to score lower on Extraversion than economics, law, political science, and medicine majors. The review was based on a combined sample of 13,389 students.

1.3.2 Kolb

Kolb, whose framework is discussed in detail in subsequent chapters (2015), similarly found that there were correspondences between learning styles types and majors and occupations. Kolb drew parallels between the kinds of knowledge studied in different disciplines and learning styles. For example, Kolb found that “hard applied” disciplines such as engineering were associated with the Converging learning style (which combines Abstract Conceptualization and Active Experimentation). Kolb stated that learning styles tended to become accentuated in academic specializations, leading to increasing homogeneity within majors and disciplines. On the other...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1: Individual Differences
• Chapter 2: Learning Styles
• Chapter 3: Personality Frameworks
• Chapter 4: Personality Traits and Learning Styles of Librarians, Scientists, and Engineers
• Chapter 5: The Matching Approach
• Chapter 6: Reasons for Not Matching Instruction to Individual Differences
• Chapter 7: Results of Survey
• Chapter 8: Applications
• Chapter 9: Self-Reflection as a Way of Improving Instruction
• Chapter 10: Personality and Competencies for Engineering Students and Information Literacy
• Chapter 11: Conclusion
• Index