student conscientiousness, self-regulated learning, and science achievement: an explorative field...

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 46(5), 2009 C© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pits.20387

STUDENT CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, AND SCIENCEACHIEVEMENT: AN EXPLORATIVE FIELD STUDY

BILLIE EILAM, MOSHE ZEIDNER, AND IRIT AHARON

University of Haifa

This explorative field study examined the mediating role of self-regulated learning (SRL) in therelationship between the personality trait of conscientiousness, SRL, and science achievementin a sample of junior high school students. Over the course of an entire academic year, data onenacted SRL were collected each week for 52 eighth-grade students in the context of an inquiry-based ecology project. Data were also collected on personality traits, self-reported study strategies,science project achievement, and grade point average. Findings show significant relationshipsbetween conscientiousness, SRL, and achievement. As hypothesized, conscientiousness was shownto significantly impact academic achievement in the inquiry-based course, mediated by enactedSRL. C© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Personality traits, in concert with social and/or cognitive variables and motivational processes(such as self-regulation), may shape and direct the investment of general ability in particular domains,leading to the honing and development of specific student abilities and skills (Ackerman & Beier,2003). Furthermore, various personality traits may mediate the ways in which students perceiveand interact with their academic environment and modulate the relationship between ability andachievement. Narrow contextualized traits, in particular, may be useful predictors of achievementand adjustment (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2006; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000).

This study examines the nexus of relationships between the trait of conscientiousness of thefive-factor model (FFM) of personality (Digman, 1990), self-regulated learning (SRL), and schoolattainment. In particular, we aim at assessing the role of SRL in mediating the frequently reportedrelationship between conscientiousness and student attainment. We examined these relationshipsusing not only self-reported SRL but also students’ enacted SRL, as measured while they performeda yearly long-term task in an ecologically valid setting.

We begin by a brief overview of conscientiousness in relation to student learning and achieve-ment. We then move on to examine the role of SRL in student performance. On the basis of thereview of the literature, we formulate a number of focused hypotheses on the relationship betweenconscientiousness, SRL, and student attainment.

The Role of Conscientiousness in Student Learning and Achievement

Although many different personality traits have been linked to individual differences in bothacademic aptitude and academic performance, research is increasingly structured around the FFM(Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992). The model distinguishes five broad dimensions of personality:openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and low neuroticism/emotional stability.We focus on the role of conscientiousness in student learning (for a review of the big five factors instudent learning, see Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2006).

On the one hand, the conscientiousness dimension relates individual differences in seeingoneself being controlled by one’s conscience (McCrae & Costa, 1987). On the other hand, thisdimension includes features such as ambition, energy, control of inclinations, diligence, carefulness,and being practical. This dimension is also termed “the will to succeed,” which expresses orientationand intentional good-driven behavior (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). Individuals scoring lowin conscientiousness tend to be lazy, without orientation to succeed, and unable to meet their own

Correspondence to: Billie Eilam, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel 31905, Israel. E-mail:[email protected]

420

Conscientiousness and SRL 421

standards as a result of deficient self-discipline. This does not suggest that such an individual islacking conscience and morality.

In contrast to the reported negligible relationship between conscientiousness and general ability(Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997), conscientiousness has been consistently found to predict academicachievement from childhood to adulthood (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; De Fruyt &Mervielde, 1996; Shiner, Masten, & Roberts, 2003). For example, in the Project Competence lon-gitudinal study, the trait of academic conscientiousness (i.e., a contextualized measure) measuredin school children was observed to be a strong predictor of academic achievement at age 20 andeventual academic attainment at age 30 (Shiner & Masten, 2002). Longitudinal studies in two Britishuniversities have shown conscientiousness to predict examination marks along three academic years(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003); also, conscientiousness was found to be substantiallycorrelated to final grades and degree attainment of Dutch/Flemish graduates in different academicmajors (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996). Thus, high conscientiousness has been identified as a sig-nificant characteristic of successful students (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; De Raad &Schouwenburg, 1996) and has been associated with personal attributes necessary for learning andacademic pursuits, such as striving for success, being dutiful, exercising self-control, and being orga-nized, dependable, and efficient (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Matthews & Deary, 1998).Furthermore, conscientiousness has been related to self-reported “hard work” and perfectionismscores in college undergraduates (Goff & Ackerman, 1992).

A recent review of the literature (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2006; Zeidner, in press) sug-gests that conscientiousness is the most consistent FFM trait related to student classroom achieve-ment. Although the present study focuses mainly on the pivotal role of conscientiousness in studentlearning and achievement, this is not to say that other broad personality traits of the FFM do notplay a role in student achievement.

SRL

SRL refers to the self-directive process through which learners transform their mental abili-ties into task-related academic skills (Zimmerman, 2001). Students are self-regulated to the degreethat they are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their learning(Zimmerman, 1989). They are generally characterized as active, efficiently managing their own learn-ing through monitoring and strategy use (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Green & Azevedo,2007; Paris & Paris, 2001; Winne, 2001; Zimmerman, 2001). More precise definitions of SRL varydepending on the theoretical perspective of the researcher (for details, see Zimmerman & Schunk,2001). Most theoretical models of SRL include the following key components: (a) a goal, a standard,or a criterion by which individuals assess their current performance, thus guiding their regulationprocesses (Locke & Latham, 1990; Pintrich, 2000); (b) tactics and strategies that are applied toachieving the goal and are chosen after the goal components and goal requirements are analyzed(Butler, 1998); (c) a multilevel process of monitoring and control in light of a perceived feedback andawareness to one’s behavior (Mace, Belfiore, & Shea, 1989), including perceiving external and/orinternal cues, establishing internal feedback and acting accordingly; and (d) self-efficacy, which isregarded both as related to the motivational aspect of SRL (Bandura, 1993) and as one of the personaltraits related to self-regulation (Matthews, Schwean, Campbell, Saklofske, & Mohamed, 2000).

Studies have documented the important contribution of SRL to academic success (e.g., Bandura,1997; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). Thus, self-regulated learners exhibithigher levels of involvement, effort, and consistency while performing academic tasks than do theirlow SRL peers, with student achievements consistently demonstrated to be meaningfully related totheir self-reported SRL (Corno, 1986; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

422 Eilam et al.

Conscientiousness, which encompasses a number of attributes that are part and parcel of thegeneral domain of self-regulation (e.g., “goal-orientation,” “self-control,” “hardworking,” “decisive,”“organized,” and “punctual”), is expected to be the FFM trait most strongly associated with self-regulation and SRL (cf. Koestner, Bernieri, & Zuckerman, 1992). Self-control, the ability to overcomedistractions and stay focused on the task at hand, has been hailed as a core characteristic of highachieving students (Schmit & Ryan, 1993). Emotional control and self-discipline may be particularlyimportant early on in learning, when the task is likely to appear most daunting to the learner andwhen failure of emotional control can divert attentional resources away from the task (Kanfer,Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996). A recent study by Duckworth and Seligman (2005) shows thatself-discipline, a construct closely related to conscientiousness, predicts school performance morestrongly than does intelligence. Compared with their more impulsive peers, highly self-disciplinedgirls achieved better grades, had fewer absences, and spent more time on their homework (Duckworth& Seligman, 2005). Findings show that conscientiousness is positively related to the ability to focuson cognitive tasks as well as high task commitment, high self-efficacy, and low worry (Matthewset al., 2000). Furthermore, high conscientiousness students may succeed because of their tendencyto favor learning-oriented or “mastery” goals, thus contributing to their competence and success inschool (Pintrich, 2000). Meta-analytic data reported by Judge and Ilies (2002) support the claim thatin academic settings conscientiousness is modestly related to a variety of key motivational variables,including goal setting, expectancy of outcomes, and self-efficacy.

Goals and Hypotheses

Most of the studies reviewed are based on cross-sectional designs examining associationsbetween various personality traits and specific self-reported, questionnaire-based components ofSRL (e.g., self-efficacy). Furthermore, most prior studies measured SRL via generalized self-reportinventories of study strategies and skills. Whereas these omnibus measures may provide a roughself-reported estimate of SRL strategies across diverse courses and learning settings, they fail toaccurately assess students’ use of SRL strategies in real time, in the context of true-to-life schoollearning situations (King, 1992; Perry, 2002).

To improve on past studies, this study examines SRL in an authentic classroom learning setting,using multiple (weekly) measures of enacted SRL throughout the academic year in a specific school-based subject. More specifically, students provided online reports of their SRL throughout the courseof an entire school year, within the context of an inquiry-based ecology course.

Based on the review of the literature, the following hypotheses were tested:Hypothesis 1: Individual differences in conscientiousness are significantly associated with

student achievement, both in a specific learning context as well as across school subjects, as opera-tionalized by student grade point average (GPA).

Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness is significantly related to SRL.Hypothesis 3: SRL is significantly related to student attainment in specific learning contexts.

Also, students high in SRL and study skills achieve higher school grades than do their low SRLcounterparts.

Hypothesis 4: SRL will mediate the effects of conscientiousness on student attainment inspecific learning contexts.

The features of the empirical study will be described next, followed by the presentation of theresults, which will be discussed in light of theory building and classroom practice. Because of theintroduction of a new assessment tool in this study, the research takes on more of an explorativecharacter, providing ideas for future research.



METHOD

Participants

Fifty-two ninth graders (27 boys and 25 girls), 14 to 15 years old, participated in this study.The ninth grade was selected because of reported findings that students of this age have alreadydeveloped initial SRL skills and experienced collaborated science inquiries, although not long-termones, as is the case in the present study. Two ninth-grade classes were randomly selected for thisstudy from among four ninth-grade classes hosted by a large junior high school in Northern Israel,catering mainly to students of middle-class background.

Design and Procedure

For an entire academic year, participants partook in a weekly 3-hour science project, as partof an inquiry-based project in ecology. Classes were held in laboratories equipped with personalcomputers, necessary laboratory materials and equipment, and relevant literature on the ecologytopics being studied.

Weekly sessions included (a) formal classroom lessons in ecology, designed to help studentsacquire conceptual knowledge, and (b) inquiry-based learning sessions—the focus of this study.Inquiry was performed in small cooperative homogeneous groups of four to five students each.Groups were formed by the teachers based on academic and social considerations, such as similarscience achievements (data from the previous year) and recommendations from teachers of theprevious year concerning students’ compliance to work with certain peers in a group. The inquirytask was a complex and a prolonged one, demanding students’ organization in time and space, whileefficiently utilizing the available resources. Learners had to cope with motivational (e.g., persistence)and cognitive challenges (e.g., employing learning and metacognitive strategies; Boekaerts, 1997).Because the assigned task posed a high challenge for junior high school students, providing supportand sharing the cognitive load were needed. Working in small groups, we believe, adequatelyprovides such conditions (Tindale & Sheffey, 2002). Reports in the academic literature indicate thatstudents may be more likely to self-regulate behavior in small-group contexts than in teacher-directedlarge-group contexts (Meece, Blumfeld, & Hoyle, 1988).

Students began each session by going over their homework assignments, reviewing relevantsections of the textbook reading materials, and completing the yearly report (see next paragraph).Students then formulated specific goals for the study session and collectively planned the particularstrategies that would most effectively promote goal attainment (e.g., time allocation). Each studentthen proceeded to implement the planned strategies on an individual basis (performing experimentsor exercises, taking quizzes, etc.), monitoring student progress as required. After enacting each stepin the described procedure, each student individually documented these steps in the weekly reportsdeveloped and designed by Eilam and Aharon (2003). In particular, students were instructed toaccount for any discrepancies between planned goals and actually implemented goals and activities,and to suggest ways and means for closing these gaps in future sessions to improve their learningand academic performance. In addition, each student individually assessed the quality of his or herperformance (in their notebooks) on a 5-point scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high), explicating thebasis for their evaluations. Toward the end of each lesson, students once again collaborated in plan-ning their next homework assignments (optional). To improve students’ self-regulatory strategies,the weekly reports were collected at the end of each lesson and teachers provided students withfeedback on a weekly basis concerning the contents of the SRL reports.

In addition to the weekly reports, students also assessed their progress vis-a-vis a teacher-provided timeline. Specifically, at the beginning of the school year, teachers provided students with


424 Eilam et al.

a week-by-week calendar (the yearly report) for completing specific learning assignments. Thiscalendar enabled students to compare their own progress with the recommended progress proposedby their teachers and identify and attempt to close any gaps between their actual attainment and theproposed attainment goals for each lesson.

Variables and Instruments

Personality was assessed via the NEO Revised Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa &McCrae, 1985), measuring five broad FFM traits (i.e., openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,agreeableness, neuroticism). Students in the inquiry project rated each of the scale’s 240 items alonga 5-point Likert-type scale. Subscale internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for four ofthe factor scales generally were found to be satisfactory in the present sample (conscientiousness:α = .83, neuroticism: α = .80, extraversion: α = .76, agreeableness: α = .71, openness: α = .64).

Self-reports of learning and study strategies were assessed via the Learning and Study StrategiesInventory (LASSI; Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987). The inventory measured SRL as aptitude,providing data concerning students’ self-report of strategy use and learning modes of SRL. Thequestionnaire consists of 76 items focusing on thoughts and behaviors related to successful learning(e.g., “I find it hard to stick to a study schedule”). Students rated themselves on a 5-point Likertscale (1 = “not at all like me” to 5 = “very much like me”). Total scale scores (alpha = .93) wereformed by summing scores across the 76 items, following reverse scoring of appropriate items. Fivesubscales compatible with the main components of SRL were designed for this study (i.e., goals,time management, monitoring, self-efficacy, and strategies). The inter-rater reliabilities for these fivescales were generally satisfactory (i.e., .74 for goals, .70 for time management, .89 for monitoring,.63 for self-efficacy, and .84 for strategies). The questionnaire was administered at the beginning ofthe school year to prevent results being influenced by the research procedure.

Enacted SRL was assessed via criteria-based ratings of students’ weekly reports documentingtheir learning goals, activities, and achievements. The coding system was based on three assumptions:(a) the completion of the report provides cues necessary for SRL; (b) the completion of the reportis technical, with SRL apparent through reflective entries; and (c) a reflective entry is positivelyidentified only when written specifically in the report as a note of reasoning or of feedback. Thereports contained 28 elements such as setting a goal, planning a procedure, allocating time for eachactivity in the procedure or assessing the planned procedure, documenting an enacted procedure,and assessing the performance of an enacted activity. The scoring was built on a scale of: 0, noentry; 1 partial entry or an entry showing misunderstanding; or 2, a full entry. An additional 5 pointswere given for every reflective entry. Coding a reflective entry was ascertained with respect to fiveprevious reports, thus taking into account that SRL is a process. Marks were given on every elementof the reports. For example, one of the elements of the report was “setting a goal for the lesson.”Students scored 0 points if there was no goal stated, 1 point if the goal wasn’t relevant to the taskat hand, or 2 points if a relevant goal was stated. An additional 5 points were received when astudent stated a focused goal that is a reflection of previous proceedings. For instance, a goal suchas “gathering information for deepening the knowledge concerning the inquiry subject” receivedthe extra 5 points as opposed to “gathering information,” a goal that could be stated in every stageof the inquiry (and therefore wasn’t identified as a result of reflection). The marks given to the 28elements were summed to give a score on a report of a single lesson. The range of scores on such areport was from 0 points (for an empty report) to 360 points (for a full report documenting 15 lessonactivities, 5 of which are new with respect to 5 previous lessons, and reflective notes with regard to all15 activities). A score of 56 was obtained on a report completed technically with no reflective remarks.The coding system was established by defining and redefining the coding criteria until achieving a



90% agreement between two independent coders with regard to the coding of a randomly chosensample of ten reports. Students’ average scores on their daily and yearly reports, completed on everylesson, constituted their enacted SRL scores.

An increase in SRL efficiency was indicated by empirical studies as a result of an instructionthat integrates SRL processes in the curriculum (Travers & Sheckley, 2000). Moreover, keepingrecords of their progress was found to help students to be successful in self-regulation (Zimmerman,Bonner, & Kovach, 1996). Hence, the actual measurement of the enacted SRL could influence therecorded level of enacted SRL. Every measurement is an intervention in the environment, disturbingit in a fashion that causes data to be generated (Winne & Perry, 2000). Therefore, any measurementof real life events will affect its outcomes. By administering the questionnaires at the beginning ofthe school year, we attempted to minimize intervening effects of SRL testing, although the merecollection of SRL all through the academic year could have produced a Hawthorne effect.

Academic achievements were assessed via students’ average grade in the year-long scienceproject under consideration, as well as via students’ overall GPA and average grade in the sciences(i.e., physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics). The grades were obtained from their schoolfiles at four points in time during the school year.

RESULTS

In this study we test four main hypotheses: (1) Individual differences in conscientiousnessare significantly associated with student achievement; (2) Conscientiousness will be significantlyrelated to SRL; (3) SRL is significantly related to student attainment in specific learning contexts(also, students high in SRL and study skills achieve higher school grades than do their low SRLcounterparts); and (4) SRL will mediate the effects of conscientiousness on student attainment inspecific learning contexts. We first present descriptive results followed by data bearing on Hypotheses1 to 3. We conclude with analyses addressing the mediating role of SRL in the relationship betweenconscientiousness and student attainment.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 displays summary statistics, by gender, for the key variables in this study. Given the largenumber of comparisons among gender groups, alpha levels were adjusted to .005 (.05/10 = .005).Cohen’s d scores were calculated by subtracting female from male means, divided by their averagestandard deviations.

Although no study hypothesis concerns gender differences, this factor was addressed as anintervening factor, because gender was found to be related to achievement in the science domain(Kimball, 1989; Willingham & Cole, 1997). Whereas no gender differences were observed forenacted SRL behaviors, girls scored significantly higher than boys on self-reported learning andstudy strategies (LASSI).

Pearson product–moment correlations between key variables are presented in Table 2. Becausethe patterns of correlations among variables were highly similar across gender groups (e.g., LASSIand enacted SRL correlated .50 and .47 in boys and girls, respectively), we discuss correlations forthe entire sample, across gender groups.

Hypotheses 1: Conscientiousness Is Significantly Related to Achievement

Inspection of Table 2 shows a significant relationship between conscientiousness and bothstudent achievement in a specific learning context (the inquiry project science grades) and acrossvarious school-based subjects (their GPA). In addition, although tangential to our hypothesis, agree-ableness was also significantly correlated with inquiry project science grades and GPA. Because


426 Eilam et al.

Table 1Means and Standard Deviation for Key Research Variables, by Gender

Females Males

Variables n M SD n M SD t values d†

Neuroticism (N)a 23 102.05 22.34 25 92.59 19.55 1.56 .44Extroversion (E)a 23 118.33 17.88 25 109.15 13.70 2.02∗ .59Openness to Experience (O)a 23 103.71 13.75 25 101.18 13.63 .64 .18Agreeableness (A)a 23 114.19 21.43 25 106.33 15.42 1.48 .42Conscientiousness (C)a 23 113.33 20.52 25 109.11 20.13 .71 .21LASSI-Self-Reported SRLb 23 267.45 25.37 25 234.81 33.59 3.74∗∗∗ 1.08Enacted SRLc 21 69.74 11.43 22 68.78 23.54 .18 .05GPAd 25 83.44 10.03 27 78.07 10.05 1.92 .53Science Research Project Graded 25 87.80 12.84 27 76.22 14.36 3.06∗∗∗ .84Average Grade in Sciencesd 25 80.28 14.00 27 76.73 12.04 .98 .27

Note. Due to missing values, numbers of participants vary between the measured variables. The high SD calculatedfor boys in the enacted and self-reported SRL is difficult to explain since there were no perceivable characteristics of theseboys as well as no special features detected in other measured variables.

a range: (0-192); median for college-age individuals (Costa & McCrae, 1985): N: male 88-89, female 99-100; E: male118-119, female 124; O: male 112-113, female 118; A: male 107-108, female 118-119; C: male 112-113, female 115-116.b range: (76-380); median: 311(Weinstein, Palmer & Schulte, 1987); c range: (0-360); d range: (38-100).

† d designates Cohen’s measure of effect size, given by the following formula: d = Xf − Xm/ 12 (SDf + SDm).

∗∗∗p < .001. ∗∗p < .01. ∗p < .05.

Table 2Matrix of Intercorrelations among Key Variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Neuroticism (N) —Extroversion (E) −.17 —Openness to Experience (O) −.27 .08 —Agreeableness (A) −.27 .00 .36∗ —Conscientiousness (C) −.51∗∗∗ .18 .16 .40∗∗ —LASSI- Self-Reported SRL −.21 .18 .18 .43∗∗ .70∗∗∗ —Enacted SRL −.19 −.04 .04 .35∗ .52∗∗∗ .45∗∗ —GPA −.03 .05 .14 .40∗∗ .53∗∗∗ .48∗∗∗ .53∗∗∗ —Research Project Grade −.03 .13 .07 .45∗∗∗ .51∗∗∗ .65∗∗∗ .47∗∗∗ .77∗∗∗

Note. df = 46. sig. r levels: at .001, r ≥ .46; at .01, .37 ≤ r < .46; at 0.05, .28 ≤ r < .37.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

conscientiousness was positively correlated with agreeableness and negatively correlated with neu-roticism, we examined the unique contribution of conscientiousness on achievement, while statisti-cally controlling for the other factors in the FFM, as well as for gender. Thus, we conducted a multipleregression analysis of science project grades, as dependent variable, on each of the factors of theFFM, with gender included in the model as a covariate. The model was significant, F (6, 47) = 6.18,p < .001, with an adjusted R2 of .37. Only conscientiousness (B = .47, t = 3.37, p < .001) andagreeableness (B = .29, t = 2.18, p < .001) were found to be significant predictors of achieve-ment. When GPA was regressed against the foregoing predictor stock, the model was significant,



F (6, 47) = 6.16, p < .001, with an adjusted R2 of .37—identical to the results of the previousanalysis. However, in contrast to the previous analyses, only conscientiousness (B = .52, t = 3.71,p < .001) was found to be a significant predictor of GPA. Thus, these data support the hypothesispredicting a consistently strong relationship between conscientiousness in specific learning contextsand overall school achievement across various learning contexts.

Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness Is Significantly Related to SRL

Prior to examining the relationships between SRL and other variables, we tested for the conver-gent validity of our constructed SRL measure by examining the correlation between enacted SRLand previously validated LASSI measure. The LASSI may, in fact, be viewed as a generalized proxymeasure of SRL. As shown in Table 2, enacted SRL and LASSI scores were correlated moderately.Given this moderate correlation, we proceeded to test Hypothesis 2, predicting a significant rela-tionship between conscientiousness and SRL. Table 2 shows that conscientiousness is significantlycorrelated with enacted SRL. When LASSI is partialled out of the correlation between consci-entiousness and enacted SRL, the partial correlation is reduced but still significant, r (42) = .31,p < .05.

Furthermore, we conducted a multiple regression analysis of enacted SRL on each of thevariables in the predictor stock, along with gender as covariate in the model. The regression for SRL,as a dependent variable, was significant, F (6, 37) = 3.21, p < .01, with an adjusted R2 of .34. Onlythe conscientiousness factor of the FFM of personality (B = .53, t = 3.37, p < .001) was shown tobe a significant predictor in the model. Similarly, the multiple regression analysis for LASSI scoresas dependent variables was significant, F (6, 37) = 9.02, p < .001, with the adjusted R2 accountingfor 53% of the variance in LASSI scores. Here again, only conscientiousness (B = .65, t = 4.87,p < .001) was shown to be a significant predictor, among the variables in the predictor stock, in thismodel. Overall, these data support the hypotheses that conscientiousness is significantly related toenacted SRL and LASSI.

Hypothesis 3: SRL Is Significantly Related to Student Attainment

SRL was predicted to be significantly related to student attainment in specific learning contexts.Table 2 shows that enacted SRL is significantly correlated with the science project grades, as wellas with GPA. Similarly, as may be expected, LASSI scores correlated significantly with the researchproject grades as well as with GPA.

Hypothesis 4: SRL Significantly Mediates the Association Between Conscientiousnessand Student Attainment

To test for the mediating effects of enacted SRL in the relationship between conscientiousnessand science project grades, we conducted a Sobel test (Sobel, 1982), designed to formally assessmediation effects in the relationship between two variables. The Sobel test yielded significant results,t = 1.99, p < .05 (Goodman’s criteria: t = 2.04, p < .05). When GPA was employed as the dependentvariable in the mediating analysis, the results were also significant, t = 2.38, p < .02 (Goodman’stest: t = 2.04, p < .05). Similar tests were conducted for LASSI scores as mediator of the relationshipbetween conscientiousness and science project scores and GPA. The test showed significant resultsfor both science project grades, t = 3.03, p < .002 (Goodman’s test: t = 3.06, p < .002), as well asfor GPA, t = 2.16, p < .03 (Goodman’s test: t = 2.16, p < .03). These results provide direct evidencethat conscientiousness may be indirectly related to school attainment through enacted SRL, as wellas through LASSI, both in a specific learning task, as well as for general school attainment.


428 Eilam et al.

Gender

Conscientiousness

Self-regulated learning

Science Project Grades

.52

.28

.33

.32

FIGURE 1. A Path Model Summarizing the Nexus of Relationships Among Key Variables.

Table 3Multiple Regressions and Fit Indices for Path Analysis

B b SE t

First regressiona

Dependent Variable:Enacted SRL

Predictors1. Gender −.01 −.40 4.96 −.082. Conscientiousness (C) .52 .50 .12 4.08∗∗∗

Second regressionb

Dependent Variable:Science project grade

Predictors1. Gender .32 9.38 3.42 2.74∗∗

2. Conscientiousness (C) .28 .21 .10 2.07∗

3. Enacted SRL .33 .26 .10 2.46∗

a Fit Index: F (2,45) = 8.37, p < .001, R2 = .27, MSE (mean squareerror) = 16.80, R2 adjusted = .24.

b Fit Index: F (3,44) = 10.44, p < .001, R2 = .42, MSE (mean squareerror) = 11.68, R2 adjusted = .38.

Figure 1 presents an empirical path diagram, designed to summarize the nexus of relationshipsamong the key variables related to the science project. The path diagram is based on two multipleregression analyses. First, we regressed the enacted SRL on gender and conscientiousness, followedby a regression of science project grades on the entire predictor stock (i.e., gender, conscientiousness,SRL). Figure 1 presents the path model, and Table 3 presents the regression statistics and fit indices.

As shown in Figure 1, a significant direct path was observed between conscientiousness andscience project grades (direct path: p = .28). In addition, SRL mediated the association betweenconscientiousness and science project (indirect path: p = .17). Gender was directly associated withscience project grades and was not mediated through SRL.



DISCUSSION

Overall, these data provide support for the key hypotheses in this study. Accordingly, thesedata supported the hypothesized relationship between conscientiousness and SRL, on one hand, andSRL and student achievement, on the other. Furthermore, the data supported the hypothesis that SRLmediates the relationship between conscientiousness and student achievement. Conscientiousness isthe FFM trait that is most consistently related to SRL. Enacted SRL, in turn, significantly associatedwith student achievement in both specific contexts and across subjects.

Personality and SRL

Our results point to a significant correlation between SRL (both enacted and self-reported) andconscientiousness. Overall, these findings are consistent with previously reported associations be-tween both conscientiousness and specific components of SRL, such as task focus, task commitment,and self-efficacy (Endler & Parker, 1990; Matthews et al., 2000).

The relationship between conscientiousness and SRL (enacted and self-reported) may be me-diated by a number of specific SRL components closely related to the conscientiousness construct.These include: self-control (Schmit & Ryan, 1993), organization of materials (Blickle, 1996), andgeneral self-efficacy (Blickle, 1996; Sherer et al., 1982). Self-control, the ability to overcome dis-tracting events and stay focused on a task by applying strategies of time management and an internalsupport system (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996), appears to be particularly pivotal in accountingfor the relationship between conscientiousness and SRL. Thus, for students to persist in completingweekly SRL forms, as well as eventually do well on the inquiry project in science, students had tobe constantly cognizant of their goals, set specific goals for each lesson, construct a work plan, andmonitor their progress toward the set target goal. During performance, students had to overcome ahost of distracters (e.g., classroom noise, school-related stress and tensions, etc.).

In addition, an interesting positive correlation was found between agreeableness and SRL.Agreeableness gauges trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness (McCrae & John, 1992). It is plausible that students scoring high on agreeablenessare particularly sensitive to the needs of significant others as well as to social norms and values.Students high in agreeableness may be expected to comply with the communicated expectationto religiously implement SRL behaviors, thus accounting for the significant observed correlationbetween agreeableness and students’ self-reported SRL. In addition, the unique context of this study,which involved learning through inquiry in cooperative learning groups, may also help to explain theobserved correlation between agreeableness and the enacted SRL. As reported by Tobin, Graziano,Vanman, and Tassinary (2000), agreeableness is intrinsically related to the motives of preservinginterpersonal relationships. Students scoring high on the agreeableness factor, who are characterizedby the ability to regulate their relationships with their peers, were better able to enact SRL behaviorsin the process of maintaining positive interpersonal relationships and in achieving group rapport.

Personality and Achievement

Conscientiousness was the only consistent and significant predictor of student achievementwhen controlling for gender and other factors of the FFM in the multiple regression analysis. Thesedata are consistent with previous findings that attest that conscientiousness is significantly relatedto school achievement (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995) and a salientpersonality trait characterizing highly successful students (Schmit & Ryan, 1993).

Whereas agreeableness was not found to be significantly related to GPA across courses, whencontrolling for other personality traits and gender, it was found to be significantly related to achieve-ment in the science project. Given the closely supervised and intimate learning environment of


430 Eilam et al.

the inquiry science project, this association may have been caused by the positive “halo effect” ofstudent agreeableness on teachers’ assessments. In any case, the suggestive associations betweenagreeableness and science achievement are worthy of further research.

Study Limitations, Conclusions, and Future Research

The reader should keep a number of caveats in mind when interpreting the results of this study.First, this exploratory study is based on a relatively small sample of Israeli students; the results maynot generalize to student populations in general. Furthermore, the research was conducted througha specific inquiry-based science project, involving a particular cooperative group learning method;the data may not generalize to other teaching methods. In addition, no control group was includedin this study. Thus, the results need to be replicated on a larger sample and in different learningenvironments, using proper controls.

This study identified SRL as a significant mediating variable in the relationship between studentconscientiousness and achievement. The reader should keep in mind that there may be a host ofuncontrolled variables that may mediate this relationship and that we only assessed one of manypossible models that may explain this relationship equally well.

A major limitation is that we failed to model the nested data structure of this study. The readermay recall that the inquiry-based lessons in this study were conducted in small homogeneous studygroups that were formed by teachers. Thus, students were nested in each study group, and theassumption of independence of observations at the student level was violated. Future research wouldbenefit by using state-of-the-art Hierarchical Linear Models (HLM) methodology (Raudenbush& Bryk, 2002), which provides a mechanism that appropriately adjusts the standard errors andparameter estimates that are typically biased when the independence assumption is violated. Wewere reluctant in analyzing these data via HLM because we thought that a lower level of statisticalpower would be achieved with the relatively small number of within-classroom groupings that areavailable. However, as pointed out by one astute reviewer, the larger standard errors often resultingfrom HLM analyses are much less biased and provide a more accurate estimate of error than isafforded by conventional methods that fail to model nested data structures.

Keeping these constraints in mind, these data suggest that SRL and study strategies, in part,mediate the association between conscientiousness and student achievement. This is a useful con-tribution to what we already know about the effects of conscientiousness on student learning andachievement in general, and in science, in particular. In addition, we added the measure of enactedSRL, expressed in students’ long-term task performance in an ecologically valid setting. The find-ings of the present study may have important implications for structuring classrooms that requirerelatively high degrees of self-regulation in students, such as independent learning and self-studygroups, as well as a wide array of cooperative learning classrooms.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2003). Trait complexes, cognitive investment, and domain knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg& E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Perspectives on the psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 1 – 30). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 121, 219 – 245.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117 –148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European Journal of Personality, 10, 337 – 352.Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers,

and students. Learning and Instruction, 7, 161 – 186.



Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417 – 450). San Diego: AcademicPress.

Butler, D. L. (1998). A strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.Schunk (Eds.), Developing self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 160 – 183). New York:Guilford Publications, Inc.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic acheivement: Evidence from two longitudinaluniversity samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319 – 338.

Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology,11, 333 – 346.

Costa, P., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO-Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources, Inc.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources,Inc.

De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality,10, 303 – 336.

De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement.European Journal of Personality, 10, 405 – 425.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417 – 440.Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison,

and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149 – 170.Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ predicting academic performance in adolescents.

Psychological Science, 16, 939 – 944.Eilam, B., & Aharon, I. (2003). Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 28, 304 – 334.Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical review. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 58, 844 – 854.Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537 – 552.Green, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne & Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New

perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 334 – 372.Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 797 – 807.Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivational skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective.

Learning and Individual Differences, 3, 185 – 209.Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198 – 214.King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist,

27, 111 – 126.Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self-regulation and consistency between attitudes, traits and behaviors.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 52 – 59.Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Mace, F. C., Belfiore, J. P., & Shea, C. M. (1989). Operant theory and research on self-regulation. In B. J. Zimmerman &

D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self- regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 27 – 50). New York: Springer-Verlag.Matthews, G., & Deary, I. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Matthews, G., Schwean, V. L., Campbell, S. E., Saklofske, D. H., & Mohamed, A. A. R. (2000). Personality, self-regulation,

and adaptation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 171 – 207).San Diego: Academic Press.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2006). Models of personality and affect for education: A review and synthesis. InP. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 163 – 186). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81 – 90.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60,175 – 215.

Meece, J. L., Blumfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroomactivities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514 – 523.

Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,36, 89 – 101.


432 Eilam et al.

Perry, N. E. (2002). Introduction: Using qualitative methods to enrich understandings of self-regulated learning. EducationalPsychologist, 37, 1 – 3.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451 – 502). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academicperformance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33 – 40.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The big five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and non-applicant

populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966 – 974.Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational

implications. New York: Guilford.Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Mercandante, B., Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction

and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663 – 671.Shiner, R. L., & Masten, A. S. (2002). Transactional links between personality and adaptation from childhood through

adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 580 – 588.Shiner, R. L., Masten, A. S., & Roberts, J. M. (2003). Childhood personality foreshadows adult personality and life outcomes

two decades later. Journal of Personality, 71, 1145 – 1170.Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological

methodology (pp. 290 – 312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Tindale, R. S., & Sheffey, S. (2002). Shared information, cognitive load and group memory. Group Processes and Intergroup

Relations, 5, 5 – 18.Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to

control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 656 – 669.Travers, N. L., & Sheckley, B. G. (2000). Changes in students’ self-regulation based on different teaching methodologies.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH.Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). Learning and study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H

Publishing Company, Inc.Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S., (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahmah, NJ: Erlbaum.Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.

Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learniing and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 153 – 189). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451 – 502). San Diego: Academic Press.

Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 55, 177 – 185.

Zeidner, M. (in press). Personality in educational psychology. In P. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), Cambridge handbook ofpersonality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (2nded., pp. 581 – 610). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievements. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievements (pp. 1 – 25). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives(pp. 1 – 37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulating learners: Beyond achievement to self-efficacy.Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self regulated learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 284 – 290.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspec-tives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


student conscientiousness, self-regulated learning, and science achievement: an explorative field...

Documents